Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Roger Ramjets]

'Don't expect politicians to keep their (not very radical!) promises! Pity them instead! Poor, poor Biden!'

No matter how much you try to twist it, the fact is that Biden has kept his campaign promises regarding global warming. Fault him for not being radical enough if you want, but don't lie about it.

When I did a search on Biden promises and came across Politifact's list I had no idea what would be in it. With all this talk of broken promises I was expecting some pretty bad stuff. But the facts showed otherwise. How many times has this happened to me? A lot. To the point where I don't believe anything anybody tells me without verifying it, especially when it's couched in emotive language and short on cites. Everybody has an angle, and everybody is twisting the truth to fit it. I'm sick of it.

here's the latest:-

The Sun stole my video and tried to make EVs look bad



The video is a bit rambling because Bjørn Nyland was so upset about what The Sun did to him, so don't feel that you have to watch it all. The synopsis - they took clips from his video of an EV range test and spliced them together to make it look like the battery died unexpectedly. And that's not all. Turns out they were misrepresenting stuff from his other videos too.

The top comments explain why:-

@LarsOlavVestland
The Sun is not about reporting, it’s about making money. It’s beyond me why anyone bothers reading anything from there.

and...

@rogermckenzie2711
They publish anti-EV stories every day apparently. I wonder who sponsors them?
@TeaBreak
The people who click on the stories. Nothing more nothing less.

If you are wondering how these stories make people click on them, it's because...

Analysis: How UK newspapers commented on energy and climate change in 2022

...criticism was reserved for a handful of pet topics among these right-leaning newspapers. These include the perceived high costs of pursuing climate policies and the “eco-idiot” protesters pushing for more ambitious climate action in the UK.

Right wingers have always been about personal gain over benefits to society. So clickbait like this attracts them like moths to a flame.

 

[lomiller]

Gutsick Gibbon takes some time off from debunking YEC to talk about the link between disrupting the Carbon cycle and previous mass extinctions.

 

[Puppycow]

The Great Cash-for-Carbon Hustle (The New Yorker)

Offsetting has been hailed as a fix for runaway emissions and climate change—but the market’s largest firm sold millions of credits for carbon reductions that weren’t real.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The Great Cash-for-Carbon Hustle (The New Yorker)

Unfortunately that article was tldr for me. I managed to get about 3/4 of the way through before I couldn't hold it all in memory and the ad breaks got too distracting.

From what I managed to digest, the gist of it is that people had good intentions but found the reality of doing business in a failed African state wasn't as easy as they thought. And of course whenever a lot money is changing hands there's plenty of opportunity for corruption, fraud, and gaming the system.

However the important point of carbon credits is that the polluting parties have to pay for it. This give other businesses an opportunity to reduce their carbon emissions directly and still compete. Of course if the carbon credits are too cheap (because they aren't offsetting the amount they should) then the incentive isn't as high, but even if no actual carbon emissions were offset it would still have a positive effect.

The article talks about a couple of things that I think are off-base. The companies who buy those credits aren't to blame if the money isn't being used as intended. It's not 'greenwashing' to actually become carbon neutral, which is what would have happened if the money they paid was doing what it was meant to. If the credits aren't worth as much as they should be then the purchaser has been defrauded. If that is the case then the authorities should be investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators.

Another thing I don't agree with is that trading carbon credits on the open market - even by oil companies - is somehow immoral. The purpose of a commodities market is to provide an efficient trading mechanism. If the credits become more 'valuable' due to speculation that's a good thing, because it means the people who buy them for end use have to pay more.

And here's where we get to the missing link. Exactly what are polluting companies getting out of buying carbon credits? If it's just to appear more 'green' so people will buy their products there are other ways to do it. If that is what they are doing then they should be interested in ensuring that they are worth the money. But even if they aren't the authorities should be, since advertising yourself as 'green' (or anything else) when you aren't is fraud - as is producing 'carbon credits' that aren't.

But the way for these carbon credits to be really effective is for governments to take them as payment for a 'carbon tax'. That way companies who don't need all their credits because they reduced their emissions can sell them to others who do, gaining an advantage over the competition. Of course the government would be assessing the producers to make sure the credits are worth their face value.

Imagine having a piece of paper representing the carbon positive value of what it produced. Imagine being able to trade it for other things, and even pay your taxes with it. Imagine if the amount was printed on it in green ink to represent it's 'green' value. We might call them 'greenbacks'. Pretty much everything that is produced today has a carbon cost. If we paid that cost with the same amount of 'carbon positive' money, everybody would be 'carbon-neutral', and rich people would be greener than the rest instead of the other way around!

 

[Puppycow]

I think the best system of economic incentives would be a carbon tax, and I think most economists who have studied the issue agree.

It could be a refundable carbon tax, which is my own preference because I think it would make it more politically viable if you can say that every penny of this tax will be returned to taxpayers. That way, anyone who uses less carbon than the average comes out ahead.

Every tax-paying household could get a monthly check (or quarterly/yearly depending on how you want to set it up) paid for by the carbon taxes collected in the previous month. If it actually becomes a tangible income stream for people, I think it would be popular (once people realize that it's not just more taxes to pay, but money you can receive).

 

[The Atheist]

I think the best system of economic incentives would be a carbon tax, and I think most economists who have studied the issue agree.

It could be a refundable carbon tax, which is my own preference because I think it would make it more politically viable if you can say that every penny of this tax will be returned to taxpayers. That way, anyone who uses less carbon than the average comes out ahead.

Every tax-paying household could get a monthly check (or quarterly/yearly depending on how you want to set it up) paid for by the carbon taxes collected in the previous month. If it actually becomes a tangible income stream for people, I think it would be popular (once people realize that it's not just more taxes to pay, but money you can receive).

Sounds like it would hurt large, poor families, so bring it on!

 

[Puppycow]

Sounds like it would hurt large, poor families, so bring it on!

Not necessarily. By "tax-paying household" I actually mean everyone who files a tax return. In practice, they would probably double it for married couples, and maybe even kids get a small slice, but it all goes to the "household" for tax purposes. You can't make it so that getting married cuts it in half. Then nobody would get married.

 

[The Atheist]

Not necessarily. By "tax-paying household" I actually mean everyone who files a tax return. In practice, they would probably double it for married couples, and maybe even kids get a small slice, but it all goes to the "household" for tax purposes. You can't make it so that getting married cuts it in half. Then nobody would get married.

I was more referring to this bit:

That way, anyone who uses less carbon than the average comes out ahead.

Big family, small budget - they're the people most likely to use an old vehicle and have cheap, inefficient appliances. Maybe that would be offset by not taking overseas trips, but I doubt it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting ideas, but when has a taxing strategy ever accomplished the specified goals, or benefitted anyone who pays little or no taxes to begin with, if you don't count the earned income tax credit.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I was more referring to this bit:

Big family, small budget - they're the people most likely to use an old vehicle and have cheap, inefficient appliances. Maybe that would be offset by not taking overseas trips, but I doubt it.

So? These people are polluters, so they should have to pay for it.

But I don't agree with the idea of a tax refundable carbon credit for households. Everybody is a polluter and everybody should be paying for it (more for those who pollute more). The only people getting a credit should be those who are carbon positive.

I don't think old 'inefficient' appliances have much impact, but you pay for that on your electricity bill. The carbon tax should be built into everything you buy. An old 'inefficient' car will need more gas - which should be taxed according to the pollution it causes. To help poor people buy more efficient cars, a tax surcharge or discount should be applied to the cost of the vehicle proportional to how 'clean' it is (as is currently done, though not for long). That way when poor people are buying these older cars they can afford a cleaner one.

Being poor isn't fun, but it's no excuse for not reducing your carbon footprint. A car costs a lot of money to own and run no matter cheap it is to buy, and the older it is the higher the maintenance costs. Buying an old heap because you 'can't afford' anything better is false economy.

About 15 years ago When my gas car failed its warrant due to rust I decommissioned it and rode my bike to work until I could find a suitable replacement. I was only earning minimum wage so I needed something cheap - but not too cheap. At that time most dealers refused to sell anything worth less than NZ$10,000. However I managed to get a traded-in Nissan Sentra that just had a few minor issues for only $6000. 5 years ago it was starting to need major repairs so I decided to look for a replacement. That's when I bought the Nissan Leaf for $10,000. I now see see on TradeMe an identical Leaf with similar battery health to mine for $6300. There are plenty of hybrids selling for under $10,000 too, for those who need longer range.

My Leaf is costing me under 6 cents per km in electricity to run. At the current Road User Charge of 8.8 cents per km I will be paying more in 'EV' tax than 'fuel' costs when the government axes the exemption on EVs (which make up less than 2% of the total number of cars on the road). Way to go National, you more than doubled this poor pensioner's vehicle running costs! What a fantastic message to send to those of us who are trying to do the right thing.

 

[Puppycow]

But I don't agree with the idea of a tax refundable carbon credit for households. Everybody is a polluter and everybody should be paying for it (more for those who pollute more). The only people getting a credit should be those who are carbon positive.

Well currently we have no carbon tax and this would be better than nothing. I think a carbon tax is a great idea, but it's a heavy lift politically and this would make it more politically popular.


Unrelated, but I somehow stumbled across this news: Here’s What $30M Of Funko Pops Going To The Landfill Actually Looks Like Ain't capitalism great?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

carbon tax is one of those complex ideas the formulation of which politicians long ago have outsourced to lobbyists.
Any carbon tax that can get passed in Congress would, by definition, one that serves Big Polluters more than the Climate.

 

[The Atheist]

Buying an old heap because you 'can't afford' anything better is false economy.

Ah, the joy of privilege explaining why poor people are poor and why they're wrong.

I hope you voted National.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu2fZbSsT8U

 

[arthwollipot]

Surging renewable energy sees record supply to Australia’s electricity grid

At one point in September nearly 100% of eastern Australia’s demand could have been met by renewables, says energy operator Aemo


For a half hour in the middle of a Saturday last month, enough renewable energy was available to meet all but 1.4% of eastern Australia’s entire electricity demand – the closest to reaching 100% clean power in the grid’s history.

Renewables also supplied 38.9% of average demand across the national electricity market (Nem) in the September quarter, the most for any third quarter, according to a report by the Australian energy market operator (Aemo).

Total carbon emissions from the power sector, Australia’s biggest single source, were down 11% on a year ago. The share of generation from gas fell by almost a third and black coal by 7.5%, even though both fuels were slapped with price caps this year by the Albanese government.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Ah, the joy of privilege explaining why poor people are poor and why they're wrong.

I hope you voted National.

You think I don't know what it's like to be poor? I grew up on a farm in the 1960's. Single income families were the norm back then, and there was no union or minimum wage for farm workers. I doubt there were many who were much poorer than us.

Here's my gross taxable income (for the years I can find records of) before I retired in November last year:-

2016 $6,853
2018 $14,473
2021 $12,669
2022 $14,360

2016 was a particularly bad year. I had just used up most of my savings on moving house, and I didn't have a job. The years after that weren't great either. In 2019 I had to replace my car, and had just enough to afford the Leaf. In 2021 I had to dip into the last of my savings to pay the house and car insurance. Luckily work picked up in 2022, or else I wouldn't have had enough to live on.

I'm sure there are some people in a worse position than I was, but part of that is because I only spend what I can afford without getting into debt. I'll go without a car until I have the money to buy one that's worth it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

carbon tax is one of those complex ideas the formulation of which politicians long ago have outsourced to lobbyists.
Any carbon tax that can get passed in Congress would, by definition, one that serves Big Polluters more than the Climate.

Ford Says Strict Fuel Rules Will Cost It $1 Billion in Fines

Ford Motor Co. would face for the first time $1 billion in fines from 2027 to 2032 under stricter proposed average fuel economy rules that target SUV and truck manufacturers...

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed a fleetwide average mandate, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, of about 58 miles per gallon by 2032. The more stringent rules are part of a Biden administration effort to cut emissions and accelerate the country’s transition to electric vehicles.

Current rules call for automakers to achieve an average of about 49 mpg by 2026. The industrywide average for the 2021 model year was 25.4 mpg, according to the government’s most recent data. Ford and other manufacturers typically comply with the federal fuel economy rules by purchasing credits from electric carmaker Tesla Inc., which called for even tougher standards on Oct. 17.

Good to see Tesla doing some lobbying too!

25.4mpg is pathetic. What have auto makers been doing all these years?

“Ford has never paid civil penalties under the CAFE program, and yet by NHTSA’s own analysis Ford would likely pay $1 billion in civil penalties if NHTSA’s proposal were finalized,” the company said. “This is alarming in and of itself, and threatens substantial economic hardship for Ford.”

Cry me a river. Don't want to pay the fines? You know what to do!

 

[dann]

The climate crisis is carrying a mounting health toll that is set to put even more lives at risk without bold action to phase out planet-warming fossil fuels, a new report from more than 100 scientists and health practitioners found.
The annual Lancet Countdown report, released Tuesday, found that delaying climate action will lead to a nearly five-fold increase in heat-related deaths by 2050, underscoring that the health of humans around the world is “at the mercy of fossil fuels.”
Despite these growing health hazards and the costs of adapting to climate change soaring, authors say governments, banks and companies are still allowing the use of fossil fuels to expand and harm human health.
Health experts say world needs to end fossil fuel use as new report finds a rise in climate-related mortality (CNN, Nov 14, 2023)

Not in any way surprising, but it's nice to see that they aren't wasting energy on blaming the 'end consumer' and instead focus on the people and institutions currently in charge of the economy who don't give a damn about global warming as long as they can make money with fossil fuels.

The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms (Nov 14, 2023)

Found here: Brugen af fossile brændstoffer bør bremses nu, advarer forskere i stor rapport (Videnskab.dk, Nov 16, 2023)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Not in any way surprising, but it's nice to see that they aren't wasting energy on blaming the 'end consumer' and instead focus on the people and institutions currently in charge of the economy who don't give a damn about global warming as long as they can make money with fossil fuels

I'll agree with that when governments and institutions really are 'in charge' of the economy.

Businesses only exist to make money for their owners, so we can't expect them do do anything that goes against that without incentives and regulations.

Governments are voted in and out by the people - all of whom are 'end consumers'. So when Russia stopped supplying oil and gas to Europe, the end consumers all stood up and said 'Don't worry, we were waiting for an excuse to get off fossil fuels anyway - let's do it now!". Or did they?

Many Europeans want climate action – but less so if it changes their lifestyle, shows poll

The seven-country YouGov survey tested backing for state-level climate action, such as banning single-use plastics and scrapping fossil-fuel cars, and individual initiatives including buying only secondhand clothes and giving up meat and dairy products.

The responses, from the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Spain and Italy, suggested many people were happy with measures that would not greatly affect the way they lead their lives, but bigger steps that may be necessary were unpopular...

Asked whether they would be willing to switch to an electric car, an average of just under a third of respondents across the seven countries surveyed – ranging from 19% in Germany through 32% in Denmark to 40% in Italy – answered positively.

Responses... to giving up driving altogether in favour of using public transport, walking or cycling... was lower in Britain (22%), Germany (24%), Denmark (20%) and Sweden (21%)...

An obligatory increase in fuel duty... [was] not popular. Those opposed to paying more fuel tax outnumbered those in favour in all countries.

With 'support' like this, who could blame governments for not going all-in on getting off fossil fuels?

 

[dann]

I'll agree with that when governments and institutions really are 'in charge' of the economy.

They are! By means of the "incentives and regulations" you mention next:

Businesses only exist to make money for their owners, so we can't expect them do do anything that goes against that without incentives and regulations.

They do indeed, and I don't expect them to do anything other than what they're doing.

Governments are voted in and out by the people - all of whom are 'end consumers'. So when Russia stopped supplying oil and gas to Europe, the end consumers all stood up and said 'Don't worry, we were waiting for an excuse to get off fossil fuels anyway - let's do it now!". Or did they?

Yes, governments are voted in, but rarely out, by the people. Instead, you are probably thinking of the elections every four years or so when new representatives are elected, which is very different from electing governments in or out. Governments are elected by those representatives. They are not elected by the people. People elect representatives of parliament, who form governments, and voters are often very surprised when they hear about the government that their elected representatives support.
But that's representative democracy[/b] for you! Once you've handed over power to whomever you voted for, they get to decide. You don't! That's the whole point.

And the elected representatives tend to listen much more to the "businesses [which] only exist to make money for their owners" than they do to you. Until there's a new election and they pretend to listen to you until you've elected them again.

Many Europeans want climate action – but less so if it changes their lifestyle, shows poll
With 'support' like this, who could blame governments for not going all-in on getting off fossil fuels?

The 'lifestyle' argument! As pointed out several times before: If the collaboration of business and government hasn't created the kind of infrastructure that makes it easy for people to switch from fossil fuels to sun and wind, people obviously tend to be opposed to making the change. However, if the government has created that infrastructure and uses those "incentives and regulations" you referred to, people don't need much encouragement to make the switch. They'll do it on their own, as mentioned in post 964.
The incentives could, for instance, be to tax fossil fuel harder and make electric cars cheaper.

But for some reason, it never occurs to you. Instead, you present people as a united, selfish front and the real power, as the ones who "all stood up and said" ... whatever ... in your imaginary scenario in your imaginary representative democracy.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Yes, governments are voted in, but rarely out, by the people. Instead, you are probably thinking of the elections every four years or so when new representatives are elected, which is very different from electing governments in or out.

Every 3 years here, which means it's an election year 1/3rd of the time. And we have MMP here, which means we vote twice, once for a representative and then again for the party. In New Zealand we do vote the government in (and out).

Governments are elected by those representatives. They are not elected by the people. People elect representatives of parliament, who form governments, and voters are often very surprised when they hear about the government that their elected representatives support.

Not many surprises around here. Furthermore the people are encouraged to get involved in decisions made by government even on matters that aren't considered controversial. This is done to make sure the government doesn't do things that people don't want.

Of course many people don't get involved directly, but still voice their opinions in other forums such as newspapers, TV and online. Polls are regularly conducted to gauge the public's sentiment both on 'hot button' topics and boring stuff most people don't care about. The government ignores these at its peril.

As a result of all this I am pretty confident that the people who voted for the current NZ government knew exactly what they were getting.

National’s climate pledge a joke

“The National Party’s faux climate pledge isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, coming just days after they promised to cut billions of dollars of climate action,” says the Green Party co-leader James Shaw.

National have promised to:

Defund the entire climate change work programme, across government, in order to fund tax cuts Restart fossil fuel exploration and extraction
Delay agricultural emissions pricing by another half a decade
Cancel the successful Clean Car Discount that is driving massive adoption of EVs around the country
Cancel support for industries that are switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy

“National say they are committed to climate action on the one hand, but their actual policies make a lie of that commitment. It is disingenuous at best, straight up dishonest at worst.

“Their 2050 pledge is a sleight of hand designed to disguise their real intentions. Make no mistake: National will relegate climate action to the margins.

“National’s coalition partner, the ACT Party, have also promised to restart drilling for fossil fuels. ACT have also said they will repeal the Zero Carbon Act and get rid of the Climate Commission.

National are forming a coalition with ACT just as everyone expected they would. And we all knew their nebulous 'climate pledge' was a joke. The 50% of voters who chose National and ACT to lead this country did so in part because they don't want us doing anything about global warming - especially if affects their lifestyle in any way (even a positive way).

After all, NZ is a small country with little influence on how much greenhouse gases are emitted, so why should we have to do anything about it? The Chinese are the biggest offenders, so make them bear the brunt while we get rich selling the products of pollution to them.

The 'lifestyle' argument! As pointed out several times before: If the collaboration of business and government hasn't created the kind of infrastructure that makes it easy for people to switch from fossil fuels to sun and wind, people obviously tend to be opposed to making the change. However, if the government has created that infrastructure and uses those "incentives and regulations" you referred to, people don't need much encouragement to make the switch. They'll do it on their own, as mentioned in post 964.
The incentives could, for instance, be to tax fossil fuel harder and make electric cars cheaper.

Yeah, we had those policies in New Zealand, and a lot of people didn't like it. They then voted National (conservative) or ACT (libertarian) for the express purpose of repealing those incentives.

Government refers wind and solar projects for fast-track consenting

7 August 2023

Wind farm projects in Southland, south of Auckland and Manawatū are being fast-tracked through consenting, the government has announced.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins announced the decision after the weekly Cabinet meeting on Monday.

"New Zealand's increasingly well positioned globally to harness wind power, onshore and offshore," he said. "When it comes to offshore generation for example our location in New Zealand matters. The least windy sites here in New Zealand are considered to have better wind energy potential than the windiest sites in Australia.

"We firmly believe New Zealand's energy future is a renewable energy future. This is the future and we can't afford any more backward-looking thinking that would keep us tied to the past."...

Together, the solar and wind projects could add nearly four times as much generation as the Clyde Dam - New Zealand's third-largest hydroelectric plant - with the wind projects generating 300Mw, 80Mw and 39Mw at peak output respectively and the solar farms adding up to 1147Mw. Geothermal and hydrogen projects also referred for fast-tracking could add a further 64Mw...

Hipkins said the projects would mean cheaper power prices for families for decades into the future.

Labour's share of the party vote in October? 26.9%, down 23 percentage points from the last election. The people have spoken and their message is clear - "Screw renewable energy (even though it would give us cheaper electricity), we want our gas-guzzling utes back!".

But for some reason, it never occurs to you. Instead, you present people as a united, selfish front and the real power, as the ones who "all stood up and said" ... whatever ... in your imaginary scenario in your imaginary representative democracy.

Of course it's not a united front, but a government that doesn't get the majority on their side won't be able to do what's necessary. We managed to do that once in the history of New Zealand, with Covid. But that's over now and we are back to business as usual - every man for himself!