IPCC - Exposed!

[WIP]

Certainly not for producing energy but there is so much more that can be done with oil...petrochemicals etc.

And not only can so much be done with oil, so much is necessary to be done by oil in the modern post-WWII industrial economy. In brief, the system of global agribusiness that produces most of our food doesn't function without reliance on oil-based fertilizers. Though we don't really know how much of the shift from traditional family farms to Big Ag really improved productivity. It would be hard to go back now. Same thing with all of the crap today that's made with plastics.

Since we know that dumping stored carbon from the Earth back into the atmosphere is endangering our/ and most other complex lifeforms survival, a sensible species of animals would have already been planning ahead to the era where it is no longer cheap and ecologically viable to use carbon for energy sources, and save what's left of the oil for the essentials......but, we don't seem to be too good at long term planning....at least us moderns who thought we could use technology to control nature....looks like we've really backed ourselves into a corner that's going to be hard for us or future generations to get out of!

[Shady]

And not only can so much be done with oil, so much is necessary to be done by oil in the modern post-WWII industrial economy. In brief, the system of global agribusiness that produces most of our food doesn't function without reliance on oil-based fertilizers. Though we don't really know how much of the shift from traditional family farms to Big Ag really improved productivity. It would be hard to go back now. Same thing with all of the crap today that's made with plastics.

Since we know that dumping stored carbon from the Earth back into the atmosphere is endangering our/ and most other complex lifeforms survival, a sensible species of animals would have already been planning ahead to the era where it is no longer cheap and ecologically viable to use carbon for energy sources, and save what's left of the oil for the essentials......but, we don't seem to be too good at long term planning....at least us moderns who thought we could use technology to control nature....looks like we've really backed ourselves into a corner that's going to be hard for us or future generations to get out of!

Nonsense. Future generations will be fine. Fossil fuels won't be the primary fuel sources 20 or 30 years from now. And since the earth's temperature is only expected to rise a half a degree by 2070, we've got plenty of time to reduce carbon levels by then.

[Michael Hardner]

Nonsense. Future generations will be fine. Fossil fuels won't be the primary fuel sources 20 or 30 years from now. And since the earth's temperature is only expected to rise a half a degree by 2070, we've got plenty of time to reduce carbon levels by then.

That sounds comforting, especially coming from you... assuming you're not being sarcastic of course.

What do you think the primary fuel source will be ? Nuclear ?

[Shady]

That sounds comforting, especially coming from you... assuming you're not being sarcastic of course.

What do you think the primary fuel source will be ? Nuclear ?

Probably.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

[Michael Hardner]

Probably.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

But... but... what will we fight about then ??

[WIP]

Nonsense. Future generations will be fine. Fossil fuels won't be the primary fuel sources 20 or 30 years from now. And since the earth's temperature is only expected to rise a half a degree by 2070, we've got plenty of time to reduce carbon levels by then.

It doesn't matter! Even if they switched right now....which I don't believe is going to happen, there is a legacy of carbon to be added to the atmosphere and what's worse, future generations will have to live with it for several thousand years to come....if there's anyone alive of course.

It would make sense to err on the side of caution when it comes to the planetary systems which are still poorly understood. Instead, it's full steam ahead, and let's see what happens!

From a philosophical pov, I believe we have moral obligations to people we might effect but are separated by distance. And the same thing should apply regarding separation by time! If we use up too much of today's non-renewable resources for immediate comforts and carbonize the atmosphere further....leaving a hot, depleted world for anyone coming after us, that is a crime worse than genocide being committed by present generations.

[TimG]

It would make sense to err on the side of caution when it comes to the planetary systems which are still poorly understood. Instead, it's full steam ahead, and let's see what happens!

If you really care so much about future generations then why don't you eliminate your personal footprint by killing yourself? What? You think that is too extreme? Then we have established that there are limits to what you are willing to do for future generations. It follows that you should accept that others have their own limits and you really have no business lecturing them about these limits when you clearly have your own. Edited January 14, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

If you really care so much about future generations then why don't you eliminate your personal footprint by killing yourself? It follows that you should accept that others have their own limits and you really have no business lecturing them about these limits when you clearly have your own.

How about we kill you, Shady and a few other evidence denying, anti-environmentalists? By supporting those who impede efforts to minimize fossil fuel use, you are a significant burden to future generations. Oh, wait there are rules in place to limit the killings of others. We set limits to protect the well being of society as a whole from the desires of individuals. As you repeatedly demonstrate here, we can't simply trust that people will make the right choices to benefit the group, so we incentivize them and also sometimes ban the harmful alternatives.

Humans will largely take the easy, short, cheap or most immediately beneficial route if given the choice; even if the long term result of their actions are clearly harmful. That is why we continually update and add new limits as we learn more about the effects of our actions on our environment and health. So WIP could kill himself, or you, to help protect the well being of future generations, but it is probably better to simply regulate and limit the ability of the selfish individuals to make choices that are harmful to society.

[Shady]

How about we kill you, Shady and a few other evidence denying, anti-environmentalists? By supporting those who impede efforts to minimize fossil fuel use, you are a significant burden to future generations. Oh, wait there are rules in place to limit the killings of others. We set limits to protect the well being of society as a whole from the desires of individuals. As you repeatedly demonstrate here, we can't simply trust that people will make the right choices to benefit the group, so we incentivize them and also sometimes ban the harmful alternatives.

Humans will largely take the easy, short, cheap or most immediately beneficial route if given the choice; even if the long term result of their actions are clearly harmful. That is why we continually update and add new limits as we learn more about the effects of our actions on our environment and health. So WIP could kill himself, or you, to help protect the well being of future generations, but it is probably better to simply regulate and limit the ability of the selfish individuals to make choices that are harmful to society.

You're a significant burden on economic growth, higher wages, and energy independence. You're a significant burden on the middle class. All over energy sources that will be obsolete in a couple of decades. Several decades before the "predicted" one degree rise in the earths temperature.

[Mighty AC]

You're a significant burden on economic growth, higher wages, and energy independence. You're a significant burden on the middle class. All over energy sources that will be obsolete in a couple of decades. Several decades before the "predicted" one degree rise in the earths temperature.

Explain to me how reducing fossil fuel use hinders energy independence? Renewables create more local jobs, wealth and security than fossil fuels. Renewables are far cheaper when all costs are considered. Does the carbon and methane we've added, and continue to add, to the atmosphere just disappear when we finally stop burning coal and oil? As the planet warms does the release of frozen and trapped GHGs actually increases.

[WIP]

If you really care so much about future generations then why don't you eliminate your personal footprint by killing yourself?

Y'know, there are a lot of places you would be banned for life for making a comment like that! But, I'll just focus on how stupid and asinine it is:

FWIW, I'm in the process of giving my car to my eldest son....and taking the sales tax hit...., but mostly because the car is a luxury I can live without, since I can get to work, go places and go shopping without it. I've been practicing for the last year. If I really need a car, I will go get a rental. I don't need to keep a car in the driveway and have all of the associated costs of fueling, servicing and worst of all - insuring a vehicle. And, I'm doing most of the other common energy conservation strategies at home......but, this isn't really about me! Whether I live like Mahatma Gandhi or Kanye West, is not going have great impact on the human trajectory on Planet Earth!

This has been one of my irritations with the big environmental organizations as a whole: on global warming and related ecological issues, they have their corporate partners, and focus the bulk of their attention on personal lifestyle choices of average consumers. They don't question anymore, whether the modern day model of consumer capitalism is the root problem. The consumer advocates of the 70's, were the last to publicly call for controls on advertising and question the safety and environmental impacts of commercial and industrial practices, at a time when there was a rapid transfer to using plastics.

For a brief time, I recall laws being put in place to reduce the excessive plastic packaging of products and ending nonreturnable pop bottles. But, then it all vanished, and we have more of both and many other needless artifacts to fill up the landfills!

My general understanding of environment crises over the last year or two, is that almost nobody with access to a wide public audience is trying to assess what is/or what would be needed to deal with the problems in a realistic manner.

What? You think that is too extreme? Then we have established that there are limits to what you are willing to do for future generations. It follows that you should accept that others have their own limits and you really have no business lecturing them about these limits when you clearly have your own.

Thanks for the insight into your own personal ethics and values! Does your contempt for future generations include your children...if you have any?

[WIP]

You're a significant burden on economic growth, higher wages, and energy independence. You're a significant burden on the middle class. All over energy sources that will be obsolete in a couple of decades. Several decades before the "predicted" one degree rise in the earths temperature.

A few years back, when you used to run that butchered Phil Jones quote as your signature line, weren't you claiming that there was no proof of global warming? You....or I should say, the handful of cranks that you go to for information on global warming, were trumpeting the slowdown in atmospheric temperature increases as proof that there was no global warming, and it was just part of that regular temperature cycle etc. What say you now, that 2014 has gone down in history as the warmest ever?

It's official: 2014 was the hottest year on record - and 10 of the warmest have been since 1998

[-1=e^ipi]

Renewables create more local jobs, wealth and security than fossil fuels. Renewables are far cheaper when all costs are considered.

Oh wow! Does it also run on unicorn tears as well? *sarcasm*

In all seriousness your claims as nonsense and I request that you provide proof for these claims. Renewables are generally more expensive which means there are less economic resources to go around. But you can continue to deny reality if you want.

Edited January 15, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Mighty AC]

Oh wow! Does it also run on unicorn tears as well? *sarcasm*

In all seriousness your claims as nonsense and I request that you provide proof for these claims. Renewables are generally more expensive which means there are less economic resources to go around. But you can continue to deny reality if you want.

Cute. Coal is the largest and dirtiest source of electricity in North America. It is estimated that the external health and environmental costs of coal power are two to three times the levelized operating costs of using it. Full Cost Accounting For The Life Cycle of Coal

Let's compare 2010 Levelized Operating Costs (USD / MWh)

Conventional Coal 95.6

Advanced Nuclear 96.1

Wind (On Shore) 80.3

Solar PV 130.0

*Costs are expressed in terms of net AC power available to the grid for the installed capacity

When we account for the environmental and health costs coal power sticks the public with, that seemingly reasonable price climbs to $200-$300 per MWh. So we are actually paying through the roof to cause premature deaths, respiratory problems, contaminated fish and water bodies. Renewables are not only ethically correct but economically as well.

Edit: Fixed the link to the Full Cost Reference.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Mighty AC

[-1=e^ipi]

Okay, I went to the link, but did not see the numbers you are referring to evaluate the validity of the numbers you are referring to. I see 11 tables on that wikipedia link, but none of them have the values you are referring to. Most of them have values that are not as in favour of renewables as the ones you give, so please provide your source.

I will point out 3 things in the methodologies that would bias the costs towards renewables.

1. A discount rate of 3.5% is ridiculously low. I work with discount rates, I know economics and have seen many different values used. But 3.5% is very low and well outside of what I see most people use. A low discount rate will be biased towards renewables since renewables have relatively high initial costs and relatively low costs of power generation afterwards.

2. Transmission costs are not properly taken into account. Since renewable energy generally has to be produced in more remote areas, there will be higher losses due to longer transmission distance. As a result, the methodology is biased towards renewables.

3. Trying to extrapolate the values calculated in the wikipedia link to what would occur if global energy production to mostly renewable overestimates the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy sources because the cost effectiveness of renewable sources varies greatly depending on location. Right now, renewable energy production is primarily located in places where it is the most effective to produce that renewable energy, but if governments forced that everyone used renewable energy then renewable energy production would have to take place in locations where it is less cost-effective. You can point to the fact that wind-power works great in Denmark, or the Shetland Islands, or the Tasmanian Sea and you can point to the fact that solar energy is decent in Californian deserts or in parts of Australia, but that isn't very representative of the effectiveness of renewables in a place like Ontario.

Edited January 15, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[TimG]

3. Trying to extrapolate the values calculated in the wikipedia link to what would occur if global energy production to mostly renewable overestimates the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy sources because the cost effectiveness of renewable sources varies greatly depending on location.

Most importantly: even if accurate the numbers only describe the marginal costs of adding capacity to the existing grid without changing the nature of the grid. The costs for renewables is much much higher if the total installed capacity exceeds 10-15% of the grid because there either have to 1) fossil fuel backups with sit idle (i.e. capital must be spent on assets which are not used efficiently) or 2) storage capacity which is very expensive/reduces efficiency.

Lastly, those levelized costs arbitrarily add a 'cost of carbon' which makes coal/gas look more expensive than it actually is.

Edited January 15, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

Thanks for the insight into your own personal ethics and values! Does your contempt for future generations include your children...if you have any?

You seem to have completely missed the point. There is this important concept called a "cost-benefit analysis" which must be conducted before any action is taken. In this case, killing yourself provides a benefit to future generations but comes with a cost (you would be dead). You quite reasonably point out that the "cost" far exceeds the "benefit" and that it makes no sense.

The point which you missed is the "cost-benefit" analysis has to be done for any action that might be taken and that it is simply not enough to argue that "future generations benefit". You MUST show that the cost to people currently living is less that future benefit. In essence, you argument is complete BS because you don't even consider the costs of acting. If anyone has a problem with ethics it is use who berate people for failing to "protect future generations" with no thought to the cost of such actions.

Edited January 15, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

The Pope has just declared that climate warming is a fact and that it is being caused by man.

Slamdunk! Discussion over! God has spoken!

[-1=e^ipi]

The Pope has just declared that climate warming is a fact and that it is being caused by man.

Slamdunk! Discussion over! God has spoken!

Sarcasm???

[WIP]

You seem to have completely missed the point. There is this important concept called a "cost-benefit analysis" which must be conducted before any action is taken. In this case, killing yourself provides a benefit to future generations but comes with a cost (you would be dead). You quite reasonably point out that the "cost" far exceeds the "benefit" and that it makes no sense.

The point which you missed is the "cost-benefit" analysis has to be done for any action that might be taken and that it is simply not enough to argue that "future generations benefit". You MUST show that the cost to people currently living is less that future benefit. In essence, you argument is complete BS because you don't even consider the costs of acting. If anyone has a problem with ethics it is use who berate people for failing to "protect future generations" with no thought to the cost of such actions.

One of the greatest dangers of our time, is that there doesn't seem to be any grounding principles, so we can quickly devolve to a standard of the ends justify the means. This seems to be standard operating procedure on a whole range of issues, and on this one, obviously Planet Earth is more greatly taxed by having 7 billion people rapidly using up resources, than it was 40 years ago when half that - 3.5 billion people were on the planet. By that use of cost benefit analysis, any despot can be justified in killing half or more of Earth's surplus population. And the only judgment that will be made is on who qualifies as surplus, and who deserves to continue living.

Now that everyone from Dick Cheney on down, is a utilitarian all of a sudden, we could easily end up in an era where the privileged decide to deliberately cull the human population to save themselves....so, it's no laughing matter! The people in power and in control of the economic and political levers that run the world, have no core ethics...as they've demonstrated numerous times already. Maybe this is why they ignore and deny climate change....they already have their own solution planned and ready to go in effect when this system starts breaking down and collapsing!

[eyeball]

Renewables are generally more expensive which means there are less economic resources to go around.

Except that natural capital, the physical basis our economic resources, are still there to go around. This generally cancels out the expense of using them sustainably.

The impact of this of course is to short term profits, which probably explains why our economy generally ignores and disregards the environment...and along with it reality.

But you can continue to deny reality if you want.

Not with 7 billion of us all trying to use the planet up.

[-1=e^ipi]

One of the greatest dangers of our time, is that there doesn't seem to be any grounding principles, so we can quickly devolve to a standard of the ends justify the means. This seems to be standard operating procedure on a whole range of issues, and on this one, obviously Planet Earth is more greatly taxed by having 7 billion people rapidly using up resources, than it was 40 years ago when half that - 3.5 billion people were on the planet. By that use of cost benefit analysis, any despot can be justified in killing half or more of Earth's surplus population. And the only judgment that will be made is on who qualifies as surplus, and who deserves to continue living.

So... you are trying to circumvent to burden of proof by purposely misunderstanding Cost-Benefit Analysis?

The people in power and in control of the economic and political levers that run the world, have no core ethics...

Proof?

as they've demonstrated numerous times already.

So then you have no problem providing proof, right?

[-1=e^ipi]

This generally cancels out the expense of using them sustainably.

Proof?

The impact of this of course is to short term profits, which probably explains why our economy generally ignores and disregards the environment...and along with it reality.

Proof?

Not with 7 billion of us all trying to use the planet up.

Proof that 7 billion humans on Earth are 'trying to use the planet up'?

You have a lot of claims but no proof or strong justification for your claims.

Edited January 16, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

No, I think I'd need to see some proof you know what I'm talking about before I go to the trouble.

Hint, it'll be a philosophical proof.

[TimG]

One of the greatest dangers of our time, is that there doesn't seem to be any grounding principles, so we can quickly devolve to a standard of the ends justify the means.

There is no credible scientific basis for such a claim and given the fact that doom mongers have been incredibly wrong in the past there is no rational basis for believing them today.

A much more likely scenario is society will gradually adapt to warmer conditions over the next 100 years or so and by the year 2100 people will wonder why some people were so panicked today. It won't be any different from the way the "population bomb" doom mongers from the 70s are laughed at today.

If you disagree with my assessment then you can do whatever you want personally, but, that is your religion. You really have no business lecturing me or anyone else because we choose not to join your end of the world cult.