• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
First, the graphic I posted never said that either nation replaced 100% of their power generation.

Second, the reason Denmark gets most of their power from non-renewables is because they invested in wind rather than nuclear. Had they invested in nuclear, they would have been able to replace far more than a meager 17.6%.

This involves a risky "what if" supposition. France has been very different from Denmark---militarily industrially economically and even in the scientific establishment. One really cannot say "what if" Denmark had behaved like a little France starting back in 1950. With its own little Danish Charles de Gaulle and its own H-bomb and "force de frappe" perhaps? :D

I find this quarreling about Nukes versus Wind Turbines to be boring and distracting from the primary issue.

The issue is whether and policywise how to discourage carbon emissions.

You are not likely to get EITHER massive shift to Wind or to Nuke if you do not introduce disincentives to the use of carbon fuel.

What I guess could be called the Carbon Lobby has tremendous clout.
Their interest is to extract and burn, come what may. The primary issue is whether to engage with that interest, and how: along what policy lines.

Whether to promote chemical reprocessing, breeder reactors on the plutonium fuel cycle, or whether to use wind, or in what combination with other non-carbon means----all that is air-castle stuff if you have no way to crank up the price of burning carbon fuel.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure a carbon tax BY ITSELF is a good idea, unless you use that money to invest in other energy sources as well as investing additional money on top of that. For this to work you also need a plan in place as to how to replace fossil fuels. Part of that plan has to include Nuclear Energy (or waiting a couple decades or more). So it is pretty relevant.
 
I'm not sure a carbon tax BY ITSELF is a good idea, unless you use that money to invest in other energy sources as well as investing additional money on top of that. For this to work you also need a plan in place as to how to replace fossil fuels. Part of that plan has to include Nuclear Energy (or waiting a couple decades or more). So it is pretty relevant.

I see. No carbon tax unless we first agree on how to spend "the money".
And then a little pimping for Nuke.

You impose a tax to create a disincentive. The disincentive BY ITSELF encourages alternatives and investment in alternatives. What those alternatives turn out to be (and whether any of them are subsidized by Government) are subsequent issues decided by the democratic process.

By itself a tax does not create a pot of money called "the money". Different interest groups would presumably be clamoring for subsidies and handouts from "the money" flowing in from a carbon tax, and they would each be touting their own virtues.

Bargaining would occur and various industry blocks would have to be promised payoffs to get their support for a tax.
But there is no objective reason why (for example) money raised by a gasoline tax is different from other money and has to be spent on building highways. That is just a bargaining tool to get the Automotive industry lobby to go along with the gasoline tax.

There may indeed by wise provident "investment" in energy infrastructure and technology which Government could and should make! There may be good arguments for Government subsidies to various types of energy development. But that is a separate issue from a carbon tax.

Objectively a carbon tax disincentives carbon and you may or may not view the proceeds as a special pot of "the money" which it would be a good idea to pay out as subsidies to various industry groups. Doubtess some subsidies could be very good ideas, but that is a separate question from whether the tax is a good idea.

I reject your placing that condition: it wouldn't be a good idea to have a disincentive tax unless your pet interest gets paid off. The message I get from your post.
 
Last edited:
I see. No carbon tax unless we first agree on how to spend "the money".
And then a little pimping for Nuke.

You impose a tax to create a disincentive. The disincentive BY ITSELF encourages alternatives and investment in alternatives. What those alternatives turn out to be (and whether any of them are subsidized by Government) are subsequent issues decided by the democratic process.

...

I reject your placing that condition: it wouldn't be a good idea to have a disincentive tax unless your pet interest gets paid off. The message I get from your post.

Calm down. All I said was that I wasn't sure it was a good idea by itself, because I am not sure that making all energy more expensive is a good idea -- oil and coal are used because they are cheap. While it would help renewables some (particularly wind, of course), it would also result in a net discouragement of all energy use by consumers. This hurts the poor and middle class who can't easily afford to put in changes to their home to cut down a lot on energy use.

By itself there'd be some positive effects and some negative effects, but I think with a more comprehensive policy you could help minimize the damage. Regulation on electronics to require that they have effective sleep modes that use basically no energy, for instance (TVs, computers, etc, etc are problematic here); Money spent on modernizing homes; improvements for hybrid cars; etc.

And yes, you need a strategy for generating base energy requirements, which alternatives can't do. I don't see an alternative besides Nuclear here, do you? If you have one, I'm all ears. If your plan is "one will magically appear" then I'm not impressed. You can't cut down carbon emissions beyond a certain point without a way to replace them.

I'm not saying a carbon tax is a bad idea. I just think it is rather cludgy to do by itself.
 
If your plan is "one will magically appear" then I'm not impressed. You can't cut down carbon emissions beyond a certain point without a way to replace them.

I'm not saying a carbon tax is a bad idea. I just think it is rather cludgy to do by itself.

Good. I agree it is not a bad idea. Of course nothing is ever done by itself!
The mix of replacements would be determined by market and political forces.Neither you nor I would accomplish anything by fantasizing and advocating some mix that strikes our fancy. So I decline to try to secondguess the outcome.

You are welcome to call it a kludge. Perhaps that is a good word for the proposed carbon tax.

We are in a serious situation. We need a forcing term. Let's put that in place and then see what mix of replacements takes shape. It will involve Government policy, shaped by lobbying bargaining and political deals. It will involve technological developments you and I cannot foresee. It will involve the Market. It will involve public opinion concerning heath and safety. It will involve the Media. And the flapping of a butterfly somewhere. A tropical storm. A war. An earthquake. A Hollywood movie. Whatever accidents determine the future mix of technologies.

All I am saying is we need a forcing term now. On s'engage et puis on voit.
One grapples, one comes to grips with the opponent, and then one sees. It is a serious situation and we should not sit on our bottoms and discuss our pet daydreams of a nice mix. That accomplishes nothing.

BTW here is some entertainment. A COMIC:
http://sci-ence.org/neutrino/
This was inspired by a stupid Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
 
Ahah! I just followed the link by Mhaze and went here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5973675#post5973675

I did not realize there was a policy at this forum to put all Greenhouse effect discussion in that one moderated thread!

My apologies.

It seems to me that the thread I started here is in violation of a JREF forum rule and to be consistent should be locked or moved to that moderated thread.

I looked around and didn't see any other thread which is why I asked the question "Is it OK?" I didn't see any sign that it was against the rules. Different forums have different rules about discussing this topic. Must have overlooked something.

So the answer to my original question is actually NO. It is not OK to post about that recent study!

I don't want to be in violation of the rules. So I will abandon this thread.
 
Ahah! I just followed the link by Mhaze and went here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5973675#post5973675

I did not realize there was a policy at this forum to put all Greenhouse effect discussion in that one moderated thread!

My apologies.

It seems to me that the thread I started here is in violation of a JREF forum rule and to be consistent should be locked or moved to that moderated thread.

I looked around and didn't see any other thread which is why I asked the question "Is it OK?" I didn't see any sign that it was against the rules. Different forums have different rules about discussing this topic. Must have overlooked something.

So the answer to my original question is actually NO. It is not OK to post about that recent study!

I don't want to be in violation of the rules. So I will abandon this thread.

Actually, so long as the discussion is held to specific elements of the topic instead of being broad and general discussions of the subject area, they seem to be being allowed by the moderation team. I've noticed several threads, both in the science and tech board and in the politics boards, since the moderated thread policy has been instituted. The only time threads get merged into the moderated thread are when they are clearly intended (or end up being, despite author intentions) to be a continuous and raucus debate of the general issue. While Hansen's paper is a rather broad overview, it is focussed on one particular, political, aspect/perspective of the subject, and the discussion of that paper seems to be okay with the moderation team,...so long as it doesn't become the mess that such discussions are occassionally prone toward becoming.
 
Last edited:
I only just realized today that there is a special moderated thread where all discussion relating to the Greenhouse emission problem is supposed to go!

I tend to think of this as a POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC problem to be addressed by policies (or recklessly not addressed) at the level of national governments or international treaty.

So I posted in one of the two Politics forums. I see I am coming to this very late. This thread has a lot of comment by people more conversant than myself about the current situation.

Anyway I'll toss in my two cents-worth
==============================
There is a recent study by Hansen et al which in its conclusions at the end recommends a new book by Shi-Ling Hsu detailing the arguments for a carbon tax.

==quote http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1365 page 22, conclusions at the end==
Analysis of the economics and assessment of arguments for or against a rising carbon tax are provided in The Case for a Carbon Tax (Hsu, 2011). An across-the-board price on all fossil fuel CO2 emissions emerges as the simplest, easiest, fastest and most effective way to phase down carbon emissions, and this approach presents fewer obstacles to international agreement.
The chief obstacles to a carbon price are often said to be the political difficulty, given the enormous resources that interest groups opposing it can bring to bear, and the difficulty of getting the public to understand arcane economic issues. On the other hand, a simple, transparent, gradually rising fee on carbon emissions collected from fossil fuel companies with the proceeds distributed to the public is described succinctly by DiPeso (2010), Policy Director of Republicans for Environmental Protection.
==endquote==

I think the present situation qualifies as an emergency (national and worldwide) and that it makes sense to proceed in a timely manner and put a carbon tax in place without waiting for decision on a comprehensive energy policy.

In fact I do not think Government is able to rationally formulate and effectively carry out a detailed energy policy. There are many forces at play, many commercial interests which would immediately lobby for control of whatever regulations/subsidies are considered. Because of steep inequalities of wealth and power the system of democratic capitalism has somewhat broken down, so I think the best one can hope for is to put in place a clear rising disincentive tax on carbon and then see what evolves from market forces and competing interests.

The important thing is to realize that we are in an emergency and cannot wait to elaborate a complete energy policy that is acceptable to all the competing interests. It is urgent to come to grips and take action.

To illustrate the urgency I'll quote a sample bit from Hansen et al http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1365
==excerpt from page 20==
...
...
Infectious disease spread.
The spread of infectious diseases is influenced by climate change in two ways: warming expands the geographic and temporal conditions conducive to transmission of vector-borne diseases (VBDs), while floods can leave “clusters” of mosquito-, water – and rodent-borne diseases (and spread toxins). With the ocean the repository for global warming and the atmosphere holding more water vapor, rain is increasing in intensity -- 7% overall in the U.S. since 1970, 2”/day rains 14%, 4”/day rains 20%, and 6”/day rains 27% since 1970 (Groisman et al., 2005), with multiple implications for health, crops and nutrition.
Tick-borne Lyme disease (LD) is the most important VBD in the U.S. LD case reports rose 8-fold in New Hampshire in the past decade and 10-fold in Maine (affecting all of its 16 counties). Warmer winters and disproportionate warming toward the poles mean that the changes in range are occurring faster than models based on changes in average temperatures project. Biological responses of vectors (and plants) to warming have generally been underestimated, and may be leading indicators of warming due to the disproportionate increase of winter minimum and high latitude temperatures.
Pests and disease spread across taxa: forests, crops and marine life.
Pests and diseases of forests, crops and marine life are favored in a warming world. Bark beetles are overwintering (absent sustained killing frosts) and expanding their range, and getting in more generations, while droughts in the West dry the resin that drowns the beetles as they try to drive through the bark. (Warming emboldens the pests while extremes weaken the hosts.) Forest health is also threatened in the Northeast U.S. (Asian Long-horned beetle and wooly adelgid of hemlock trees), setting the stage for increased wildfires with injury, death and air pollution, loss of carbon stores, and damage to oxygen and water supplies. In sum, forest pests threaten basic life support systems that underlie human health.
Crop pests and diseases are also encouraged by warming and extremes. Warming increases their potential range, while floods foster fungal growth and droughts favor whiteflies, aphid and locust. Higher CO2 also stimulates growth of agricultural weeds. More pesticides, herbicides and fungicides (where available) pose other threats to human health. Crop pests take up to 40% of yield annually, totaling ~$300 billion in losses (Pimentel)
Marine diseases (e.g., coral, sea urchin die-offs, and others), harmful algal blooms (from excess nutrients, loss of filtering wetlands, warmer seas and extreme weather events that trigger HABs by flushing nutrients into estuaries and coastal waters), plus the over 350 “dead zones” globally affect fisheries, thus nutrition and health.
Winter weather anomalies.
Increasing winter weather anomalies is a trend to be monitored. More winter precipitation is falling as rain rather than snow in the Northern Hemisphere, increasing the chances for ice storms, while greater atmospheric moisture increases the chances of heavy snowfalls. Both affect ambulatory health (orthopedics), motor vehicle accidents, cardiac disease and power outages with accompanying health effects.
Drought.
Droughts are increasing in frequency, intensity, duration, and geographic extent. Drought and water stress are major killers in developing nations, bringing disease outbreaks including water-borne cholera and mosquito-borne dengue fever (mosquitoes breed in stored water containers). Drought and higher CO2 increase the cyanide content of cassava, a staple food in Africa, leading to neurological disabilities and death.
Food insecurity.
Food insecurity is a major problem worldwide. Demand for meat, fuel prices, displacement of food crops with those grown for biofuels all contribute. But extreme weather events today are the acute driver. Russia’s extensive 2010 summer heat-wave (over six standard deviations from the norm, killing over 50,000) reduced wheat production ~40%; Pakistan and Australian floods in 2010 also affected wheat and other grains; and drought in China and the U.S. Southwest are boosting grain prices and causing shortages in many nations. Food riots are occurring in Uganda and Burkino Faso, and the food and fuel hikes may be contributing to the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. Food shortages and price hikes contribute to malnutrition that underlies much of poor health and vulnerability to infectious diseases. Food insecurity also leads to political instability, conflict and war.
==endquote==

Since I think the Hansen et al paper does a good job in giving an up to date overview, and since they recommend the carbon tax book by Shi-Ling Hsu, I will get a link to the SLH book and post it here. The amazon link allows one to read the TOC and most of the first 50 pages, so one can get a free online look and readily see what it is about.
 
... The only time threads get merged into the moderated thread are when they are clearly intended (or end up being, despite author intentions) to be a continuous and raucus debate of the general issue. While Hansen's paper is a rather broad overview, it is focussed on one particular, political, aspect/perspective of the subject, and the discussion of that paper seems to be okay with the moderation team,...so long as it doesn't become the mess that such discussions are occassionally prone toward becoming.

That is very hopeful. I put this in *General Politics* forum because I take the science for granted and I want to focus on the political response.
For me there is a clear and present danger. There is no question about it any more. So I assume that. I want to know other people's thoughts about what can be done (within the constraints of our pluto/demo political system) to expeditiously reduce carbon emission.

It is not a natural science question. It is more of an electoral/public policy question. Or perhaps not a question but a despair.:covereyes:eye-poppi
 
That is very hopeful. I put this in *General Politics* forum because I take the science for granted and I want to focus on the political response.
For me there is a clear and present danger. There is no question about it any more. So I assume that. I want to know other people's thoughts about what can be done (within the constraints of our pluto/demo political system) to expeditiously reduce carbon emission.

It is not a natural science question. It is more of an electoral/public policy question. Or perhaps not a question but a despair.:covereyes:eye-poppi
That's exactly what caused the mods to restrict these discussions. Because a lot of people feel pretty strongly on one side or another. Some of us, myself included, think your point of view is totally moonbat ridiculous and have no problem with telling you so. You advocate an eco-fascist method based on a fantasy of a "common good".

Oh, and by the way, you didn't scratch the surface of things hysterical alarmists (including that wacko nutjob Hansen) claim are or going to be caused by Global Warming. I'm particularly concerned about the one oh, about mid way, entitled "Italy robbed of pasta". What would the High Priest Warmer, Hansen have to say about that?

Oh, by the way, carbon tax is dead in the USA. It's been so thoroughly kilt it can't even rise back up zombie style.

Here's the list:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fossil fuels honestly are unlikely to last even 100 years......
Really?

Oil shale and oil sands have changed that equation. Wait, they've been known about a long time. So why have people been promulgating this "100 year " lie? It's pretty common phrase, I know that.
 
That's exactly what caused the mods to restrict these discussions. Because a lot of people feel pretty strongly on one side or another. Some of us, myself included, think your point of view is totally moonbat ridiculous and have no problem with telling you so. You advocate an eco-fascist method based on a fantasy of a "common good".

So you ignore scientific consensus when you disagree with it?


Oil shale and oil sands have changed that equation. Wait, they've been known about a long time. So why have people been promulgating this "100 year " lie? It's pretty common phrase, I know that.[/QUOTE]

I meant traditional oil and natural gas. My apologies for being imprecise. Shale is more expensive and more polluting, so it isn't a great alternative compared to developing other options.
 
The National Clean Energy Eummit 4.0 in Las Vegas
http://cleanenergysummit.org/2011/highlights.html

Energy Secretary Chu on the need for government support of clean energy which is kind of long.
Summary near 15:00

--------------
The Future of Energy

-Installing the smart grid. Re-inventing energy and how we use it and deliver it.

-Roger Platt of the US Green Building Council. Buildings represent about 70% of our electrical energy use and 40 % of our greenhouse gas emmissions. Huge amount of waste going on. 400 billion dollars a year to produce that energy.

- V2G Vehicle to Grid Ideas about vehicles that give power back to the grid during peak load times.

-Creating US manufacturing jobs -electric street cars, wave energy devices.
 
Oh, and by the way, you didn't scratch the surface of things hysterical alarmists (including that wacko nutjob Hansen) claim are or going to be caused by Global Warming. I'm particularly concerned about the one oh, about mid way, entitled "Italy robbed of pasta". What would the High Priest Warmer, Hansen have to say about that?

I only checked just a few of the links, but at least those seemed to be based on valid scientific studies.

Out of curiosity, are you saying you think the listed things things will not happen, that the scientific basis for those claims is faulty - and if so, what do you base your opinion on?
 
Well, not exactly -- AGW implies that there will be stratospheric cooling, so discussions of stratospheric temperature are germane.

Or to be more specific,
Troposphere warming + Stratosphere cooling = Indicated warming caused by greenhouse gases
Troposphere warming + Stratosphere warming = Indicated warming caused by solar activity

In the current case Stratospheric cooling is actually one of the “smoking guns” that proves current warming is being caused by Anthropogenic Greenhouse gasses rather than solar activity. (Of course a lack of a correlated trend pretty much shoots down solar activity anyway)
 
I'm not sure a carbon tax BY ITSELF is a good idea, unless you use that money to invest in other energy sources as well as investing additional money on top of that. For this to work you also need a plan in place as to how to replace fossil fuels. Part of that plan has to include Nuclear Energy (or waiting a couple decades or more). So it is pretty relevant.

Fossil Fuels are essentially receiving a huge subsidy because the costs associated with CO2 emissions are socialized rather then paid for by producers or consumers. Such a huge subsidy to fossil fuels will skew the energy market and harm the development of all competing energy sources.

A Carbon tax would at least help offset this but I personally think Cap and Trade works better because it allows the market to set the value on CO2 emissions rather than assigning them arbitrarily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom