The Real Cost of Limiting CO2

[peter_puck]

IOW - you cannot justify llimits on CO2 by claiming that we need to reduce our dependency on oil. Those objectives are contradict each other. If oil dependency and smog is a problem then you address the problem directly. You do not use it to justify an unrelated policy.

You feel free to weight the various cost of reducing CO2(ad nauseam). Why is it that gc cannot count the benefits ?

[gc1765]

No it does not because the a politically palatable price will always be too low to force people to change behavoir.

Any change in price will cause a change in behaviour, the larger the price the larger the change.

IOW - you cannot justify llimits on CO2 by claiming that we need to reduce our dependency on oil. Those objectives are contradict each other. If oil dependency and smog is a problem then you address the problem directly. You do not use it to justify an unrelated policy.

How can you say that they are unrelated? They are all a product of using fossil fuels. Decrease fossil fuel use, and you decrease CO2, smog and oil dependency.

[JB Globe]

Many anti-CO2 advocates seem to think society's use of fossil fuels is evidence of gluttony and that all we need to do is reduce our expectations and stop consuming so much. I think this is a very naive view that does not take into account that our energy consumption is directly connected to our health and well being and that artifically increasing energy prices will increase poverty, suffering and death.

The problem with your argument is you're presuming that dealing with climate change involves an all-or-nothing extremist revolution in our lives - which it doesn't.

No credible organization or political wants every citizen and business to immediately give up all their CO2 emitting products and plunge the country into poverty. No one is saying, for example - that they would rather have a diesel firetruck sit unused and let a house burn down than fill it up with gas and send it on it's way.

Rather, what needs to happen is we need to start gradually taxing C02 and start subsidizing green products and industries. So that eventually, that fire truck will either be green, or it won't matter if it's diesel or not, because we'll have built an excellent transit system that keeps millions of cars off the road (which of course, would also increase response time). A transit system that could move people out of an area with a natural disaster, much more efficiently than a highway clogged with cars ever could, for example.

There is nothing radical about a carrot and stick approach to coaxing the economy into dealing with climate change. In fact, it's radical to NOT do anything about it, because that would eventually spell economic disaster due to the collapse of natural systems our economy relies on.

[Riverwind]

The problem with your argument is you're presuming that dealing with climate change involves an all-or-nothing extremist revolution in our lives - which it doesn't.

All policies being discussed require across the boad increases in the cost of energy in order to make less convenient and/or more expensives alternatives economically viable. These policies will force people and governments to spend a larger percentage of incomes on energy and transportation which means less will be available to fund non-essentials. This means that even if the diesel powered fire engines still exists cities won't be able to afford as many which will limit their ability to respond if a major disaster strikes.

No credible organization or political wants every citizen and business to immediately give up all their CO2 emitting products and plunge the country into poverty. No one is saying, for example - that they would rather have a diesel firetruck sit unused and let a house burn down than fill it up with gas and send it on it's way.

The more likely scenario is there will not be as many firetrucks/helicopters/rescue boats available. We already have a problem in Canada with the DART term - it frequently can't get to where it needs to be because the government does not have the transport capacity.

In fact, it's radical to NOT do anything about it, because that would eventually spell economic disaster due to the collapse of natural systems our economy relies on.

At this point in time CO2 is a purely hypothetical threat and there no evidence that the warming will be a much as predicted nor is there evidence that effects of warming are necessarily bad.

[marksman]

IOW, Your scary stories are nothing but bad science fiction and no reasonable person can consider them to be probable outcomes given the current evidence.

That perfectly describes the blog entry in the 1st post.

[Riverwind]

That perfectly describes the blog entry in the 1st post.

Really? You really believe that increasing the cost of energy in the name of eliminating CO2 will have not have serious negative consequences? Do really believe that some technology is going to suddenly appear and give us a non-CO2 emitting replacement that will allow us to continue to enjoy the same standand of living that we have now?

If CO2 is really a threat then people claim it is then we will have to reduce energy consumption and that will mean less economic activity and fewer luxeries such as hi-tech healthcare or the ability to respond to disasters 1000 miles away.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[White Doors]

We already have a problem in Canada with the DART term - it frequently can't get to where it needs to be because the government does not have the transport capacity.

Not to be nitpicky, but this is largely solved now due to Canada's procurement of 4 new C130 Globemasters.

[Riverwind]

Not to be nitpicky, but this is largely solved now due to Canada's procurement of 4 new C130 Globemasters.

It does not change my point about how governments deal with budget contraints by limiting the number of emergency vehicles they have around. Increase the cost of keep these kinds of vehicles running and there will be fewer of them.

[gc1765]

It does not change my point about how governments deal with budget contraints by limiting the number of emergency vehicles they have around. Increase the cost of keep these kinds of vehicles running and there will be fewer of them.

One thing I don't understand...how would a carbon tax make energy more expensive for the government? The government also collects the carbon tax, so it would, in effect, be paying itself.

[Riverwind]

One thing I don't understand...how would a carbon tax make energy more expensive for the government? The government also collects the carbon tax, so it would, in effect, be paying itself.

You are assuming the cost of fuel is simply controlled by a tax added on top of the retail price of fuel. It is not that simple because really limiting CO2 emissions will increase the cost of essentials across the board which will leave everyone with less money to spend on non-essentials. Perhaps governments would respond to this financial stress by cutting things other than emergency services in favour of reducing funding for healthcare or food inspection. In the end it does not matter but if people really want to reduce CO2 emissions people will need to accept that governments will be less able to provide the services that they are accustomed to. Edited September 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[marksman]

Really? You really believe that increasing the cost of energy in the name of eliminating CO2 will have not have serious negative consequences? Do really believe that some technology is going to suddenly appear and give us a non-CO2 emitting replacement that will allow us to continue to enjoy the same standand of living that we have now?

If CO2 is really a threat then people claim it is then we will have to reduce energy consumption and that will mean less economic activity and fewer luxeries such as hi-tech healthcare or the ability to respond to disasters 1000 miles away.

The "thoughtful" blog basically says that if you think co2 is a problem then you've got to be willing to throw people into the paths of hurricanes. That's an unrealistic scenario.

The price of energy in Canada is 1 of the lowest in the world. Somehow other countries still have cars and helicopters.

Technology doesn't have to suddenly appear and we shouldn't expect it to since it's slowly being developed and introduced. At 1 point it was too expensive to extract oil from the tar sands. Not any more. The same thing is happening with electric cars. At 1 point the idea of a car that could run only on electricity for any amount of time was unthinkable. And now GM releases a car that can do that. Stricter fuel efficiency requirements for cars are within reach right now. Solar and wind power generation is feasible right now and can take some of the burden.

Any plan to reduce co2 emissions that's being proposed and has a chance of being implemented doesn't start with completely banning fossil fuels or with crippling emissions reductions requirements. These things are phased in slowly.

What makes you think our standard of living should be maintained where it's at now? If our way of living is wasteful then maybe it should change.

[Riverwind]

The price of energy in Canada is 1 of the lowest in the world. Somehow other countries still have cars and helicopters. Technology doesn't have to suddenly appear and we shouldn't expect it to since it's slowly being developed and introduced.

The alarmists would have us believe that we need to get to 0 emissions by 2050 to avoid disaster. However, they have not really thought through the consequences of such an objective given what technology we have today or are likely to have in the next 40 years. That scenario is not unreasonable if one assumes the alarmists are successful in forcing governments to implement policies that have a chance of achieving that objective.

At 1 point the idea of a car that could run only on electricity for any amount of time was unthinkable. And now GM releases a car that can do that. Stricter fuel efficiency requirements for cars are within reach right now. Solar and wind power generation is feasible right now and can take some of the burden.

All alternatives are more expensive and will ultimately lead to higher energy costs if they are mandated by the government. One of the problems with the environmental movement is they have fooled themselves into believing that energy production technology can advance as fast as computing technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would take 70 years to replace the existing 25,000 CO2 emitting power plants even if we built a new plant a day.

What makes you think our standard of living should be maintained where it's at now? If our way of living is wasteful then maybe it should change.

Increasing standards of living are the reason for longer life expectancies. Lowing the standard of living will result in lower life expectancies. You may think that providing the social infrastructure that allows people to live longer more comfortable lives is "wasteful" but many would disagree.

[peter_puck]

All alternatives are more expensive and will ultimately lead to higher energy costs if they are mandated by the government. One of the problems with the environmental movement is they have fooled themselves into believing that energy production technology can advance as fast as computing technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would take 70 years to replace the existing 25,000 CO2 emitting power plants even if we built a new plant a day.

This is not true. If you look at many of the alternative (ie sponsored by people who don't want change at all) plans they show a few token cuts for right now and some wonderfull new technology coming around.

The enviromental movement wants cuts now, knowing that the "hydrogen economy" is coming no time soon.

Enviromentalist want you to get rid of that crappy water heater, insulate your house, get effecient light bulbs, etc.

You support a position (continued stoopid energy use) that requires a rapid advancement in energy production technology. We are going to run out of cheap oil (and even expensive). You must be assuming that something is going to replace it. I am not. I hope we develop these wonderful new technologies, but I am hedging my bet now by conserving energy.

[marksman]

The alarmists would have us believe that we need to get to 0 emissions by 2050 to avoid disaster. However, they have not really thought through the consequences of such an objective given what technology we have today or are likely to have in the next 40 years. That scenario is not unreasonable if one assumes the alarmists are successful in forcing governments to implement policies that have a chance of achieving that objective.

If you're willing to assume anything then I suppose you can say any position is reasonable.

Policies being considered and implemented around the world aren't saying we go to nothing by 2050. So you're saying the blog's scenario is reasonable because some people are promoting a plan of action that no one's even trying to implement. If the basic assumption is unreasonable then the conclusions from that assumption are also unreasonable.

Advocating for increased energy efficiency investing in renewable energy and reducing co2 emissions isn't the same as saying everyone must stop driving and we'll leave people to die rather than attempt to evacuate them from hurricanes.

Increasing standards of living are the reason for longer life expectancies. Lowing the standard of living will result in lower life expectancies. You may think that providing the social infrastructure that allows people to live longer more comfortable lives is "wasteful" but many would disagree.

There's more to standard of living than only trying to equate it to life expectancy. Building infrastructure that allows people to live longer and more comfortably isn't wasteful but that's not how standard of living is so often measured. It's measured by how many cars you've got or how many computers per family. Many times this measure doesn't take into account the longer term effects of what happens when you've got to dispose of all those computers or the health effects that'll cause. We're already seeing health problems around old technology dumps. Same goes for the cars stats. It's great to say we've got such a high standard of living because everyone's got 1.7 cars but then we complain about smog in big cities and the apparent increase in asthma in kids.

We've been measuring standard of living by how much we consume rather than looking at the total picture. I'm ok with changing how we live so that future generations live more comfortably rather than saying I need more stuff now so that I'm comfortable in the short term and the future be damned.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Many anti-CO2 advocates seem to think society's use of fossil fuels is evidence of gluttony and that all we need to do is reduce our expectations and stop consuming so much. I think this is a very naive view that does not take into account that our energy consumption is directly connected to our health and well being and that artifically increasing energy prices will increase poverty, suffering and death.

Here is a thoughtful blog entry that makes that point: http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/...cane-gusta.html

This is why I think that given our current knowledge of the risks we would be much better off keeping our fossil fuels and spending money adapting to climate as required.

Limiting is BS (as is the blog above), CO2 generation (other then accidental fires, volcano eruptions and anymals breathing) could be stopped.

The zero emissions initiative is not about using less fossil fuels, it's about not burning anything at all (with the exception of hydrogen maybe).

[White Doors]

Same goes for the cars stats. It's great to say we've got such a high standard of living because everyone's got 1.7 cars but then we complain about smog in big cities and the apparent increase in asthma in kids.

There was much more of a smog problem in NA in the 60's and 70's when there were alot less cars than today, how do you account for that if you think people having 1.7 cars/family is the problem?

[Riverwind]

Policies being considered and implemented around the world aren't saying we go to nothing by 2050. So you're saying the blog's scenario is reasonable because some people are promoting a plan of action that no one's even trying to implement. If the basic assumption is unreasonable then the conclusions from that assumption are also unreasonable.

You are really pedantic. The blogger was responding the demands made by the environmental activists and pointing out that trying to satisfy these demands would have some pretty serious consequences. The fact that most governments are doing whatever they can to sound like they are doing something when they really do nothing has no bering on the relevance of the example.

Advocating for increased energy efficiency investing in renewable energy and reducing co2 emissions isn't the same as saying everyone must stop driving and we'll leave people to die rather than attempt to evacuate them from hurricanes.

It is the same as soon as hard targets for emission reductions are implemented as government policies. Hard targets mean people have no choice but to stop doing things that emit CO2 since non-emitting technology does not exist or is too expensive to be practical.

It's measured by how many cars you've got or how many computers per family.

You cannot seperate the good from the bad. The economy that gives access to high tech healthcare and plenty of food also gives us consumer products such as cars and computers. The latter is necessary to generate the wealth required to pay for the former. Introducing hard limits on CO2 or even increasing the cost of energy will reduce the amount of "good" things the economy can produce. For every SUV that is taken off the road there will be a life saving drug therapy that won't get funding. Edited September 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[tango]

Really? You really believe that increasing the cost of energy in the name of eliminating CO2 will have not have serious negative consequences? Do really believe that some technology is going to suddenly appear and give us a non-CO2 emitting replacement that will allow us to continue to enjoy the same standand of living that we have now?

Yes I do. It is already here, and it will take cost increases in fossil fuels to make it seem attractive, to make private companies get their act together and get these things marketed properly, without interference from the 'fossils'. lol

For example, in-floor heating is far superior, cleaner than the forced air type, and easily powered by solar shingles.

[Riverwind]

Yes I do. It is already here, and it will take cost increases in fossil fuels to make it seem attractive, to make private companies get their act together and get these things marketed properly, without interference from the 'fossils'.

Ah yes - its those evil corporations that are refusing to invent perpertual motion machines because of cheap fossil fuels. I wish it was that simple. Electric cars are a relatively low hanging fruit and their is good reason to believe that people living in warmer climes will be able to make use of them. Those of us living in colder climes will likely need to stick with fossil fuel versions beause the lack of features like heaters and window defrosters make electric cars a rather inpractical choice.

More imporantantly electric cars require this little thing called "electricity" that requires fossil fuels to produce. There are no alternatives to fossil fuels for electricity generation that can be deployed at the scale required in the places where the power is needed. Nature had a good (if overly optimistic) report on alternate energy which is no longer available online.

The numbers are analyzed here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...energy-gap-4539

The numbers simply do not add up. Fossil fuels cannot be eliminated. Pretended they can be eliminated is a waste of money that would be better spent on adaptation.

For example, in-floor heating is far superior, cleaner than the forced air type, and easily powered by solar shingles.

Not in Canada where the sun only shines for 6 hours in the winter time when you need the heat - at that assumes that it is not snowing or raining. Furthermore, the production of solar cells produces a lot of C02 and toxic waste and the cells themselves need to be replaced every 20-30 years.

[Oleg Bach]

Electric cars are not the answer. Whether it be a battery powered motor cycle or a hybrid car, there is the problem of battery disposal. Batteries are mostly lead - and the older ones are a combination of acid and lead. Lead makes you stupid. So give it 30 years and we will not need electric cars. The population will be so damned dumified that they will walk seeing they will not have the intellectual capcity to drive a vechile. They will simply shuffle about on foot. So it all works out in the end.

[tango]

You are both referring to technologies that need improvements, and are improving at rapid rates, rates that will increase with increases in fuel costs.

Who is talking about "replacing" fossil fuels entirely? - not me - Just talking about developing other sources to supplement.

I see no need for an 'either-or' discussion, but we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels considerably.

[Oleg Bach]

You are asking the human machine to de-evolve. The car in western society is a bionic extention of the human being. To expect human beings to stop being dependent on cars is like asking snails to shed their shells.

[tango]

You are asking the human machine to de-evolve. The car in western society is a bionic extention of the human being. To expect human beings to stop being dependent on cars is like asking snails to shed their shells.

Electric cars seem most appropriate in cities, it's true, so hybrids make a lot of sense and are the choice of thoise able to make those choices.

Dependence on the car is created by the 'suburban' consumption lifestyle. If gas is too expensive for people to afford that kind of wasteful living, then people will change their way of living. simple.

It is a lifestyle choice.

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[marksman]

There was much more of a smog problem in NA in the 60's and 70's when there were alot less cars than today, how do you account for that if you think people having 1.7 cars/family is the problem?

The point was that how we measure our standard of life doesn't always take into account our actual standard of life or how our standard of life will increase or decrease the standard of life of future generations. Counting the number of cars we've got is 1 example. Saying we've got a higher standard of life because we've got more cars per family doesn't reflect the health effects of heavy car use and doesn't change the fact that many people live equally long lives and happy lives while needing only 1 car in their family.

I can partially answer your question anyway. The number of cars is only 1 factor affecting smog. The switch from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline made it possible to reliably use catalytic converters that helped remove nitrogen oxide from car exhaust. Stricter emissions standards for cars are now in place. Contributions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from other sources have been reduced.

Of some relevance to the discussion is that 1 way these emissions are being reduced is through the US air pollution trading scheme that limits sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generators. Looks like emissions trading schemes can and do work without destroying the economy.

[marksman]

You are really pedantic. The blogger was responding the demands made by the environmental activists and pointing out that trying to satisfy these demands would have some pretty serious consequences. The fact that most governments are doing whatever they can to sound like they are doing something when they really do nothing has no bering on the relevance of the example.

Here's what the blog said

Now suppose that we lived in an economy that forswore fossil fuels and extracted all of its energy from much more expensive sources. In that counterfactual world (only ten years in the future, if Al Gore has his way), helicopters are a rarity, small political units do not maintain flotillas of motorized boats, and the State of California would find it hard to pay for dispatching men and equipment halfway across the continent.

Is it pedantic to point out that the assumption behind the whole article isn't accurate? I think so. No one's saying get rid of fossil fuels completely and no one's saying get rid of fossil fuels completely by 2018.

Regarding Al Gore's comments Gore has said that the US should embark on a 10 year plan to eliminate fossil fuels in electricity generation much like the 10 year plan to go to the moon. Cars aren't used for electricity generation so it's unreasonable to assume that we'd have to get rid of cars to meet that goal. The technology to go to the moon didn't exist when the goal was announced and that plan was mocked but with concerted effort the goal was achieved in 8 years. Gore's calling for the same motivation and effort and if the US put those resources into the problem I'm sure they'd at least be pretty close to the goal in 10 years. Without having to leave people to die in the path of hurricanes.

So there's a big difference between what's actually being proposed and what the blogger "supposes" in his "response".

You cannot seperate the good from the bad. The economy that gives access to high tech healthcare and plenty of food also gives us consumer products such as cars and computers. The latter is necessary to generate the wealth required to pay for the former. Introducing hard limits on CO2 or even increasing the cost of energy will reduce the amount of "good" things the economy can produce. For every SUV that is taken off the road there will be a life saving drug therapy that won't get funding.

Go ahead and show how the number of cars on the road directly leads to healthcare and food.

Car use in cities could be reduced with no affect at all on healthcare or food production. There is no correlation between the number of SUVs on the road and the number of life saving drug therapies being researched.

No wonder you thought the blog was thoughtful.