Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

In USA Today last Tuesday they spoke about rising gas pries slowing the economy and hindering the recovery. Despite this there are enviromentals calling for additional taxes and fees to be levied on fossil fuels?

Despite something you heard on USA Today? Remarkable.

It makes absolutely no sense. Without the strong economy there's no money for renewable energy projects that are, despite the complaints to the contrary, currently underway.

Projects which are creating jobs and productive capacity. The strength of an economy is not defined by the amount of carbon dioxide it generates.

Manipulating the price of fossil fuels will only delay progress. That's a well established fact.

You're very selective in what you regard as established facts. In fact renewable energy is one of the few growth industries around, but there are many many economists around who'll argue for the status quo (there always are). Their opinions are not established facts.

Economies which are scrabbling to cope with the impacts of AGW will not be strong, despite the fact that repairing damage counts towards GDP. Strong economies are sustainable, at least in the medium-term, and the fossil-fuel model is not. It was the model which got us where we are but it's not the model of the future. Things change. Economies can be ahead of the game or they can be like the USA today, fading fast and living in denial.

Consider, as an analogy, the British mistake of sticking to coal as the Oil Age dawned. We made the best damn' steam-engines the world ever saw, long into the 20thCE, but were always playing catch-up in mass car-production. What remains of that industry is foreign-owned (mostly Japanese).

(I think you'd have backed that mistake, but of course I can only speculate. You sound identical to the conservative voices of the time.)

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with saying "Using Natural Gas to produce electricity to heat a house is incredibly inefficient, and expensive."

Don't you just mean electric heaters are inefficient compared to natural gas furnaces?

Of course not. Burning gas to create heat which is converted to electricity at less than perfect energy efficiency to then convert the electricity back to heat is less efficient than using a natural gas heating system, where the heat produced is the desired end-product. This is not rocket science.

In which case you're correct ...

It's not the case, it's a case you invent because you have an answer to it. There's a word for that sort of behaviour.

... and that's why tshaitanaku's rant about open cycle natural gas combustion doesn't make sense, the "alternative" as he puts it is much worse. He's not evaluating the situation properly and coming to the logical conclusion, he's just towing the party line so to speak and saying "we have to reduce emissions".

Which party would that be?

Anyone who's concerned to minimise the extent of AGW argues that we have to reduce emissions. You argue that we don't have to, or if we do it shouldn't be now, or soon. That's not a party line, it's an established fact.

In the UK, natural gas from the North Sea was frittered away on electricity generation since it was the cheapest option at the time; now we're importing natural gas because there's so much installed capacity. That's the short-termism you get with free markets.

And that's my point. A lot of people just don't really understand what's going on in the real world and instead live in this fantasy world where everything runs on air and water and it's all good. They have an idea of where they want things to be they just don't truly understand how to get there from here.

Unlike those who just want things to stay just where they are.

Very few people have electric heaters in their homes, almost all have switched to natural gas. There is no other alternative to it that can meet the needs of a country that has this many HVAC heating days a year. I'm sure in Mexico they don't use nearly as much natural gas even if they have the same number of HVAC cooling days per year.

Hope this helps.

It probably helps you in some way, but most of the world is not like Canada. Mexico certainly isn't, it has a lot more people for one thing. It'll have even more when the US gets a government that's serious about illegals.

Many homes in the UK have gas heating systems, and that gas would still be coming from the North Sea if so much hadn't been wasted on electricity generation. As it is, the Russians have us by the short-and-curlies.

 

[Trakar]

That's the equivalent of saying they use natural gas to kill people. Yes they have electric chairs but they don't use natural gas to produce the electricity for them.

It's a total non sequitur.

As you distort and dissemble it, I agree, total non sequitor.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Incorrect, this entire thread is about "Global" warming science, impacts and the possible addressments of those impacts.

No you're simply mistaken or being disingenuous.

scroll to top of page and/or view Thread header post-http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5973675&postcount=1

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Thus far you have yet to demonstrate a single example of an "alarmist" or substantively support assertions of "alarmism."

I'm confident it's quite evident.

Completely irrelevent, as this is a science forum, and your "beliefs" are without standing, it is about what you can compellingly support via verfiable and reliable reference and citation.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Citation and supportive reference?

That there aren't always alternatives? None needed, it's basic logic. All you need to do is sufficiently restrict the variables until there is only a single answer or option.

I am forced to interpret this as a refusal and/or lack of ability to support your assertions with verifiable and legitimate reference or citation.

 

[Trakar]

Like TShaitanaku, I broadly agree. I expect short-term expedients to be adopted to cope during the process of climate change (such as building higher levees and digging deeper wells) but the costs of those and the losses they'll be a response to will leave less and less to spend on preventing matters from getting worse. (I think there's a telling example of the latter in Australia, where funds to help repair the damage done by the Queensland floods were taken from renewable energy programs. Ironically, this included the costs of pumping out coalmines and repairing infrastructure to get coal to the ports.)

This will leave the Furcifers of the world saying "things would have been worse if we'd done anything earlier", since that would remain a hypothetical. Any actual solution would be greeted with cries of "See! There never was a problem!", just as in the case of acid rain. But that's the least of our problems.

More is likely to be achieved by a US default (courtesy of "a few right-wing nutters") and the consequent global economic depression.

While I fully concur with the tone and gist of your statements, I can't embrace the last sentence. A flush and vibrant world economy could accomplish more, "casually," than a depressed global economy struggling to support today's needs with no ability to consider, much less deal with, tomorrow's impending problems, even with dedicated and concerted efforts.

 

[Trakar]

...And that's my point. A lot of people just don't really understand what's going on in the real world and instead live in this fantasy world where everything runs on air and water and it's all good. They have an idea of where they want things to be they just don't truly understand how to get there from here...

Unsupported strawman.

Demonstrate where this has been proposed or stated.

 

[Trakar]

Manipulating the price of fossil fuels will only delay progress. That's a well established fact.

Agreed, we should stop the artifical manipulation of fossil fuels and make them pay their way with full/true cost accounting for the damages and problems they are causing.

 

[a_unique_person]

If gas prices are rising, might be time to get some alternatives going.

 

[Trakar]

A simple solution is to raise taxes on gas, and lower taxes on other items by the same amount, such that the average consumer isn't paying any more.

Agreed, carbon taxes current under consideration are revenue neutral, and set up pretty much as you mention. The idea isn't to raise a lot of money in taxes or to harm consumers, but rather to make those who use fossilized carbon fuels pay the full costs of the product they choose to use, and make better choices when and where available.

 

[Furcifer]

Despite something you heard on USA Today? Remarkable.

It actually isn't remarkable, it's a basic economic principle.

The strength of an economy is not defined by the amount of carbon dioxide it generates.

This is patently false and couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[BenBurch]

...
This is patently false and couldn't be further from the truth.

That is a ridiculous statement, one you cannot even begin to justify.

 

[a_unique_person]

Agreed, carbon taxes current under consideration are revenue neutral, and set up pretty much as you mention. The idea isn't to raise a lot of money in taxes or to harm consumers, but rather to make those who use fossilized carbon fuels pay the full costs of the product they choose to use, and make better choices when and where available.

This is what Australia is proposing at the moment, and you would think it meant the world was going to end tomorrow, the way the conservative oppostion portrays it.

 

[Furcifer]

Agreed, carbon taxes current under consideration are revenue neutral, and set up pretty much as you mention. The idea isn't to raise a lot of money in taxes or to harm consumers, but rather to make those who use fossilized carbon fuels pay the full costs of the product they choose to use, and make better choices when and where available.

Except raising taxes on fossil fuels will cause the price of everything to go up. When the price of everything goes up we call that inflation. People stop buying, the currency gets devalued on the World market, the economy slows, people lose jobs, it's generally not good.

It's not something you can easily manipulate. Generally speaking a low rate of inflation is favorable, and that's what we have currently without raising the price of fuel.

 

[Furcifer]

Agreed, we should stop the artifical manipulation of fossil fuels and make them pay their way with full/true cost accounting for the damages and problems they are causing.

Agreed. And when that's possible it will be done. Until then it's pointless and nonconstructive to speculate.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Citation and supportive reference?

That there aren't always alternatives? None needed, it's basic logic. All you need to do is sufficiently restrict the variables until there is only a single answer or option.

If you can do so, in a reasonable fashion, without creating a false dichotomy or generating a strawman argument, please, feel free to start engaging in this process. I, for one, would find it a refreshing change.

 

[Trakar]

Agreed. And when that's possible it will be done. Until then it's pointless and nonconstructive to speculate.

Why should we continue to artifically pad corporate profits while picking up the tab for cleaning up their pollution, I'm just not into corporate welfare, some might call it a slide to fascism, but for me it is just plain, old fashioned crony capitalism, I see no benefit to society or the citizenry in such situations.

 

[Trakar]

Except raising taxes on fossil fuels will cause the price of everything to go up. When the price of everything goes up we call that inflation. People stop buying, the currency gets devalued on the World market, the economy slows, people lose jobs, it's generally not good.

It's not something you can easily manipulate. Generally speaking a low rate of inflation is favorable, and that's what we have currently without raising the price of fuel.

The costs of fossil fuel carbon pollution is a negative externality. This is a cost (tax/inflation - expense) that is already being charged to all of society, not just those who are using those particular fuels. Some individuals and industries are heavily and directly involved in producing this externality. Since this negative externality is not included in the price, there is overconsumption creating social inefficiency. This represents a market failure. A carbon tax simply takes this externality and internalizes it. A properly designed carbon tax matches the external cost and the price consumers pay equals the social cost. This reduces demand back to its true cost levels creating a new socially efficient market where the equilibrium represents a balance between the marginal social cost and the marginal social benefit.

As for price increases, yes, there would be some, mostly revolving around the products of the prime users of these carbon fuels. The studies I've looked at indicate that a 15$/ton CO2 tax would add ~16% to the cost of Coal and Petroleum industry products (gasoline, fuel oil, etc.,), ~15% to the cost of Coal mining products, 11.2% to cost of Utilities industry products (primarily electricity), non-fossil-fuel mining industries' products ~3.9%, Primary metals industries' products ~3.2%, Pipeline transportation industries' products ~2.4%, Air transportation industry products ~1.8%, Waste management/remediation industry products/services ~1.7%, nonmetallic mineral industry products ~1.6%, and paper industry products ~1.3%. Those are the top ten impacted industries and products. Overall industry service and product impact average of ~0.6%. Add to this that we are talking about a revenue neutral tax, where the proceeds are primarily used to eliminate and offset federal payroll taxes, federal sales taxes on fuels, etc., and you aren't going to place this burden on the people who can least afford it. Additionally, you are going to encourage competition from industries looking to improve energy efficiency and invest in alternative, non-fossil fuel energy technologies and infrastructure designs/processes.

 

[steenkh]

Except raising taxes on fossil fuels will cause the price of everything to go up. When the price of everything goes up we call that inflation.

I do not know about your country, but in Denmark there is almost nothing that is not taxed in some way, and it would be quite easy to offset the tax on CO2 by lowering other taxes so that most goods will cost the same. The incentive to save on CO2 would still be there, but there would not be inflation because of it.

However, this would give the state inducement not to campaign effectively for CO2 reduction, because it would lower state income just like the case has been with cigarettes.

 

[Trakar]

...However, this would give the state inducement not to campaign effectively for CO2 reduction, because it would lower state income just like the case has been with cigarettes.

To me, this is a much larger, longer-term, potential problem than any minor inflation concerns. One of the partial addressments I've seen is the incremental increase of the carbon tax. IOW, it starts out at say 15$/ton of CO2 and increases in 5$/ton increments every 5 years. I suppose that after tax revenues began to fall dramatically, you would have to begin reinstituting the original taxes, and it would be best to include such mechanisms in the original legislation, because they would be much harder to pass as seperate tax-increase legislations later on.