What to do about global warming

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
OK, here is my critique. This will be a rather long post.

First off, they don't try to do it in 10 years, which is intelligent.

Well it didn't take ten years to build all the infrastructure we have now.

The difference is, if you accept that something needs to be done, then it needs to be done much more quickly.

The next thing I noticed was they focus on leveling off atmospheric concentrations rather than reducing emissions by 80% so it doesn't really address the exact question, but it does address the question of what to do about AGW so it deserves consideration.
Leveling off atmospheric concentrations is the goal.

Option 1.- Increased fuel efficiency of cars to average 60 MPG. They say these can be accomplished by using existing tech but the car companies are having a tough time figuring out how to reach the recently mandated 35 mpg.
They should look at what works in other countries then. Japan, China, the EU, they're all above 35 mpg now. Are they implicitly telling us that they are incompetent, while they're foreign competition is not?

Again though, you have to keep in mind that what I gave you isn't a road map. It's a guide, but there's nothing concrete. If the CAFE is 50 instead of 60, that may mean a few more nukes, or a few more wind turbines, or more efficiency from existing thermal generating stations.

Option 2. Reduced reliance on cars. Nice thought but how realistic is it to think that people will go along? I've known refugees from Kosovo, Sudan and Chile, and all of them got a car just as soon as possible. People all over the world want cars and as their countries develop they won't want to be restricted any more than we do. This scenario won't fly.
Hong Kong, 90% of all travel is on public transit.

Public transit is used well in some areas, and not so well in others. The Tubes in London transport over 1 Billion passengers a year.

One drawback of the wedges is that they focus entirely on technology, without changing other fundamentals. Obviously some transit systems work better than others, and improving the ones which don't work well can be done in part by addressing why the weak systems are weak, and using the strengths of those systems which do work well.

Option 3. More efficient buildings. Great idea, and it's already being done in new construction. Are they suggesting re-fitting old buildings? They don't say but I don't think so and I'd be surprised if they can get their results without. New construction means more buildings that need heat and light, and while they can be made very efficient, the addition of new buildings always means increased energy consumption, not reduction.
You're wrong. Their wedge in this case is defined as the difference between pursuing and not pursuing already established energy saving principles. New construction is already considered as a factor on energy consumption.

You are right that this is already being pursued.

No comment on Option 4? This is a big one. Improving efficiency in existing power generation. A wedge here is to go from 40% to 60%, if twice as much power is produced in 2050. Capturing waste heat, improvements in fuel cycle (smart generation), lots of room for improvement.

Again, this is just technology. Changing the manner in which electricity rates are calculated would go a long way towards improving energy efficiency. As it is now, inefficiency means better rates from the review board.

Option 5. Substitute N. gas for coal. Good idea, it would make a difference. Problem is a lot of environmental groups don't want it.
Environmental groups are a small fraction of the population...they will have to pick their poison.

Option 6. Storage of carbon captured in power plants. It would work, but very expensive and once again, enviro-groups oppose it. Plus there is the cost.
There is a cost to bear with everything, and again, enviro groups will have to pick their poison. If much of the coal is replaced with natural gas, it becomes easier to capture that 90% of emissions. Some can be captured pre-combustion.

Option 9. Nuclear power replacing coal. Again, strongly opposed by enviro-groups.
And again, irrelevant. Environmentalists oppose all sorts of things, things that come to pass regardless of their opposition.

The pace would need to repeat that from 1975 to 1990 to make this wedge.

The time constraints are a bona fide concern, as are the cost of nuclear. If this wedge can't be made by nuclear, then there are other options. Could be a new technology in this wedge, or simply one less wedge, but with the remaining wedges larger.

Option 10. Windmill electricity. Lots of problems with wind power that doesn't get much press. For example, there's a world wide kaffufle over 500 ducks that were killed in a tailings pond at the tar sands, yet many magnitude more birds are killed by windmills and we hardly ever know it.
And orders of magnitude more are killed with building collisions. Newer wind turbines don't kill as many birds as the older generation do.

Besides wind power requires huge subsidies and governments are reaching the point where they can no longer fund anything and everything that catches their fancy.
I'd like you to quantify how huge those subsidies are.

Anyways, remove fossil subsidies that we have now, if they want to encourage more wind. Not a big problem. Wind is the fastest growing energy producer right now anyways.

Option 11. Photovoltaic electricity. Problems are very similar to wind electricity so I won't list them.
The authors already account for the intermittent power production of renewables. The only drawback is the pace of roll-out, and that would change drastically with policy options.

Does your roof or property have 3 square meters which could hold pV? If you were paid a fair rate by the owners of the distribution grid, would you be any more likely to take advantage?

Option 13. Biofuels. They have a caveat on this one, It isn't. It takes 29% more energy to produce ethanol than it contains. Biofuels increase emissions. Someday we may develop technology that would enable us to produce ethanol without the input of fossil energy but that would likely negate the need for alternate fuel.
Yup, as it stands now I wouldn't even bother adding something like this to any policy. There's always some new hype about microbial fuel production, which could make a difference. But right now it's a travesty.

Option 14. Forest management. First on their list is reduced tropical deforestation, but this is completely at odds with the biofuel option. Currently one of the biggest causes of tropical deforestation is to provide cropland for palm oil plantations to produce biofuel supplements for European deisel fuel. You can't have both increased biofuel production and reduced deforestation.
One half wedge is zero tropical clear cutting. This is actually one of the sticking points in international negotiations.

Another half-wedge is to reforest all of that clear cut land in the tropics. Another half wedge is 300 million hectares of forest plantations on nonforested land.

This is probably another wedge which would be easier to replace in part at least with other options not listed.

My conclusion is it's a good effort, much more realistic than most other scenarios proposed by the alarmists but it's unrealistic. Lomborg still has the only sensible plan.

Lomborg does not have a sensible plan. Focusing more on technological breakthroughs means that these wedges would be far larger. Not only that, he has no plan whatsoever for what to do with all of that carbonic acid that would end up in the ocean in the meantime.

Answer me this, can you name one breakthrough in technology of the likes Lomborg thinks we should put most of our eggs into the basket for that has changed energy production or consumption in the last 30 years?

There isn't one. Breakthroughs are rare. Car, how old? Electrical distribution, how old? Electrical production, how old? Shipping, how old? Diesel, how old?

What's funny is that you list technology advancements like refrigeration and more efficient burning furnaces when mentioning Lomborg's plan, but you think the wedges by Socolow and Pacala are less sensible?

That is distinctly non-sensible. It also fails to recognize improvements in the technologies like pV for instance which are happening every day.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100520093036.htm

There was no mention in the wedges of other fixes to implement, some of which I already mentioned (combined heat and power, smart electrical production) and others like concentrated solar thermal and tidal generation. Not to mention policy changes.

Yeah, it's a big task. Nobody says it's going to be a walk in the park.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
101,273
6,905
113
Moccasin Flats
I doubt we'll be making leaps forward but to going back in time to the most powerful and efficient energy we've used so far.

Steam.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Well it didn't take ten years to build all the infrastructure we have now.

The difference is, if you accept that something needs to be done, then it needs to be done much more quickly.
Yet whatever needs to be done, reality must be taken into account. Wasting money on known ineffectual "remedies" because you want to be seen as "doing something" about it isn't dealing with reality. The 50 year timeline of your report is much more realistic than any other alarmist claims I've heard.

Leveling off atmospheric concentrations is the goal.
of the authors of your report. That doesn't meet the goal of "saving the planet" by reducing emissions by 80% and so wouldn't be considered adequate by the majority of AGW alarmists.

They should look at what works in other countries then. Japan, China, the EU, they're all above 35 mpg now. Are they implicitly telling us that they are incompetent, while they're foreign competition is not?
The US and Canada were built with the auto as part and parcel. Much more difficult to achieve, but I'm sure it can be done. 60 mpg with current tech? Remains to be seen.


Hong Kong, 90% of all travel is on public transit.

Public transit is used well in some areas, and not so well in others. The Tubes in London transport over 1 Billion passengers a year.

One drawback of the wedges is that they focus entirely on technology, without changing other fundamentals. Obviously some transit systems work better than others, and improving the ones which don't work well can be done in part by addressing why the weak systems are weak, and using the strengths of those systems which do work well.
Many years ago I lived in West Point Gray and worked in downtown Vancouver. I commuted with the bus, the cheapest and most convenient method. But for going to the supermarket, for going out on a date, that's when the car is appealing. Bejing was built without the car in mind and until recently they were practically unseen. Now they add 1000 cars per day to the streets of that city. People like cars and they want them. Improving transit won't change that.

You're wrong. Their wedge in this case is defined as the difference between pursuing and not pursuing already established energy saving principles. New construction is already considered as a factor on energy consumption.
I'm right. Any additional building, no matter how energy efficient, will increase emissions. The wedge in this case would be irrelevant.


No comment on Option 4?
What, my post wasn't long enough?

I only commented on those options in which I saw obvious flaws. There were some good ones too.

Environmental groups are a small fraction of the population...they will have to pick their poison.
:lol: Face reality here! That small fraction of the population is what's driving the agenda. You aren't getting by them so easy.

There is a cost to bear with everything, and again, enviro groups will have to pick their poison. If much of the coal is replaced with natural gas, it becomes easier to capture that 90% of emissions. Some can be captured pre-combustion.
Another bit of reality that cannot be ignored. Governments that have been massively subsidising "green" projects are rapidly running out of the abililty to continue doing so. Economic reality has the final say, and it appears that governments, corporations and individuals may soon be unable and unwilling to pay that cost.

And again, irrelevant. Environmentalists oppose all sorts of things, things that come to pass regardless of their opposition.

The pace would need to repeat that from 1975 to 1990 to make this wedge.

The time constraints are a bona fide concern, as are the cost of nuclear. If this wedge can't be made by nuclear, then there are other options. Could be a new technology in this wedge, or simply one less wedge, but with the remaining wedges larger.
No, once again very relevant. If you don't take environmentalists and cost into account you're dreaming in technecolour. As for making other wedges larger in lieu of, dream on. Too many of them already won't work.

And orders of magnitude more are killed with building collisions. Newer wind turbines don't kill as many birds as the older generation do.
And they're not as noisy either. But the report recommends a massive increase in the number of windmills, with the resultin massive increase in bird deaths. Are you willing to accept that? Are the people? I doubt it.

I'd like you to quantify how huge those subsidies are

Anyways, remove fossil subsidies that we have now, if they want to encourage more wind. Not a big problem. Wind is the fastest growing energy producer right now anyways.
The Spanish example wasn't enough?

Fossil industries provide far more revenues for government than they receive in subsidies. Wind receives far more in subsidies than they produce in revenues, which is the only reason it's the fastest growing energy producer. As I've already pointed out, those subsidies may be coming to an end.

The authors already account for the intermittent power production of renewables. The only drawback is the pace of roll-out, and that would change drastically with policy options.

Does your roof or property have 3 square meters which could hold pV? If you were paid a fair rate by the owners of the distribution grid, would you be any more likely to take advantage?
What would you consider a fair rate? I would think it would be exactly the same as it costs Hydro to produce from conventional sources. If that price could give me a return on investment within a reasonable timeframe and a profit, then yes I would. But from everything I've heard, such is not the case.
Workers were installing nearly 100 solar panels last month on the roof of a Snohomish County administration building in Everett....

At an installed cost of merely $4500.

Per solar panel.

In an area where hydroelectric power costs around 6 cents per kWh.
Everett solar panels to power electric cars - Seattle News - MyNorthwest.com

From the comments:
Yelmonian wrote...
Hmmm...

Let me do the math. $450,000 = $150,000 gallons of gas ($3/gallon) = 5,250,000 miles (35 mpg... prius) Where are they driving these vehicles that this makes economic sense? Let's do some more math. 5% interest = $22,500 (on the $450,000) = 7,500 gallons of gas = 262,500 miles. Again, where the heck is Everett driving?

One half wedge is zero tropical clear cutting. This is actually one of the sticking points in international negotiations.

Another half-wedge is to reforest all of that clear cut land in the tropics. Another half wedge is 300 million hectares of forest plantations on nonforested land.

This is probably another wedge which would be easier to replace in part at least with other options not listed.
Yup, you know this one ain't gonna happen. But as I mentioned above, you have too many bogus wedges to replace by enlarging others, and now you want to bring some mystery wedges in? Let's be real here.

Lomborg does not have a sensible plan.
His is the only one I've heard of that recognizes reality.

Focusing more on technological breakthroughs means that these wedges would be far larger.
The authors said their goal could be achieved with wedges using existing technology. It can't. Tech breakthroughs might.

Not only that, he has no plan whatsoever for what to do with all of that carbonic acid that would end up in the ocean in the meantime.
The topic is what to do about global warming.

Answer me this, can you name one breakthrough in technology of the likes Lomborg thinks we should put most of our eggs into the basket for that has changed energy production or consumption in the last 30 years?
Am I a prophet?

There isn't one. Breakthroughs are rare. Car, how old? Electrical distribution, how old? Electrical production, how old? Shipping, how old? Diesel, how old?

What's funny is that you list technology advancements like refrigeration and more efficient burning furnaces when mentioning Lomborg's plan, but you think the wedges by Socolow and Pacala are less sensible?
Could anyone at the beginning of the 20th century have accurately predicted the kind of technology we would have by the end of it? Not a chance. Do you think you can accurately predict technological advances 100 years hence? Not a chance.

Technological advancements do make a difference, albeit slight to date. Those wedges are demonstrably inadequate to reach the stated goal and are thus not at all sensible.

That is distinctly non-sensible. It also fails to recognize improvements in the technologies like pV for instance which are happening every day.
Semiconductor manufacturing technique holds promise for solar energy
;-) That would be more success from the Lomborg scenario.

There was no mention in the wedges of other fixes to implement, some of which I already mentioned (combined heat and power, smart electrical production) and others like concentrated solar thermal and tidal generation. Not to mention policy changes.
You expected me to comment on things that weren't mentioned in the report? :-?

Yeah, it's a big task. Nobody says it's going to be a walk in the park.
And it's high time AGW alarmists such as politicians, activists and scientists were honest about exactly what would be required to reduce emissions the amount they claim is necessary. But we all know they won't.

I doubt we'll be making leaps forward but to going back in time to the most powerful and efficient energy we've used so far.

Steam.
Steam isn't an energy source. You still need some kind of energy to make it.

....and since you somewhat responded I will do so in kind.

YouTube - Renewable Energy Solution of the Month - Wind#!
All very nice. I've already posted some of the problems with wind power, noteably the subsidies. But even ignoring that, wind won't even come close to achieving an 80% reduction in emissions that the alarmists see as necessary. Got any more ideas?
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
of the authors of your report. That doesn't meet the goal of "saving the planet" by reducing emissions by 80% and so wouldn't be considered adequate by the majority of AGW alarmists.

? Do you get the terms we're talking about? If the atmospheric concentration levels out, then we have reduced emissions to a point where the carbon cycle budget is balanced. That is the goal, a balanced system. The goal is not a number, it's a state.

The US and Canada were built with the auto as part and parcel. Much more difficult to achieve, but I'm sure it can be done. 60 mpg with current tech? Remains to be seen.

Remains to be tried.

Many years ago I lived in West Point Gray and worked in downtown Vancouver. I commuted with the bus, the cheapest and most convenient method. But for going to the supermarket, for going out on a date, that's when the car is appealing. Bejing was built without the car in mind and until recently they were practically unseen. Now they add 1000 cars per day to the streets of that city. People like cars and they want them. Improving transit won't change that.

The majority of travel is getting to and from work. Improving transit makes huge gains, despite your objections. Some reading:
http://web.islandnet.com/~litman/tranben.pdf

If better transit was available, I'd take transit over congestion six days of the week and twice on Sundays. Smart policy takes into account attitudes and behaviours.

I'm right. Any additional building, no matter how energy efficient, will increase emissions. The wedge in this case would be irrelevant.

No, you're not. You're wrong.

Of course new buildings add emissions. The whole idea of the wedges is to take a line that is rising, and reduce it. New buildings will be built regardless. A wedge here is the difference between business as usual, and an increased efficiency scenario.

:lol: Face reality here! That small fraction of the population is what's driving the agenda. You aren't getting by them so easy.

Yeah, because that small fraction has worked so well to get legislation which addresses climate change passed. The environmentalists you speak of are marginalized even further when they can't rationalize. Other groups of environmentalists will be siding with attempts to address climate change.

Who's not facing reality here? :roll:

Another bit of reality that cannot be ignored. Governments that have been massively subsidising "green" projects are rapidly running out of the abililty to continue doing so. Economic reality has the final say, and it appears that governments, corporations and individuals may soon be unable and unwilling to pay that cost.

My emphasis, governments which have been massively (ambiguous, can you be more precise?) spending provide case studies.

As to corporations, that doesn't appear to be true at all. Many are calling for more "green" rollout, even industries which stand to lose in the short term.

No, once again very relevant. If you don't take environmentalists and cost into account you're dreaming in technecolour. As for making other wedges larger in lieu of, dream on. Too many of them already won't work.

No, again, irrelevant. You're treating them as a monolithic group. Who cares if say Greenpeace doesn't support something, but Sierra Club, National Resources Defence Council, and Pembina support it?

Too many of them won't work? So point to actual analysis Extra. Analysis that addresses the specific wedges? I'm not interested in your opinions...

And they're not as noisy either. But the report recommends a massive increase in the number of windmills, with the resultin massive increase in bird deaths. Are you willing to accept that? Are the people? I doubt it.

You don't know that it will be massive. The total number of birds that die from interaction with humans and human infrastructure is massive. Wind turbines are a fraction of that. Studies show that fatalities level off after the first year, as birds adapt to the obstructions. The mortality can be minimized by site selection.

Some educational info for you:
http://www.west-inc.com/reports/avian_collisions.pdf

1 out of every 10,000 mortalities attibuted to wind turbines, including older wind turbines, and those sighted without the due care to migratory paths and raptor concentration. Off shore will produce fewer mortality.

Comparing deaths on a per killowatt basis makes the choice easier:
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.011

The Spanish example wasn't enough?

If I want to make a case for the cost of agriculture in the world, and I give you one example, would that be enough for you? How about if I give you Robert Mugabe? How about Canada? How about China? DO you think any one country can truly be representative of the globe? That's nuts.

Fossil industries provide far more revenues for government than they receive in subsidies. Wind receives far more in subsidies than they produce in revenues, which is the only reason it's the fastest growing energy producer. As I've already pointed out, those subsidies may be coming to an end.

And then gas prices rise, and people drive their cars less and more will switch to public transit...

The infrastructure we have now was built up with subsidies too. It didn't bankrupt us to go from horse and buggy to this in 200 years.

What would you consider a fair rate? I would think it would be exactly the same as it costs Hydro to produce from conventional sources.

To purchase electricity from a small producer at the rate given to bulk shipments would be fair? I wouldn't necessarilly call that fair, but even that would be better than what happens now in some places. Inquire with your utility, many don't even give home producers the price they sell at, if they get a price at all.

So yeah, back to my original point. IF producers are paid fair compensation...

If that price could give me a return on investment within a reasonable timeframe and a profit, then yes I would. But from everything I've heard, such is not the case.

If you even get that price.

Workers were installing nearly 100 solar panels last month on the roof of a Snohomish County administration building in Everett....

At an installed cost of merely $4500.

Per solar panel.

In an area where hydroelectric power costs around 6 cents per kWh.
Everett solar panels to power electric cars - Seattle News - MyNorthwest.com

...it's stimulus money. Why you would offer this up, I have no idea. It's not the typical situation...

Yup, you know this one ain't gonna happen. But as I mentioned above, you have too many bogus wedges to replace by enlarging others, and now you want to bring some mystery wedges in? Let's be real here.

If you want to be real, link to some real analysis.

His is the only one I've heard of that recognizes my reality.

Fixed it for you.

In all seriousness, his solution is bonkers. Under proposals like his, low hanging fruit aren't even picked. We don't pick the apples until we have a technology that can pick all the apples on the tree. By the time we get that technology, the apples are falling on the ground under the weight of all those apples unpicked.

The authors said their goal could be achieved with wedges using existing technology. It can't.

You haven't provided proof of that.

This is really why I didn't think this was going to be a serious thread. If you see the glass as half full, you'll never even attempt to fill the barrel. Even though it's possible. But that again was obvious, based on your position entering this thought experiment of yours.

The topic is what to do about global warming.

Am I a prophet?

So then you agree that Lomborg is using a crystal ball...

His position is reliant on those breakthroughs. They are rare. We're still using technology older than turn of the century.

Could anyone at the beginning of the 20th century have accurately predicted the kind of technology we would have by the end of it?

Not the question. The question was to establish the likelihood of waiting for breakthroughs. If you can't predict them, how can your position be feasible to wait for them?

You expected me to comment on things that weren't mentioned in the report? :-?

No, you didn't even respond to all of the stuff in the report. I was simply adding that the report leaves out other candidates. If you have nothing to say about that, then so be it...

And it's high time AGW alarmists such as politicians, activists and scientists were honest about exactly what would be required to reduce emissions the amount they claim is necessary. But we all know they won't.

So calling it the challenge of our times isn't big enough for you ehh? How alarmist.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Ton has a good point, reducing to a number is not the objective anyway.
But either way, EF seems to think we need to come up with one single huge panacea rather than seeing what we can do in the many levels we've been polluting at to reach the objective. If we can't reduce by the majority ratio then we can always trap the excess. That should pretty much bring the balance back.
All these excuses that it'll be economically unfeasible and that everything is naturally cyclical is just that, feeble excuses for not making an effort.
It's already been shown that the oil industry takes subsidies just like the alternative energy industry. We've upset the balance between potable fresh water so we know we have an influence on Earth's resources and processes.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
I mean the goal is eventually to get it to zero emissions or close to it, because the oceans will continue to absorb excess carbon dioxide, and that's another problem. But one thing at a time. Unless you're Extra, apparently. :D
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
101,273
6,905
113
Moccasin Flats
All the people of the world could be walking or on bikes but nothing would change until we stop buying so much plastic crap and start eating locally grown organic foods.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
All the people of the world could be walking or on bikes but nothing would change until we stop buying so much plastic crap and start eating locally grown organic foods.
Ah, so burning gasoline and sucking up wads of gigaWatts of electricity doesn't add anything to emissions. It's just using plastic and buying foreign fruit that does it.
 

cdn_bc_ca

Electoral Member
May 5, 2005
389
1
18
Vancouver
Feel free to suggest any method by which governments, corporations, organizations and individuals can achieve that goal.

I didn't read the entire thread, but people say that a car wastes gas when it is idling. That's why municipalities tell us to turn off our cars when idling for more than a minute.

Well, how about these ideas...

1. Reduce the number of traffic lights instead of putting up more.
2. Implement green flow where ever possible for existing traffic lights.
3. Restrict road construction to off peak hours (ie. not during rush hour)
4. Eliminate bottlenecks (ie. 4 lanes merging into 1).

Of course, all these ideas above would cost the government money...

The idea is to keep the flow of traffic moving.. not idling. Whether it is above, at, or below the speed limit is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
lol I think you misread that info. Idling wastes fuel and fuel adds emissions. The more fuel you pour into your engine the more emissions it produces, idling or moving.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Subsidies:

 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
68
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Subsidies:

I'd say that should pretty much kill Extra's posts about "heavily subsidised" alternative energy.
I see he hasn't bothered to refute Anna's comment on trapping carbon as well as cutting back, also.

I think the incentive to develop better energies will eventually overshadow the stupidity of burning carbon fuels. Hopefully sooner than later and regardless of whether some people think the globe is cooling or not.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
More on subsidies, from the IEA:

The IEA analysis has revealed that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 billion in 2008. This represents a big increase from $342 billion in 2007.


Half of a trillion dollars...if it's possible, imagine what could be done with half a trillion dollars every year spent on modernizing energy production, distribution, consumption, and conservation.

That money breaks down as follows:

  1. Oil, $312 billion
  2. Natural Gas, $204 billion
  3. Coal, $40 billion
What's the global tally for those "massive" renewable energy subsidies?
 

herald

Electoral Member
Jul 16, 2006
259
1
18
Jesus, when He comes will burn up the world, and the heavens: talk about global warming!!!!!
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
? Do you get the terms we're talking about? If the atmospheric concentration levels out, then we have reduced emissions to a point where the carbon cycle budget is balanced. That is the goal, a balanced system. The goal is not a number, it's a state.
Indeed it's a state, but does it meet the goal of "saving the planet"? According to most alarmists, merely stabilizing the ppm isn't enough.


The majority of travel is getting to and from work. Improving transit makes huge gains, despite your objections. Some reading:
http://web.islandnet.com/~litman/tranben.pdf

If better transit was available, I'd take transit over congestion six days of the week and twice on Sundays.
YOU don't take transit???8O I would hope that you at least ride a bike. Considering how deeply you believe in AGW I can't conceive of any circumstance that would have you driving!

Smart policy takes into account attitudes and behaviours.
Indeed. My point exactly.

No, you're not. You're wrong.

Of course new buildings add emissions. The whole idea of the wedges is to take a line that is rising, and reduce it. New buildings will be built regardless. A wedge here is the difference between business as usual, and an increased efficiency scenario.
The idea of wedges is to reduce emissions to the extent that CO2 ppm won't increase. This wedge cannot do that. Sure, it would slow the rise, but that won't achieve the objective, only postpone the warming a little.

Yeah, because that small fraction has worked so well to get legislation which addresses climate change passed. The environmentalists you speak of are marginalized even further when they can't rationalize. Other groups of environmentalists will be siding with attempts to address climate change.

Who's not facing reality here? :roll:
Let's see, they got Kyoto agreed to, they have governments all over the industrialized world implementing laws and policies that purport to tackle climate change, even governments who don't believe in AGW. (Here in BC where we have record deficits, major cuts to education, the idiots are paying millions for carbon offsets out of education budgets and hospitalization budgets, just about the dumbest thing any government has ever done.) Environmentalists seldom can rationalize and ALL environmentalist organizations support and push for action on climate change. Who isn't facing reality? :lol: Look in the mirror.


My emphasis, governments which have been massively (ambiguous, can you be more precise?) spending provide case studies.

As to corporations, that doesn't appear to be true at all. Many are calling for more "green" rollout, even industries which stand to lose in the short term.
$800,000 per green job per year in Spain isn't massive? Admittedly that's the worst. Offhand, I believe the Norwegian cost is only $140,000 per job. Which still qualifies as massive to me. Maybe not to you, but them perhaps you're wealthy.

As for corporations, they also recognize the power of the environmentalists and the need to cater to them. It could hurt the bottom line to ignore them, plus a lot of them are quite happy to get to belly up the the government trough.

No, again, irrelevant. You're treating them as a monolithic group. Who cares if say Greenpeace doesn't support something, but Sierra Club, National Resources Defence Council, and Pembina support it?
As I pointed out above, they ALL support action on AGW, and you know that. That's not treating them as a monolithic group, it's just the way it is.

Too many of them won't work? So point to actual analysis Extra. Analysis that addresses the specific wedges? I'm not interested in your opinions...
I've pointed out why a number of them won't work. If you want to dismiss my analysis out of hand just because it's my analysis, well I can't help it if you willfully blind yourself to reality.


You don't know that it will be massive. The total number of birds that die from interaction with humans and human infrastructure is massive. Wind turbines are a fraction of that. Studies show that fatalities level off after the first year, as birds adapt to the obstructions. The mortality can be minimized by site selection.

Some educational info for you:
http://www.west-inc.com/reports/avian_collisions.pdf

1 out of every 10,000 mortalities attibuted to wind turbines, including older wind turbines, and those sighted without the due care to migratory paths and raptor concentration. Off shore will produce fewer mortality.

Comparing deaths on a per killowatt basis makes the choice easier:
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.011

Interesting papers. I recall reading a report of much greater mortality from wind turbines. I'll see if I can find it.


If I want to make a case for the cost of agriculture in the world, and I give you one example, would that be enough for you? How about if I give you Robert Mugabe? How about Canada? How about China? DO you think any one country can truly be representative of the globe? That's nuts.
If you wanted to make a case for the cost of agriculture in the developed world, then one example wouldn't be absolutely representative, but it would certainly give a fair representation.

And then gas prices rise, and people drive their cars less and more will switch to public transit...

The infrastructure we have now was built up with subsidies too. It didn't bankrupt us to go from horse and buggy to this in 200 years.
When the price of gas jumped to $1.50 per litre a couple years ago people around here didn't drive any less. Sure, there was more demand for smaller cars, and some stories about people trading in their gas guzzler for a smaller car (in many cases spending upwards of $30,000 to save $2,000 a year on gas!:roll:) but it's something I've seen before. People get used to the higher costs and keep driving. People will pay (albeit grudgingly) to keep their convenience.

Mind you, if you're taking about a 200 year timeframe, well that sounds more like Lomborg again. :p

To purchase electricity from a small producer at the rate given to bulk shipments would be fair? I wouldn't necessarilly call that fair, but even that would be better than what happens now in some places. Inquire with your utility, many don't even give home producers the price they sell at, if they get a price at all.

So yeah, back to my original point. IF producers are paid fair compensation...
Every other small business has to compete with the big guys. So yeah, fair price is the market price.



...it's stimulus money. Why you would offer this up, I have no idea. It's not the typical situation...
It's an example of a result of the typical AGW attitude in action.

Fixed it for you.
Sometimes I wonder if your reality has the same colour sky.....

In all seriousness, his solution is bonkers. Under proposals like his, low hanging fruit aren't even picked. We don't pick the apples until we have a technology that can pick all the apples on the tree. By the time we get that technology, the apples are falling on the ground under the weight of all those apples unpicked.
I've noticed in many instances you try to give me examples of things that have worked, or suggest things that would likely come to pass and would work, and they're always the Lomborg solution. Under proposals like his, you don't waste time and effort and resources trying to pick the highest apples off the tree when you don't have a ladder that will get you that high, and you don't even know how to build it...yet.


I'm out of time, I'll be back to finish this reply later.
 

herald

Electoral Member
Jul 16, 2006
259
1
18
We are not going to save this planet: Jesus is coming to burn the whole world up and burn up the heavens also.