It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

[TimG]

Finally some acknowledgement in the media that the science of climate change is a secondary concern. What really matters is how we balance the risk of climate change among all of the other issues that governments have to deal with:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/rosebuds-of-consolation-in-a-warming-world/article1879305/

My own opinion is significantly reducing globally CO2 emissions is technically impossible given the need for economic development. Therefore any money spent trying to achieve CO2 reduction targets is money poured down a drain. More importantly, if money or resources are wasted on futile anti-CO2 measures it will not be available to address problems that matter more to most people.

The debate about about whether CAGW is a hoax is a distraction. For my part, even if there was compelling evidence that CAGW was really a coming catastrophe it would not change the fact that we can't do anything about it. People who think that all we need to is buy a few carbon credits are deluding themselves. The same is true for people who think that paying groteque subsidies for windmills or solar panels will make a difference. Even worse, I used to think that nuclear could make a difference but it is clear that nuclear costs are spiralling out of control and it would be impossible to built the number of nuclear facilities required to make a difference in the next 30-50 years.

The bottom line is we will be burning stuff for energy 50 years from now whether we like it or not. The only question is how much money will be wasted before politicians stop pandering to the spoiled little rich kids in environmental movement.

[waldo]

Finally some acknowledgement in the media that the science of climate change is a secondary concern.

ok, ok... noted: an op-ed rises to the level of TimG media acknowledgment!

hey now - isn't that the same Ramesh Thakur who (also) wrote:

For example, the threat of climate change is grave enough to make collective action both necessary and urgent. Global climate change poses significant risks to the planet, and all nations have an important stake in addressing this new threat. But while the responsibility for causing climate change rests largely with the rich countries, the poor people will be the hardest hit by worsening drought, weather volatility and extremes, and a rising sea level.

The responsibility for having created the problem through carbon-intensive growth and profligate consumption patterns, and therefore for the solutions, rests mainly with the rich countries who have far deeper carbon footprints and also the financial and technological muscle to undertake the necessary action. The three worst GHG emitters per capita are the United States, Canada and Australia. If the whole world adopted U.S. and Canadian levels of production, consumption and waste generation, we would need nine planets Earth to sustain them.

Who is going to pay for the costs of addressing global climate change? How will these be shared? "Sustainable development" has been subverted into sustainable consumption for the industrialized countries. Developing countries need more transition time, financing for low-carbon technology transfer and assistance with adaptation. Differential capacity between the rich and poor countries carries the risk of "drifting into a world of adaptation apartheid," in the words of Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu.

Industrial and emerging market economies need to acknowledge their common but differentiated responsibilities, accept an equivalence of burden-sharing, see that all countries take national action on climate change, and negotiate an effective regime aimed at stabilizing global levels of carbon emissions within agreed, acceptable targets

[TimG]

ok, ok... noted: an op-ed rises to the level of TimG media acknowledgment

Do have anything relevant to say? I guessing no because despite all of your hyperventilating when it comes to the science it really offers you nothing to support your 'mitigation at any cost' policy preference.

When it comes to that debate all you got are economists.

BTW - I did not say I agreed with everything in the artical - just that its focus on policy is the correct focus.

Edited January 24, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Do have anything relevant to say? I guessing no because despite all of your hyperventilating when it comes to the science it really offers you nothing to support your 'mitigation at any cost' policy preference.

When it comes to that debate all you got are economists.

do you have anything new to say? See IEA roadmap:

of course, when your TimG going in position starts with a presumption that no emission reduction is necessary, any science based mitigation strategies simply get in your way. Policy extensions to mitigation scenarios... can't be divorced from the science proper - obviously. Oh wait, that's right... in the TimG world, bureaucratic policy-wonks, completely isolated from science participation, advise, monitoring, evaluation, analysis, etc., etc., etc.... will simply measure out how countries will adapt based upon economics... just adapt. Arrrgh... adapt-R-Us... arrrgh!

Significant CO2 reductions are economically and technincally unviable at this time. If that changes I will change my opinion. But until that happens mitigation is waste of money and resources.

no - they are not. You can continue to ignore the assortment of, for example, IEA roadmap scenarios that exist (as asked for and presented to the G8/G20)... technology exists today, to begin emission reduction strategies today. You know it. Your standard go-to on missing scalable technologies has been accounted for within the IEA roadmap... you simply won't acknowledge it. You won't even entertain the concept of emission reductions... it's the TimG entrenched alignment with the fossil-fuel industry... of course, it is. TimG says just continue BAU, let emissions continue to rise, uncontrollably... arrrgh... adapt-R-Us... arrrgh!

a consistent push-back from the denier camp, one echoed across several MLW climate change related threads (including this one), is that adaptation is the only recourse in dealing with climate change effects... a laissez faire, do-nothing, 'what will be, will be' approach that presumes to discount any considerations toward viable mitigation/prevention alternative scenarios.

typically, the standard denier talking point suggests scalable technology is just not up to the task/need, and will never be - just can't be done, case closed... move along now! Of course, when you challenge the suggestion (as has been done in other MLW climate change related threads - as was done in this thread), and request specifics detailing the so-called missing technologies, particularly against projected need time lines, you're simply ignored. Details, details...

I've previously offered up other IEA documents/info in this and other MLW climate change related threads (the roadmap, subsidy particulars, etc.). In a separate MLW thread, I've previously linked to this document - an IEA 2009 analysis paper intended to identify and address gaps in 'Clean Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D).

- the analysis format follows a breakout identifying current RD&D expenditures, RD&D priorities, gaps between current RD&D spending and the IEA Roadmap's 2050 progressive climate goals and RD&D investment needs.

- areas of focus include, 1. Advanced Vehicle Technologies, 2. Bioenergy, 3. Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage, 4. Energy Efficiency In Buildings, 5. Energy Efficiency in Industry, 6. Higher Efficiency And Lower-Emissions Coal Technologies, 7. Smart Grids, 8. Solar Energy and 9. Wind Energy

this IEA paper's summary section, 'Findings and Conclusions: Assessing the Gap', with commitment from MEP & IEA member countries, addresses and challenges the inaction/delay positions of the denier camp.

Work on low-carbon energy technologies is ongoing in a number of international forums. In particular, development and deployment of low-carbon technologies is an important topic in the Major Economies Forum (MEF) and under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At the request of the G8, the International Energy Agency (IEA) is also developing roadmaps for some of the most important low-carbon energy technologies, including information on how enhanced international collaboration can help advance individual technologies toward commercialization. However, there is a growing awareness of the urgent need to turn such political statements and analytical work into concrete action.

In July 2009, the MEF countries established a collective goal to expand international technology collaboration, with a focus on multiple specific energy technology areas MEF countries called for increased global research, development and demonstration (RD&D) with a view towards doubling expenditures for low-carbon technologies by 2015.

This paper seeks to inform decision making and prioritisation of RD&D investments and other policies to accelerate low-carbon energy technologies in the MEF and IEA member countries and others by providing three primary sets of information: (1)estimated current levels of public RD&D spending for the technology areas initially targeted by the MEF; (2) future RD&D priorities for these technologies, based on the IEA roadmaps and other efforts; and (3) an assessment of the gap between current levels of technology ambition and the levels that will be needed to achieve our shared climate change goals by 2050; concluding with suggestions for next steps that can be taken to advance the technologies.

It really does not make a difference how many times you post the document it does not change the fact that huge technology barriers exist are there is no way to know when or even if these barriers will be overcome. IOW, the document simply repeats the point I have been making all along and the only problem with the document is its rediculous claim that spending X dollars in R&D will actually overcome those barriers.

I am not saying we should not try and spend the money on R&D but if are making policy decisions today we must assume that no breakthough will be found and we have to work with what we have today.

... ya, ya, it's now the second time I've posted reference to that IEA 'gaps' document; once previously in another MLW climate change related thread and now here in this thread - you were as dismissive of it then as you are now. Wow - what a surprise.

the issue is one of scalability over timeline... from what I read and understand the only real uncertainties are tied to CCS given it's relative early stages of testing today. You keep making your unsubstantiated claims and each and every time you're challenged to speak to the gaps - identify them in association with constraining timelines, you simply shift into your baseless numbspeak. In this particular IEA example reference, we're talking about RD&D over a projected 40+ year roadmap (timeline)... the gap document lays it all out from identifying current expenditures, setting priorities, detailing gaps between current spending and the IEA Roadmap's 2050 progressive climate goals and identifying investment needs. And in your absolute dismissive best, you simply say, "nope, can't be done - don't even try!". Your consistent fall-back is a mind-numbing denialist squawk - "that's not how R&D is done... you can't just throw money at something and expect results - squawk!".

just imagine the IEA hearsay! Increase investments in renewables, nuclear power and a smart electric grid... perfect technologies like CCS. Ya, the TimGs say, "that makes no sense - why would anyone want to take a most reasoned and do-able approach to stabilize the Earth's temperature... to address severe climate change impacts". "That's just silliness", TimG says, as he shifts into his pirate voiced, "arrrr! adapt-R-Us! arrrr!"

[TimG]

do you have anything new to say? See IEA roadmap:

Summary of the IEA roapmap:

"If we invest billions in technologies that do not exist we *might* find some economic and scalable non-CO2 emitting energy sources".

You can post that text a thousand times but it does not make it anything more substantial that wishful thinking on the part of bureaucrats who were told they had to come up with a 'plan'.

[dre]

Do have anything relevant to say? I guessing no because despite all of your hyperventilating when it comes to the science it really offers you nothing to support your 'mitigation at any cost' policy preference.

When it comes to that debate all you got are economists.

BTW - I did not say I agreed with everything in the artical - just that its focus on policy is the correct focus.

Do have anything relevant to say?

One might ask you the same question. All youve done in this thread is restate your well known position for the ten thousanth time, this time with some flimsy op-ed as backup.

[dre]

Summary of the IEA roapmap:

"If we invest billions in technologies that do not exist we *might* find some economic and scalable non-CO2 emitting energy sources".

You can post that text a thousand times but it does not make it anything more substantial that wishful thinking on the part of bureaucrats who were told they had to come up with a 'plan'.

[waldo]

ya ya, TimG... that darn ole IEA Roadmap example sure gets in the way of your pirate voiced, "arrrr! adapt-R-Us! arrrr!"

technologies exist today to begin concerted emission control efforts - today... the IEA roadmap outlines any technology gaps and how to resolve those gaps over the 40+ year roadmap. As I said, "You keep making your unsubstantiated claims and each and every time you're challenged to speak to the gaps - identify them in association with constraining timelines, you simply shift into your baseless numbspeak."

[TimG]

One might ask you the same question. All youve done in this thread is restate your well known position for the ten thousanth time, this time with some flimsy op-ed as backup.

But that is ultimately my point: we are dealing with nothing but opinions - opinions that depend on how much weight people put on the different risks and unknowns.

Basically the risks that need to be balanced are:

1) The probability that climate policy causing harm

2) The probability that climate change causing harm

3) The probability that climate policy will actually succeed in addressing 2)

Even if I give 1) and 2) the same probability. I put a very low probability on 3). This is partially because I view government as largely incompenent and if it succeeds in executing a long term plan it is luck rather than design.

[GostHacked]

ya ya, TimG... that darn ole IEA Roadmap example sure gets in the way of your pirate voiced, "arrrr! adapt-R-Us! arrrr!"

technologies exist today to begin concerted emission control efforts - today... the IEA roadmap outlines any technology gaps and how to resolve those gaps over the 40+ year roadmap. As I said, "You keep making your unsubstantiated claims and each and every time you're challenged to speak to the gaps - identify them in association with constraining timelines, you simply shift into your baseless numbspeak."

The technologies have existed for some time (CO2 scrubbers for example). Alternative energies (or alternative methods for capturing energy) has existed for some time as well. Solar and Wind for example.

What is the timeline we are looking at 100 years? 200 years? Or are we already too late?

Edited January 24, 2011 by GostHacked

[TimG]

the IEA roadmap outlines any technology gaps and how to resolve those gaps over the 40+ year roadmap.

Those "technology gaps" are things like "superconducting transmission lines" and other such highly speculative technologies. There is no reason to believe those gaps will ever be closed with technology that can be deployed economically on a large scale (remember: proving a technology in lab does not mean it will ever be economic - look at the failure of fuel cells for cars).

If those technology gaps can't be closed the entire roadmap is useless. Why can't you understand that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link? In this case, those technology gaps are what means the IEA report is nothing but wishful thinking.

Edited January 24, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

But that is ultimately my point: we are dealing with nothing but opinions - opinions that depend on how much weight people put on the different risks and unknowns.

Basically the risks that need to be balanced are:

1) The probability that climate policy causing harm

2) The probability that climate change causing harm

3) The probability that climate policy will actually succeed in addressing 2)

Even if I give 1) and 2) the same probability. I put a very low probability on 3). This is partially because I view government as largely incompenent and if it succeeds in executing a long term plan it is luck rather than design.

No, youre ignoring most of the important factors, and incorrectly weighting the factors you did mention.

The result of AGW has not been the economy destroy, chicken little, sky is falling event that people like you have been fear mongering about for 15 years. The biggest result has been an increase in the ammount of capital (both public and private) available for things like energy and transportation R&D. Billions have been spent on things like electric and hybrid automobile technology, developing new energy sources, and making existing energy sources cleaner and more sustainable.

Even if AGW is not based on fact, this direction is still prudent and serves a broad range of other policy objectives. The real danger to our economy comes if we DONT do these things.

Edited January 25, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

No, youre ignoring most of the important factors, and incorrectly weighting the factors you did mention.

You got nothing but your opinion.

The result of AGW has not been the economy destroy, chicken little, sky is falling event that people like you have been fear mongering about for 15 years.

Because the skeptics have been able to block most of the really damaging policies. Of course, nothing has been really done about emissions either. Which proves my point about the money being wasted.

Even if AGW is not based on fact, this direction is still prudent and serves a broad range of other policy objectives. The real danger to our economy comes if we DONT do these things.

Your strategy is hypocritical because it depends entirely on people like me opposing and blocking the most economically damaging of policies. If the CAGW folks got their way the damage to the economy would be so large that their would no money to pay for 'alternate energy research'.

[Bonam]

Your strategy is hypocritical because it depends entirely on people like me opposing and blocking the most economically damaging of policies. If the CAGW folks got their way the damage to the economy would be so large that their would no money to pay for 'alternate energy research'.

That's what our politics is based on though, how it is designed to function. Competing interests and viewpoints are represented, and each side of a given issue blocks the more extreme of the other side's proposals from ever being implemented. Yeah it would be good if everyone had a nuanced and highly informed position on climate change and the economics of climate change related policies, but second best is just to have two factions that duke it out and not let the result go to either extreme. Not always of course, sometimes the truth really is far on one side of an issue, but most often it is somewhere in between.

[dre]

You got nothing but your opinion.

Because the skeptics have been able to block most of the really damaging policies. Of course, nothing has been really done about emissions either. Which proves my point about the money being wasted.

Your strategy is hypocritical because it depends entirely on people like me opposing and blocking the most economically damaging of policies. If the CAGW folks got their way the damage to the economy would be so large that their would no money to pay for 'alternate energy research'.

Because the skeptics have been able to block most of the really damaging policies. Of course, nothing has been really done about emissions either. Which proves my point about the money being wasted.

Bullshit. Governments at the end of the day are doing whats practically and politically possible. It has nothing to do with skeptics. Which is why your sky-is-falling rhetoric is so silly.

If the CAGW folks got their way the damage to the economy would be so large that their would no money to pay for 'alternate energy research

They wont "get their way". They will advise the process but so will lots of other perspectives.

Your strategy is hypocritical because it depends entirely on people like me opposing and blocking the most economically damaging of policies.

People like you havent blocked jack shit. Youve just sat on the sidelines and whined.

[TimG]

Bullshit. Governments at the end of the day are doing whats practically and politically possible. It has nothing to do with skeptics. Which is why your sky-is-falling rhetoric is so silly.

What ridiculous statement. You say "whats practically and politically possible". Yet what is politically possible is defined by the positions being set out by skeptics. As for practicality - that is nonsense. None of the government policies on CO2 to date have had any practical effect on the stated problem. They are nothing but sops for people who want to delude themselves into believing the government is "doing something".

People like you havent blocked jack shit. Youve just sat on the sidelines and whined.

Right. Last time I checked the treaty process has stalled and Americans have elected a congress with a mandate to block anti-CO2 policies. You can't seriously argue those events were not strongly influenced by sceptics arguing that CO2 regulation is not something the government should be involved in. Edited January 25, 2011 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

....People like you havent blocked jack shit. Youve just sat on the sidelines and whined.

Wrong...the biggest "blocker" has been to simply do nothing but more of the same.

I love the smell of burning petroleum in the morning.

[WIP]

Finally some acknowledgement in the media that the science of climate change is a secondary concern. What really matters is how we balance the risk of climate change among all of the other issues that governments have to deal with:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/rosebuds-of-consolation-in-a-warming-world/article1879305/

It's a secondary concern because as usual, short term gain trumps long term needs. I read a number of summaries about the Copenhagen Summit, that concluded that by their own math, even if the nations met their targets they wouldn't come close to their stated objective of limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees celsius....but you see this as a cause to celebrate?

My own opinion is significantly reducing globally CO2 emissions is technically impossible given the need for economic development.

And, you also have your priorities backwards. How many billions are the floods now costing in Australia? Or the floods in China, Pakistan and others? We have already reached the point where extreme weather is making the costs of inaction greater than the costs of reducing carbon.

The debate about about whether CAGW is a hoax is a distraction. For my part, even if there was compelling evidence that CAGW was really a coming catastrophe it would not change the fact that we can't do anything about it.

Even from a skeptical standpoint, the longer we keep going down the same path of rising CO2 rates, rising population levels, the greater the disaster awaiting us when this joyride we're on is forced to come to an end. So, if we do nothing about it, our environment will stop writing blank cheques for us, and a total collapse will follow.

People who think that all we need to is buy a few carbon credits are deluding themselves.

And it needs to be made clear that the cap and trade strategy was not created by the environmental movement, but came to us from self-styled entrepreneurs who declared that a financial incentive was needed to go green. An honest approach would have been a carbon tax that puts a penalty on polluting and raising carbon levels. If someone was dumping their garbage on your front lawn, you would be going to court to seek compensation for damages. But, when it's the air we breathe, somehow ruining it is not added to the cost of doing business....but it should! So, go ahead, do away with carbon credits talk and start pushing for a shift to carbon taxation.

[TimG]

It's a secondary concern because as usual, short term gain trumps long term needs. I read a number of summaries about the Copenhagen Summit, that concluded that by their own math, even if the nations met their targets they wouldn't come close to their stated objective of limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees celsius....but you see this as a cause to celebrate?

Yes. Because the 2degC is a bogus number plucked out the hat that has no basis in in sceince. We really have no idea whether the effects of warming will be good bad or a mixed bag. The idea that we are current times represent the 'perfect' climate is absurd given the natural changes that have taken place over earth's history.

And, you also have your priorities backwards. How many billions are the floods now costing in Australia? Or the floods in China, Pakistan and others? We have already reached the point where extreme weather is making the costs of inaction greater than the costs of reducing carbon.

The problem is none of those weather events has anything to do with climate change. People who insist there is a connection are grossly exagerrating the state of the science in order to create political propoganda.

Even from a skeptical standpoint, the longer we keep going down the same path of rising CO2 rates, rising population levels, the greater the disaster awaiting us when this joyride we're on is forced to come to an end. So, if we do nothing about it, our environment will stop writing blank cheques for us, and a total collapse will follow.

We can't do anything about CO2 levels so we will need to adapt.

And it needs to be made clear that the cap and trade strategy was not created by the environmental movement

Cap and trade is a 'market based' solution only when all players have quotas and credits are only available to sell when those quotas are exceeded. The CO2 version of cap and trade allows players with no quotas who get credits for hypothetical emission reductions. This mean cap and trade is a playground for fraudsters and will do nothing about the stated problem. The fact that these frausters are largely in poor countries means cap and trade is a leftist wet dream because it takes money from evil rich people and gives it to the poor.

n honest approach would have been a carbon tax that puts a penalty on polluting and raising carbon levels. If someone was dumping their garbage on your front lawn, you would be going to court to seek compensation for damages.

But compensation implies you can quantify the damages. So far there is no evidence of any real economic harm caused by the CO2 portion of the recent warming. The claims of harm that have been made are purely speculative and would never stand up in a court of law.

[dre]

What ridiculous statement. You say "whats practically and politically possible". Yet what is politically possible is defined by the positions being set out by skeptics.

No it isnt. Its being defined by what the people and the government believe is economically possible. A government isnt going to destroy its economy and it cant spend infinite resources. Thats why only a fraction of what scientists have ever suggested has actually been done.

Which again underscores the hilarity of all your lamebrained rants about scientists dictating policy and economic armaggedon. Governments have to try to get re-elected in a few years and they win or lose based on the public perception of how they manage the economy. Even in countries where theres overwhelming support for action on climate change governments have still proceeded at a way slower pace than has been recommended.

[TimG]

No it isnt. Its being defined by what the people and the government believe is economically possible. A government isnt going to destroy its economy and it cant spend infinite resources. Thats why only a fraction of what scientists have ever suggested has actually been done.

In other words you agree with me that meeting the demands of the CAGW alarmists will severely damage the economy and that you are depending on governments simply ignoring most of the demands raving CAGW lunatics. Your hypocrisy is amazing.

However, I do not share your confidence in government and we have already seen one country (UK) severely undermine its economy with anti-CO2 policies. At this point the UK will face a energy crisis in 5-10 unless these policies are abandoned immediately.

More info: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1813006.ece

This is not the postapocalyptic vision of some film-maker, but a realistic scenario as Britain grapples with a looming energy crisis. The statistics are frightening. In only eight years, demand for energy could outstrip supply by 23% at peak times, according to a study by the consultant Logica CMG. The loss to the economy could be £108 billion each year.

“The idea of the lights going out is not a fantasy. People seem to accept that security of energy supply is a right. It is not. The industry will have to work hard to maintain supply and for that we need a clear framework,” said Simon Skillings, director of strategy and energy policy at Eon UK, Britain’s largest integrated energy company.

Governments have to try to get re-elected in a few years and they win or lose based on the public perception of how they manage the economy.

The real danger is here is if our energy infrastructure is gutted in order to pander to the CO2 phobes it will take decades to recover. Future governments will have their hands tied, if Canada get sucked into a binding treaty that sucks wealth from Canadians an uses to to line the pockets of UN officals and third world despots. The time to oppose this nonsense is now - not after the damage has been done.

The precautionary principal applies here: it is better to do nothing than introduce policies that are likely to cause harm.

Edited January 26, 2011 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

In other words you agree with me that meeting the demands of the CAGW alarmists will severely damage the economy and that you are depending on governments simply ignoring most of the demands raving CAGW lunatics. Your hypocrisy is amazing.

However, I do not share your confidence in government and we have already seen one country (UK) severely undermine its economy with anti-CO2 policies. At this point the UK will face a energy crisis in 5-10 unless these policies are abandoned immediately.

More info: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1813006.ece

Presumably you can read, so I shouldn't have to point out things like this:

The scale of the challenge is immense. By 2015, Britain’s generating capacity could be cut by a third as ageing coal and nuclear power stations are closed. Britain is also moving from being self-sufficient in oil and gas as North Sea production declines. In 2005, the UK became a net importer of gas. By 2010, imports could account for 40% of British gas needs; by 2020, 80% to 90%.

That's going to be the real problem, not what they are doing to curb CO2, better coal plants can be built and new nuclear can be built after the consultation process is looked into. Hell if they want they can cut out coal entirely and go Nuclear, but the lose of oil and gas production is still going to hit them.

Of course this is you, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised you left out a little detail like that North Sea oil and gas has peaked so that you can blame everything on anti-CO2 policies.

Edited January 26, 2011 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

That's going to be the real problem, not what they are doing to curb CO2, better coal plants can be built and new nuclear can be built after the consultation process is looked into. Hell if they want they can cut out coal entirely and go Nuclear, but the lose of oil and gas production is still going to hit them.

North Sea oil has NOTHING to do with the 106 billion in damages that will result from an electrical network that has been prevented from investing in useful infrastructure. I am sure you know that but you thought you could avoid acknowledging the mess that anti-CO2 policies have created in the UK by bringing up a completely unrelated issue.

[dre]

In other words you agree with me that meeting the demands of the CAGW alarmists will severely damage the economy and that you are depending on governments simply ignoring most of the demands raving CAGW lunatics. Your hypocrisy is amazing.

However, I do not share your confidence in government and we have already seen one country (UK) severely undermine its economy with anti-CO2 policies. At this point the UK will face a energy crisis in 5-10 unless these policies are abandoned immediately.

More info: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1813006.ece

The real danger is here is if our energy infrastructure is gutted in order to pander to the CO2 phobes it will take decades to recover. Future governments will have their hands tied, if Canada get sucked into a binding treaty that sucks wealth from Canadians an uses to to line the pockets of UN officals and third world despots. The time to oppose this nonsense is now - not after the damage has been done.

The precautionary principal applies here: it is better to do nothing than introduce policies that are likely to cause harm.

In other words you agree with me that meeting the demands of the CAGW alarmists will severely damage the economy

Well theres been different goals and policies talked about at diferent times, but yes... many of the goals and proposals Iv seen were not realistic. Especially considering the west is flat broke. But I think the people demanding action know that too... its just how the game is played. You shoot for as much as you can get knowing youll get a fair bit less.

depending on governments simply ignoring most of the demands raving CAGW lunatics

Im depending on government to balance environmental concerns with economic concerns and other concerns.

CAGW lunatics

Having fun in grade 2 today?

Canada get sucked into a binding treaty that sucks wealth from Canadians an uses to to line the pockets of UN officals and third world despots.

Sounds like a plot for a great movie, but governments wont have their hands tied by any international treaties any more than their hands were tied by Kyoto. These are voluntary treaties that basically run on the honor system. We didnt do most of the shit we agreed to do under Kyoto. Wheres the UN enforcement goons? (besides in the hollywood movie script youre working on).

Think of these things as Global AA meetings. You show up, join a group and set a bunch of goals, make promises to each other to not drink, then try to keep them. But nobody comes to your house to beat you up if fall off the wagon.

Edited January 26, 2011 by dre

[dre]

North Sea oil has NOTHING to do with the 106 billion in damages that will result from an electrical network that has been prevented from investing in useful infrastructure. I am sure you know that but you thought you could avoid acknowledging the mess that anti-CO2 policies have created in the UK by bringing up a completely unrelated issue.

You completely misrepresented that article. Britain needs to invest in its energy structure because aging nuclear and coal plants are scheduled to come offline over the next few years. This has fuck all to do with AGW policy besides the fact it will shape what they invest in to offset those generation losses. It sounds like the emissions regulations have created a bias towards nuclear energy away from coal. Probably not a bad idea. And the other major factor is that a bunch of energy projects have been scuttled for environmental reasons by local authorities... this has nothing to do with AGW either. They need to get to work and build some plants.

Pretty dishonest.