Copenhagen and Canada - it'll Devastate us

[eyeball]

you state "consumption"... your linked to reference is "production". The Danes export a significant amount of the electricity they produce.....

in any case, a second source to corroborate the G&M article touting Danish energy efficiency:

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/rsefp.nsf/Conten...ExpandSection=1

The main argument we always seem to hear is that switching to renewables will devastate the economy of any country that attempts it. I'm still waiting for any examples of countries that have sustained better economic growth rates because they deliberately stuck with conventional energy sources.

Tap tap tap....

[Riverwind]

you state "consumption"... your linked to reference is "production". The Danes export a significant amount of the electricity they produce.....

They also import alot.

The table I was looking is on Page 20 and is labelled "Final Electricity Consumption". That clearly indicates that Danish electricity consumption rose by 55%.

If you look at Page 18 you will find a table called "Final Energy Consumption". It shows the increase of 7.4% over the time yet almost all types of energy consumption increased except for coal and oil - most likely because Denmark shut down most of its coal fired electricity plants.

However, these tables appear to double count consumption depending on how electricity is produced. i.e. they count coal once if it is burned to produce electricity and then count the same energy again when it is used as electricity. This means a change of the mix of energy production would make inflate the consumption in the past and make it look like consumption has risen more slowly that it actually has.

This table also indicates that there was a huge drop in oil consumption in the 1980s which was likley due to a switch away from oil for home heating. This was a one time event and it means that the Danish experience cannot be replicated in countries which are already using more efficent fuels for home heating.

[Pliny]

I have no doubt at least some or even most of the scientists that are skeptical are sincere but again compared to the sheer numbers of scientists who are not skeptical...what am I supposed to do?

All that is expected of you is to keep supporting them to help them get their grants approved!!

Assuming anthropogenic climate change were true, why are the solutions more about political wealth redistribution schemes and not real and substantive technological change only. Political solutions are simply about politics, money and power. Environmentalism is the new socialist juggernaut.

Eyeball, you complain about government being in your face as a small businessman and in bed with corporate interests. Jonah Goldberg states in his book "Liberal Fascism" it is easier for government to hitch up and control a couple of oxen than a thousand cats like yourself; meaning small business will be legislated out of existence whenever it can be. Big Corporations welcome regulatory agencies as it helps them get rid of competition. You know from experience that the big corporations can absorb the costs of regulation better than yourself, the small businessman. Corporations basically write the laws they want applied to their industry through lobbying government and the laws favour them by making it too costly for the small competitor.

[Pliny]

The main argument we always seem to hear is that switching to renewables will devastate the economy of any country that attempts it. I'm still waiting for any examples of countries that have sustained better economic growth rates because they deliberately stuck with conventional energy sources.

Tap tap tap....

Uhhhh...China seems to be the perfect example.

[waldo]

If you look at Page 18 you will find a table called "Final Energy Consumption". It shows the increase of 7.4% over the time yet almost all types of energy consumption increased except for coal and oil - most likely because Denmark shut down most of its coal fired electricity plants.

However, these tables appear to double count consumption depending on how electricity is produced. i.e. they count coal once if it is burned to produce electricity and then count the same energy again when it is used as electricity. This means a change of the mix of energy production would make inflate the consumption in the past and make it look like consumption has risen more slowly that it actually has.

by introducing electricity consumption, you suggested that the original G&M articles claim that the “Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980”… was a false claim… predicated on your statement/claim that a reduction in overall energy consumption was “extremely unlikely”.

I have already given you stats from the Danish government that show electricity consumption has gone up 55% and I think it is extremely unlikely that other types of energy consumption have gone down 48% to compensate.

when eyeball offered an additional confirmation of the G&M article, you negated it suggesting your “hard data” (from the Danish government) couldn’t be countered by a verbal affirmation from a representative of that same Danish government (the stated Environment Minister).

That that is rich. I gave you hard data from the Danish government that showed that electricity consumption went up 55%. Given that data any rational person would agree that the claim quite implausible. To your credit, when I pointed that out you did make an effort to find out the source of the data but all you got was a claim "it must be right because a Danish politician told me it was right".

I don't know about you but I generally do not make a habit of using politicians as a source of reliable statistical data.

I offered an additional linked confirmation to corroborate the original G&M article:

in any case, a second source to corroborate the G&M article touting Danish energy efficiency:

As a result of the measures designed to make the economy more energy efficient, Denmark’s energy intensity per unit of GDP in 2007 was 40% less than in 1980. During this time, total energy consumption had increased by just 7.4%, while the Danish economy had grown by 78%.

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/rsefp.nsf/Conten...ExpandSection=1

you’ve now referenced your own linked to document’s data… the Danish government data… and confirmed, with an unfounded qualification, the “7.4%” total energy consumption increase over and above the 1980 usage.

one might suggest you’re simply quibbling over nothing – or a “relative nothing”. An overall energy consumption increase (from 1980) of only 7.4%... is almost a nominal increase… in the face of the stated dramatic Danish economy growth increase and the stated most significant reduced energy intensity per unit of GDP. One might suggest it confirms the original G&M articles claim that the “Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980”. The claim you labeled as false.

are you quibbling over nothing… over a nominal overall energy consumption increase… in an attempt to downplay the success Denmark has realized in positioning itself as the most energy efficient country in Europe with significant results in reducing CO2 emissions… results that haven’t negatively impacted the overall strong Denmark economy?

[Riverwind]

by introducing electricity consumption, you suggested that the original G&M articles claim that the “Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980”… was a false claim… predicated on your statement/claim that a reduction in overall energy consumption was “extremely unlikely”.

First, once the source was identified it was possible to determine that the claim that 'energy consumption has stayed the same' is, in fact, FALSE. It went up 7.8% - that is in increase no matter how you want to spin it. Especially when you consider that the Danish population has not increased during that time.

Second, the claim the energy intensity decreased by 40% the same is misleading because the same is true for ALL economies as they naturally learn to make more efficient use of energy. This means that the statistic is itself tells us nothing about the effect of Danish policies.

In fact, I just found this interesting chart of energy intensity per unit of GDP:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/...onsumption.html

From the chart:

Selected Countries and Years, 1980-2006 (Btu per (2000) U.S. Dollars Using Purchasing Power Parities) for the International Energy Annual 2006

Pecentage reduction in energy intensity 1984 to 2006 (larger numbers are better).

Canada: 30%

US: 42%

Denmark: 40%

Japan: 17%

China: 63%

It appears that both China and the US did a better job of reducing 'energy intensity' over the last 30 years but you would not know that from the G&M article - deceptive to the point of lying.

This kind of BS is why I became a skeptic. It seems like whenever I actually take the time to investigate the data behind AGW claims I find that the data does not actually support the claims.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Good grief, the deceptions get worse:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/...onsumption.html

From the chart:

Per Capita (Per Person) Total Primary Energy Consumption (Million Btu per Person)

Canada: +8.3%

US: -3.2%

Denmark: -4.2%

China: +219%

Japan: +33%

Yes - it does appear that Denmark has done better than the others but the fact that the US did almost as well even though it had no special policy on energy consumption suggests that Denmark's policy decisions had only a small effect on the outcome.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[noahbody]

The desire of oil companies and related or associated vested interests to deny this is of course completely understandable and predictable.

It's completely understandable and predictable that you would want to attribute any controversial claim made by those who don't believe in AGW as voices from oil companies. You're echoing the voice of your church. "Don't believe them, the Devil is behind them."

In the past week, something remarkable happened. Someone from the church came out and admitted it's getting colder. What does that tell you? Those voices you were supposed to dismiss were right. How can that be? Aren't they all funded by evil?

100% of scientists should agree that the models didn't predict this, because they didn't. What does that say to you about the models' reliability? Do you still have faith in them? Remarkably, we know the devil isn't behind this statement because he says that global warming should resume in the future though it might take 15 or 20 years. This is based purely on faith and hope. No model will tell you when Jesus is going to return. it's been over 2000 years, but he's coming.

[eyeball]

Eyeball, you complain about government being in your face as a small businessman and in bed with corporate interests. Jonah Goldberg states in his book "Liberal Fascism" it is easier for government to hitch up and control a couple of oxen than a thousand cats like yourself; meaning small business will be legislated out of existence whenever it can be. Big Corporations welcome regulatory agencies as it helps them get rid of competition. You know from experience that the big corporations can absorb the costs of regulation better than yourself, the small businessman. Corporations basically write the laws they want applied to their industry through lobbying government and the laws favour them by making it too costly for the small competitor.

There are solutions to the lack of official transpareny and accountability but they're also dismissed as being impractical or damaging to the economy usually by the same sorts of people who are most skeptical of things like AGW, and almost always by people who can't help but pepper their views with perjoritives like "Liberal".

[eyeball]

Uhhhh...China seems to be the perfect example.

A perfect example eh, did you remember to subtract the cost of environmental degradation before holding them up as such?

You know perfectly well you didn't. Do you honestly believe you can sustain a human economy without natural ecosystems or the natural capital they provide? Do you honestly believe you can create capital out of nothing?

[eyeball]

It's completely understandable and predictable that you would want to attribute any controversial claim made by those who don't believe in AGW as voices from oil companies. You're echoing the voice of your church. "Don't believe them, the Devil is behind them."

In the past week, something remarkable happened. Someone from the church came out and admitted it's getting colder. What does that tell you? Those voices you were supposed to dismiss were right. How can that be? Aren't they all funded by evil?

Church, Beelzebub, evil, Jesus? I'm an atheist so I'm afraid these terms don't contribute much to the debate for me.

100% of scientists should agree that the models didn't predict this, because they didn't. What does that say to you about the models' reliability? Do you still have faith in them? Remarkably, we know the devil isn't behind this statement because he says that global warming should resume in the future though it might take 15 or 20 years. This is based purely on faith and hope. No model will tell you when Jesus is going to return. it's been over 2000 years, but he's coming.

It suggests to me that one of the core predictions of AGW theory, that we could expect more unpredictable swings in our climate, was correct. AGW should really have been called AGE - E meaning energy. The heat or energy is what's driving our climate and the more energy there is in the mechanisms pushing it around the more it'll swing, which ever way it goes. That CO2 traps energy is not in dispute, just the amount and by how much and of course the implications.

It also says that the scientists who have suggested that AGW could trigger an ice age could be correct.

In any case, dumping more carbon into the atmosphere without a care in the world seems like the very antithesis of the very sort of precaution I would normally expect from the conservative thinkers that are rumored to dominate the wealthier end of the economic spectrum. The same conservatism that apparently regards it as a matter of faith that it alone is the primary reason our economy is so successful. Dream on.

Edited October 14, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

In any case, dumping more carbon into the atmosphere without a care in the world seems like the very antithesis of the very sort of precaution I would normally expect from the conservative thinkers that are rumored to dominate the wealthier end of the economic spectrum.

No one is going to spend 100K/year on an insurance policy for their home because it might burn down. You can rant as much as you want about the hypothetical risks of CO2 but if the cost of doing something is too high then it becomes irrational to 'do something' for the sake of 'doing something'.

[eyeball]

No one is going to spend 100K/year on an insurance policy for their home because it might burn down. You can rant as much as you want about the hypothetical risks of CO2 but if the cost of doing something is too high then it becomes irrational to 'do something' for the sake of 'doing something'.

Don't worry no one is going to do anything at all.

...ribbet...croak...

[waldo]

Good grief, the deceptions get worse:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/...onsumption.html

From the chart:

Per Capita (Per Person) Total Primary Energy Consumption (Million Btu per Person)

Canada: +8.3%

US: -3.2%

Denmark: -4.2%

China: +219%

Japan: +33%

Yes - it does appear that Denmark has done better than the others but the fact that the US did almost as well even though it had no special policy on energy consumption suggests that Denmark's policy decisions had only a small effect on the outcome.

(bold highlight added to above)

I believe your U.S. reduction number is too high (-3.2 versus -2.4)... suggesting the Danes, with policy, are approaching a 60% betterment over the U.S., without policy (as you suggest). However, the somewhat 'static' U.S. number over the period is attributed to efficiencies, reduced industry usage... and... now we're getting there... to an offloading to other countries where the energy required to produce the obvious increase in US consumption of manufactured equipment, cars, and other goods has been shifted to other countries that produce and transport those goods to the US. Effectively, a corresponding shift of green house gases and pollution from the U.S. to actual manufacturing countries. Hey now - that's a U.S. policy... isn't it?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Effectively, a corresponding shift of green house gases and pollution from the U.S. to actual manufacturing countries. Hey now - that's a U.S. policy... isn't it?

Yes, but even by that cynical measure, the US has done far better than Canada.

[Riverwind]

I believe your U.S. reduction number is too high (-3.2 versus -2.4)... suggesting the Danes, with policy, are approaching a 60% betterment over the U.S., without policy (as you suggest).

Calculating percentage differences of quantity relative to an arbitrary baseline is a meaningless exercise. For example, the statement that 2 degC is 100% hotter than 1 degC is true but meaningless. What we care about are the absolute differences and it is not possible to argue that a 2% difference is significant in a set of values which range from -200% to +200%.

However, the somewhat 'static' U.S. number over the period is attributed to efficiencies, reduced industry usage... and... now we're getting there... to an offloading to other countries where the energy required to produce the obvious increase in US consumption of manufactured equipment, cars, and other goods has been shifted to other countries that produce and transport those goods to the US. Effectively, a corresponding shift of green house gases and pollution from the U.S. to actual manufacturing countries.

In the case of Denmark its performance can be traced back to the switch away from oil based heating in the 80s - a switch that was driven by economics and not by an government policy. Factor that out by starting the 1992 and Denmark's per capita energy consumption increased a whopping 15.5% but the US consumption was flat at 0%. Even Canada had a smaller increase (6.5%) over the 1992-2008 period which makes it painfully obvious that Denmark's recent policies had nothing to do with the small difference between the US and Danish numbers over the full 1981-2006 period. Edited October 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Argus]

I have no doubt at least some or even most of the scientists that are skeptical are sincere but again compared to the sheer numbers of scientists who are not skeptical...

I'm reminded of an article in one of today's papers regarding the usefulness of business analysts. The point was made, with regard to the fact that they all tend to flock together, the herd who bleats in sympathy. Virtually none saw the big banking crisis coming. Virtually none ever give hugely contrary advise to what the consensus is, even when the consensus emerges as having been completely wrong. In any event, the point made was that those who stuck their necks out tended to have them chopped off. Those who simply parotted whatever was the general consensus tended to have long, profitable, and stress-free careers.

I think it is pretty much the same in terms of academic sciences. The derission, suspicion, and even contempt heaped upon those scientists who dare to oppose the consensus on this issue means very few are willing to stick their necks out to do so.

[Argus]

Yes, but even by that cynical measure, the US has done far better than Canada.

Let's not forget that one of the primary reasons is all that energy - oil, natural gas, electricity, produced in Canada and not in the United States, but shipped to the United States.

[Argus]

so nice it printed twice

Edited October 14, 2009 by Argus

[noahbody]

It suggests to me that one of the core predictions of AGW theory, that we could expect more unpredictable swings in our climate, was correct.

So you're arguing the models are correct because it is impossible to accurately predict climate? LOL.

[Riverwind]

It suggests to me that one of the core predictions of AGW theory, that we could expect more unpredictable swings in our climate, was correct.

One of the reasons why intelligent design is dismissed as psuedo-scientific clap trap is because it is impossible to falsify - i.e. no matter what evidence is uncovered it can always be explained away as the doing of the mysterious creator. That makes it useless as a scientific theory.

What you are saying is AGW is just like intelligent design since any possible climate outcome is "predicted" by the theory and that, like intellegent design, AGW is a useless scientific theory that should not be used to set government policy.

[eyeball]

So you're arguing the models are correct because it is impossible to accurately predict climate? LOL.

No, I don't understand anywhere near enough about them to argue anything like that that. That's why I suggested that one of the earliest AGW predictions I recall hearing from theorists, that we could expect unexpected swings in our climate was correct.

[eyeball]

One of the reasons why intelligent design is dismissed as psuedo-scientific clap trap is because it is impossible to falsify - i.e. no matter what evidence is uncovered it can always be explained away as the doing of the mysterious creator. That makes it useless as a scientific theory.

What you are saying is AGW is just like intelligent design since any possible climate outcome is "predicted" by the theory and that, like intellegent design, AGW is a useless scientific theory that should not be used to set government policy.

All I'm saying is that we are in uncharted waters. If I was driving a boat into uncharted waters I can easily predict a disaster might happen. You on the other hand would appear we should wait until we hit a rock to concur.

[eyeball]

I'm reminded of an article in one of today's papers regarding the usefulness of business analysts. The point was made, with regard to the fact that they all tend to flock together, the herd who bleats in sympathy. Virtually none saw the big banking crisis coming. Virtually none ever give hugely contrary advise to what the consensus is, even when the consensus emerges as having been completely wrong. In any event, the point made was that those who stuck their necks out tended to have them chopped off. Those who simply parotted whatever was the general consensus tended to have long, profitable, and stress-free careers.

I think it is pretty much the same in terms of academic sciences. The derission, suspicion, and even contempt heaped upon those scientists who dare to oppose the consensus on this issue means very few are willing to stick their necks out to do so.

I've pointed out before how much skepticism it seems is required to make people question conventional economic theories and practice things differently. Compare that to how much a little bit of AGW skepticism has managed to derail attempts to do anything about it.

[Oleg Bach]

I would imagine that eternity and the endlessness of time and space are a pretty powerful thing - I would also imagine that this thing would have some form of intelligence...I would also assume that there was intelligent design involved in some form...For us pitiful human beings sitting on this dust particle with a pound of grey matter lodged in our sculls to have the arrogance to thwart the universe as being stupid is a tad absurd.