Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[dre]

At the end of the day this is the real problem. There would actually be no debate if these technologies actually worked or were likely to work any time soon.

There would be the same debate NO MATTER WHAT, with the same people... the same folks that told us an FF economy wouldnt work... the same people that told us nuclear energy would never work. But many of the technologies DO work and have the potential to work... they merely need development and capital investment. Just like every other technology has needed before it was developed to the point of viability.

likely to work any time soon

"Soon" a relative term. It took us a hundred years to develop the technology and build the infrastructure for the fossil fuel age. Retooling our energy system will be the largest and most expensive project in human history, and it will take many decades. Some of the technologies we invest in today won't pan out... some of them will... and some of them will fall somewhere in between. And not only will this be the biggest project in human history, it will also be the biggest economic opportunity and will create tens or even hundreds of millions of jobs over the next 100 years.

The "big picture" goes way beyond AGW, and it doesnt even matter if AGW is real or not... its been an extremely important factor in changing the way people think about energy, and has resulted in an exponential increase in energy tech R&D both both new and existing technologies. Its lead to literally thousands of new products, and improvements to existing products. Everything from low emissions coal and gas plants, to more efficient vehicles and engines, to more efficient household appliances. Not to mention it has revolutionalized the electric motor and battery industries, which have seen a spike in investment since we started getting serious about phasing out the internal combustion engine.

As I said... theres been defeatists saying "we cant do it!, its too hard!, it will never work!" at virtually every major epoch in human history. But history shows the best they can do is slow progress down. Eventually they are dragged kicking and screaming into the future and get to enjoy the benefits of progress just like everyone else.

Dont worry... in a couple of decades when youre able to purchase electricity for a few pennies per KHW generated by one the technologies you opposed and claimed would never work, we wont hold it against you.

[TimG]

There would be the same debate NO MATTER WHAT, with the same people... the same folks that told us an FF economy wouldnt work... the same people that told us nuclear energy would never work.

Wrong. I have no doubt that working versions these technologies will eventually be found. The problem is the phoney sense of urgency created by the CO2 obession and the tendency to throw money at stuff that creates good headlines but accomplishes nothing useful.

To put things in perpective: spending billions trying to get a nuclear reactor to work was a worthwhile effort. Passing a law in 1960 that required that by 1970 20% of electricity produced in the nation come from nuclear would be stupid beyond comprehension. Yet this is what politicians are talking about doing today. As I have said before: get rid of phoney targets for CO2 reductions or renewable energy and I would have little to complain about.

[waldo]

As I said... theres been defeatists saying "we cant do it!, its too hard!, it will never work!" at virtually every major epoch in human history. But history shows the best they can do is slow progress down. Eventually they are dragged kicking and screaming into the future and get to enjoy the benefits of progress just like everyone else.

of course, their delaying tactics are quite transparent... we see case examples played out repeatedly, even in this thread. You'll see a backhanded acceptance and acknowledgment of the warming they can no longer refute coupled with an outright denial of the science that supports AGW... while at the same time offering nothing - nothing - to alternatively account for the warming.

you'll see token acceptance of the need for R&D, but it's always couched in terms of it's funding must be, must be, from private/entrepreneurial sources... cause, like... such things as public/government incentive based subsidies are claimed to simply get in the way of legitimate ingenuity and innovative development. When you point out the relative lack of historical progress associated with a sole reliance on the private sector, you'll be ignored. And of course, there's absolutely no place for actually setting targets/goals (even soft ones), cause... that doesn't sit with with their delay/inaction pursuits. When you point out the existing subsidies in place behind fossil fuel consumption, they'll suggest (as TimG just did), these aren't "real subsidies"... as TimG stated, "The difficultly is advocates desperate to make their case choose to call things a subsidy when they are not".

so, in that subsidies context, I've offered up previous reference to the International Energy Association (the IEA and it's roadmap - exec summary), and made an assumption that there's broad recognition of where the IEA fits, particularly in terms of the G8/G20 formally providing the IEA with a mandate to provide energy/climate change related supporting information/analysis to help guide G8/G20 decision making.

in terms of IEA analysis concerning fossil fuel related subsidies, the latest analysis (to 2008) reveals that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to

$557 Billion for the year (the single year) 2008

...

subsidies that reduce prices of fossil fuels below levels that would prevail in an undistorted market, thus leading to higher levels of consumption than would occur in their absence

... in a survey of 37 identified countries that associate to an estimated 95% of global subsidized fossil-fuel consumption.

in keeping with the actual theme of this thread, the IEA fossil fuel subsidy related analysis reveals that:

- fossil fuel subsidy phaseout between 2011-2020 would (as compared to an unchanged subsidy rate baseline):

- reduce primary global energy demand by 5.8% by 2020.

- reduce global oil demand by 6.5 mb/d in 2020, predominately in transport sector.

- reduce CO2 emissions by 6.9% by 2020 – or 2.4 GT of CO2.

[TimG]

you'll see token acceptance of the need for R&D, but it's always couched in terms of it's funding must be, must be, from private/entrepreneurial sources

I have no problems with government funded R&D. It is funding of energy production which I oppose.

the latest analysis (to 2008) reveals that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 Billion for the year (the single year) 2008 subsidies that reduce prices of fossil fuels below levels that would prevail in an undistorted market, thus leading to higher levels of consumption than would occur in their absence

Of course you neglect to mention that almost all of these subsidies are being paid by third world governments (i.e. China, Venezuela, Egypt Iraq and Iran) which renders your argument moot since there is no way these countries are going to stop their subsidies and even if they did it would not affect the pricing of renewables in industrialized countries. In fact, the drop in oil demand that would follow the elimination of those subsidies would decrease the price of oil and make renewables even less competitive.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I have no problems with government funded R&D. It is funding of energy production which I oppose.

Then I guess you oppose every energy source on the planet to one degree or the other, renewable are the one that get the least funding.

Of course you neglect to mention that almost all of these subsidies are being paid by third world governments (i.e. China, Venezuela, Egypt Iraq and Iran) which renders your argument moot since there is no way these countries are going to stop their subsidies and even if they did it would not affect the pricing of renewables in industrialized countries. In fact, the drop in oil demand that would follow the elimination of those subsidies would decrease the price of oil and make renewables even less competitive.

Try telling that bullshit to Colorado. My link

When Colorado voters were deciding whether to require that 10 percent of the state's electricity come from renewable fuels, the state's largest utility fought the proposal, warning that any shift from coal and natural gas would be costly, uncertain and unwise.

Then a funny thing happened. The ballot initiative passed, and Xcel Energy met the requirement eight years ahead of schedule. And at the government's urging, its executives quickly agreed to double the target, to 20 percent.

8 years ahead of schedule. Eight freaking years.

[TimG]

Then I guess you oppose every energy source on the planet to one degree or the other, renewable are the one that get the least funding.

The only measure that is meaningful is subsidy/KWh. On that front renewables have rediculous subsidies.

8 years ahead of schedule. Eight freaking years.

Lets break those numbers down:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_use/total/use_tot_cocb.html&mstate=COLORADO

that 10% is divided between hydro, biomass and wind

hydro is well established as an economic source when geography co-operates.

biomass is not a scaleable source for electrical power and requires logging or some other industrial activity.

wind makes up a total of 4% at most.

Of course, colorado has hydro power which dramatically reduces the cost of wind power. As the installed wind capacity increases the ability of the grid to handle the bursts decreases and costs increase. The maximum practical is around 10%.

Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

That said, wind power can be economic when there is hydro power to match it. In Colorado's case they now have wind capacity which is greater than their hydro capacity which suggests they will not be expanding wind much more unless they can export more. I suspect that is what the utility is expecting to do when it committed to 20%. As long as they are exporting power their % renewables figures are meaningless propoganda.

So according to you because they export power 10% of their electricity coming from renewables doesn't count? uh how exactly? And that ignores that it was apparently really easy to achieve.

Obviously the company that did it doesn't consider it a bad idea.

After legislative efforts failed, proponents of renewable energy turned to the ballot that year. The initiative, Amendment 37, required the state's biggest utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Advocates found themselves facing off against Xcel, which said it feared for its bottom line.

"We ended up opposing that amendment. In retrospect, I wish we hadn't," said Frank Prager, Xcel's vice president for environmental policy. He said utility companies are inherently conservative, yet find themselves facing a transformation in an industry that, as he put it, has changed little since Thomas Edison's time.

Once Xcel executives began to come to terms with the new rules, they discovered that federal tax credits made wind power affordable, especially in relation to rising natural gas prices.

"It was good for the system," Xcel's Prager said, referring to the utility's mix of energy sources, "and it was good for the customer."

And apparently you haven't read the article or you would have noticed this.

Colorado is adding wind-power capacity at a higher rate than any other state, its hundreds of turbines delivering one gigawatt of generating power at the end of 2007. That is triple the total of 12 months earlier.

Which contradicts you saying.

which suggests they will not be expanding wind much more unless they can export more.

Of course, colorado has hydro power which dramatically reduces the cost of wind power. As the installed wind capacity increases the ability of the grid to handle the bursts decreases and costs increase. The maximum practical is around 10%.

If the maximum practical for renewables or even wind is 10% how does that explain Spain which should be running off about 30% renewables half of that being wind. One region in Spain, Navarre, uses 70 % renewables. I'm getting tired of hear this claim because it's such utter crap. Do you have any idea how many countries are aiming for more than 10% renewables? If it wasn't possible that wouldn't be happening. BTW the problems with the grid you're talking about (though you're exaggerating) is what happens when you try to work with 100 year old infrastructure, though some of the newer ones don't have any of those problems.

Edited October 6, 2010 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

So according to you because they export power 10% of their electricity coming from renewable doesn't count? uh how exactly? And that ignores that it was apparently really easy to achieve.

I got some figures wrong and changed my post. Colorado is a net importer of power.

It was 'easy' to achive because it represents a tiny fraction of the total consumption. Wind is 4% of the total.

Also the article makes it clear that the power is being subsidized. Without those subsidies electrical rates would be much higher. When power production is subsidized people are tricked into believing it is cheaper than it is.

To put things in perspective: the tax credit is 2.1 cent/KWh. This is equivalent to a 8 cents/liter subsidy for gasoline or a subsidy of $44/tonne of coal.

Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Also the article makes it clear that the power is being subsidized. Without those subsidies electrical rates would be much higher. When power production is subsidized people are tricked into believing it is cheaper than it is.

That's true of every power source. If you want to end subsidies fine but expect coal and gas prices to rise a lot more than renewables.

[TimG]

That's true of every power source. If you want to end subsidies fine but expect coal and gas prices to rise a lot more than renewables.

That is a bet I would take. End all subsidies for production of energy - fossil and renewable. Of course, gasoline taxes and royalities on fossil fuel extraction would have to eliminated too to make it a truly level playing field. I bet fossil fuel prices would drop. Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[jbg]

All of the anti-CO2 policies currently being discussed are only acceptable to people with a left-leaning political ideology. This is particularily true of the policies being pushed by the UN and the IPCC. A left leaning scientist will tend to interpret ambiguous data in a way that supports those objectives. A right leaning scientist will do the reverse.

One aspect of this is that left-leaners have very little concern for financial costs of what's being proposed; right-leaners do. It's a fact that such left-leaners as Obama and Trudeau have/had absolutely no knowledge or interest in economics.

Thus, even assuming AGW is real (it isn't) a right-leaner would balance the costs against the benefits of action.

[wyly]

One aspect of this is that left-leaners have very little concern for financial costs of what's being proposed; right-leaners do. It's a fact that such left-leaners as Obama and Trudeau have/had absolutely no knowledge or interest in economics.

Thus, even assuming AGW is real (it isn't) a right-leaner would balance the costs against the benefits of action.

One aspect of this is that right-leaner's have very little concern for the cost human life, the ecosystem and future financial cost of doing nothing as they propose; left leaner's do. It's a fact right leaner's are horrible financial managers we only look at Bush and Harper.

Thus assuming AGW is real (it is) the cost of doing nothing or delaying as right leaner's suggest will have a human, ecological and financial cost that will be unparalleled in the history of the planet.

[Michael Hardner]

One aspect of this is that right-leaner's have very little concern for the cost human life, the ecosystem and future financial cost of doing nothing as they propose; left leaner's do.

Maybe they don't like the reality of interdependence, because it undercuts the basis for their economic ideas ?

[ToadBrother]

One aspect of this is that left-leaners have very little concern for financial costs of what's being proposed; right-leaners do. It's a fact that such left-leaners as Obama and Trudeau have/had absolutely no knowledge or interest in economics.

Thus, even assuming AGW is real (it isn't) a right-leaner would balance the costs against the benefits of action.

Again, I am no left winger, and you know it. But talks of short term economic gain vs. loss are pretty meaningless when you're facing massive disruption of global agricultural production. There's a base kind of economics, beyond socialist vs. capitalist, that comes into play here, and that's what will be at play.

And frankly I am always amazed at the surety of AGW not happening. Reality doesn't give a damn about your economic models, about what you put in your car or the color of underwear. Civilizations have collapsed when they've overreached the capacity of their environment to handle them.

[wyly]

Maybe they don't like the reality of interdependence, because it undercuts the basis for their economic ideas ?

I see it in many of their arguments they have tunnel vision, they don't see the common links that run through all this...a disrupted ecosystem will make itself felt in human and financial costs they can't fathom, and when that happens all those billions they've saved will have been for nothing...

[wyly]

Again, I am no left winger, and you know it. But talks of short term economic gain vs. loss are pretty meaningless when you're facing massive disruption of global agricultural production. There's a base kind of economics, beyond socialist vs. capitalist, that comes into play here, and that's what will be at play.

And frankly I am always amazed at the surety of AGW not happening. Reality doesn't give a damn about your economic models, about what you put in your car or the color of underwear. Civilizations have collapsed when they've overreached the capacity of their environment to handle them.

which is a topic for another thread "Unlimited growth/capitalism can not continue endlessly" all resources are finite...the entire system must eventually collapse unless the environment does so first then it's irrelevant...

[jbg]

One aspect of this is that right-leaner's have very little concern for the cost human life, the ecosystem and future financial cost of doing nothing as they propose; left leaner's do. It's a fact right leaner's are horrible financial managers we only look at Bush and Harper.

Thus assuming AGW is real (it is) the cost of doing nothing or delaying as right leaner's suggest will have a human, ecological and financial cost that will be unparalleled in the history of the planet.

Good parody.

Only trouble is I'm a left-winger.

[wyly]

Good parody.

Only trouble is I'm a left-winger.

you're as left leaning as Francisco Franco...

[waldo]

so, in that subsidies context, I've offered up previous reference to the International Energy Association (the IEA and it's roadmap - exec summary), and made an assumption that there's broad recognition of where the IEA fits, particularly in terms of the G8/G20 formally providing the IEA with a mandate to provide energy/climate change related supporting information/analysis to help guide G8/G20 decision making.

in terms of IEA analysis concerning fossil fuel related subsidies, the latest analysis (to 2008) reveals that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to

$557 Billion for the year (the single year) 2008

...

subsidies that reduce prices of fossil fuels below levels that would prevail in an undistorted market, thus leading to higher levels of consumption than would occur in their absence

... in a survey of 37 identified countries that associate to an estimated 95% of global subsidized fossil-fuel consumption.

in keeping with the actual theme of this thread, the IEA fossil fuel subsidy related analysis reveals that:

- fossil fuel subsidy phaseout between 2011-2020 would (as compared to an unchanged subsidy rate baseline):

- reduce primary global energy demand by 5.8% by 2020.

- reduce global oil demand by 6.5 mb/d in 2020, predominately in transport sector.

- reduce CO2 emissions by 6.9% by 2020 – or 2.4 GT of CO2.

Of course you neglect to mention that almost all of these subsidies are being paid by third world governments (i.e. China, Venezuela, Egypt Iraq and Iran) which renders your argument moot since there is no way these countries are going to stop their subsidies and even if they did it would not affect the pricing of renewables in industrialized countries. In fact, the drop in oil demand that would follow the elimination of those subsidies would decrease the price of oil and make renewables even less competitive.

what you describe as 'my argument' was, of course, a component of the overall encompassing IEA energy subsidy analysis as offered to the G20... as reviewed by the G20... as accepted by the G20, where the G20 (in 2009/Pittsburgh) agreed to phase our fossil fuel subsidies.

"We commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption," the statement said. "As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms. This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

emphasis added

[waldo]

Thus, even assuming AGW is real (it isn't)...

making any headway on your described research and intention to advise... vis-a-vis your mindless obsession that presumes to attribute global cooling and global warming to a natural 30 year cyclical climatic event?

[waldo]

in keeping with the OP thread intent... a need for continued focused education on the effects of AGW climate change, particularly targeted towards schools. To that end, an example, as relayed on tonight's CBC National => a collaborative undertaking between the Royal Canadian Geographical Society and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, that will see an education resource package distributed to 12,000 middle and secondary schools across Canada, highlighting the implications of regional and local impacts of climate change.

a principal component of that education resource package is what's called the, 'Degrees of Change' diagram (a comprehensive illustration of expected climate impacts published for Canada)... of course, an interactive version of the map can be found on the Royal Canadian Geographical Society website - here. Certainly, it's an isolation 'Canadian only view', that must be combined with an overall curriculum that also encompasses a global perspective on the effects of climate change.

[TimG]

of course, an interactive version of the map can be found on the Royal Canadian Geographical Society website

Typical chicken little nonsense that has zero supporting evidence. There was also no attempt mention any postive consquences of GW. In fact, there is a good chance that GW will be a net benefit for Canada. It is really sad that school kids are going to exposed to such a biased piece of propoganda. Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Typical chicken little nonsense that has zero supporting evidence. There was also no attempt mention any postive consquences of GW. In fact, there is a good chance that GW will be a net benefit for Canada. It is really sad that school kids are going to exposed to such a biased piece of propoganda.

Yes like the "net benefit" Russia is getting in decreased wheat crop yields.

[betsy]

as you posed the earlier like question to me, I'll simply repeat the same answer I offered you... this time I'll be a bit more direct in targeting you as one of the purposeful denying individual miscreants.

So what if I'm a "denyer." By your tone, you think it is a grievous sin. I feel your wrath....and I quake in my boots.

Besides, you make such an ignorant assumption! I admit to climate change....but I don't believe that it is solely man-made.

an easy thread search shows exactly what you did... purposely did. You were the first to drop a rather benign reference to Gore in this thread,

What....is his name taboo? You consider it blasphemous to utter his revered name?

attributing what you characterized as a disparity between personal commitment and profile. Of course, someone took your bait and you immediately jumped into the fray.

Jumped into the fray? Surely you misunderstood. Will you go back and see how it transpired between Wily and me.

Do you consider a debate, a fray? Anyway, heated arguments are part of a mature debate....it's immature personal attacks and childish trantrums that are not. Who usually throws the first personal insults and character assasination towards fellow-posters on this thread? From what I see....they come from you....and of course, Wily.

Gore is an easy target, particularly for those on the periphery, those you can't actually argue the real issues... or the science. Along the way you also managed to be the first to politicize the thread with your raised concerns about the Opposition parties/leaders attacking Conservatives/Harper - nice touch.

Excuse me, but who made himself an easy target? Sheeskabob, another "blame-anyone-but-the-one-responsible" attitude and mentality!

As for Harper....I thought I was just correcting Wily when he blurted out his irrational fears for a PM - which I assumed he meant Harper - over his religion.

Gee, by your insensible and irrational argument....I say you are a clone to Wily as far as not understanding what you are arguing about.

It is weasel-like the way Wily and you seem to distort or translate the flow of events. That, or you got such short attention span!

as a more pointed follow-up to your questioning, I'll simply re-quote the most astute reply MLW member 'dre' offered you... one you weren't inclined to respond to:

Why do I have to respond??? What's there to respond to? That's her suggestion....her opinion. That's how she envision it.

So she say we drag those kicking and screaming into the future...Maybe I agree with her, considering we've already dragged people kicking and screaming in our everyday policies and law, what's so new about that?

All you need are powerful lobbyists these days and there ya go....everybody gets dragged kicking and screaming.

on a more personal note, you've clearly shown your hand... should you be inclined to engage in the real discussions surrounding climate change, you should expect to, in keeping with your religulous bent, 'reap what you sow'.

You got the theophobia too???

You and Wily seem to equate GW/Gore to religion/God. In keeping with your distorted reasoning, I knew I was right....like the extremist religious people that you fear, you are a GW/Gore-worshipping fanatic!

Edited October 6, 2010 by betsy

[TimG]

Yes like the "net benefit" Russia is getting in decreased wheat crop yields.

If they are in fact decreasing the suggestion that this can be linked to a 0.5 degC increase in average temps is absurd. The tendency to claim a link between pretty much anything bad and GW even when there is no rational reason to do is one of the reasons why AGW alarmism is just another religion. Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG