Cap and Trade and Yes and No

[Shady]

Except it is not happening anywhere other than your imagination.

Exactly. The demand isn't dropping for oil or natural gas. It grows every year.

[Wilber]

That's not entirely true, as many early safety designs were adopted as engineering improvements and optional equipment. For instance, Nash began offering seat belts in the late 1940's, and windshield wipers were around earlier than that without any government mandate. Safety glass design also preceded government requirements.

Automatic distance keeping and braking systems are now available without government mandated timelines.

It is true that not all these systems were invented after they were mandated. Some came from aviation, racing and other sources (still do). It is a fact that they were not made standard on all vehicles until they were mandated. EG: there was no move by industry to remove lead from gasoline even though the technology was proven, until government forced it to.

PS

The same goes for ultra low sulfur diesel and building diesel emission systems that meet the same standards as gasoline powered vehicles.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Wilber

[On Guard for Thee]

Exactly. The demand isn't dropping for oil or natural gas. It grows every year.

I assume you are talking about Canada. Or at least Harper's Canada. Yep, keep all the eggs in one fossil fuel basket, and then have a peak at Fort Mac these days to see where that will get us.

[TimG]

Every safety and emission standard we have in the vehicles we drive today came about because of government insisting on them being met on a timeline.

The only time this happens is when there is a technically and economically viable technology ready to use and all industry needs is a nudge from government. When it comes to CO2 emissions there are no universally viable solutions available and no government mandate is going to change that.

[-1=e^ipi]

You don't think reducing fossil fuel use will benefit the environment? Wow, I don't have the time to combat that kind of ignorance.

To be fair, the question of the effect of CO2 emissions on the environment is highly debatable. The CO2 fertilization effect has increased plant primary production significantly, especially in places like the Sahal and Western Australia. The increase in global temperatures, especially in polar regions, have led to longer growing seasons.

As it turns out even India is proceeding with plans to reduce emissions faster than Canada. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6278

It makes no sense to look at absolute reductions, when the population of India is far larger than the population of Canada. Also, when looking at expansion of solar power, you have to take different latitudes into account.

[On Guard for Thee]

The only time this happens is when there is a technically and economically viable technology ready to use and all industry needs is a nudge from government. When it comes to CO2 emissions there are no universally viable solutions available and no government mandate is going to change that.

And if we all had that attitude, those solutions would never be found, and we would still all be inhaling lead from our cars, etc.

[Shady]

I assume you are talking about Canada. Or at least Harper's Canada. Yep, keep all the eggs in one fossil fuel basket, and then have a peak at Fort Mac these days to see where that will get us.

No, I'm talking about global demand.

[TimG]

And if we all had that attitude, those solutions would never be found, and we would still all be inhaling lead from our cars, etc.

Nonsense. Obviously people will resist change and that is not an argument against pushing for change. However, once a proper assessment is done you can determine whether the resistance to change is based on real technical problems or simply a desire to maintain the status quo. When it comes to CO2 emissions the resistance IS based on real technical problems that are not likely to be solved any time soon. This means that regulators can pass whatever regulations they want but they will either be ignored, manipulated until they are ineffectual or simply cause the economy to crash (at which point they will be repealed). Global CO2 emissions are not going to decline any time soon. Edited May 27, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

I think most accept that CO2 is bad.

Most people also believe in an afterlife. Doesn't make it true. Also, the idea that CO2 is bad or good is too simplistic. If we had no CO2, most life on Earth would cease. The marginal effect of CO2 is good, up until a certain point, then it is bad.

I'm on board with more Canadian nuclear power as well.

Me too.

Now if only Western nations didn't have nuclear-phobia, they might be able to make some progress on this front too.

I've seen some very strong arguments using empirical evidence by economists on Judith Curry's climate blog recently that suggest that removing all this anti-nuclear phobia and all the absurd regulatory hurdles of building nuclear power plants in western countries would do more to combat climate change than a pigouvian CO2 emission tax.

[bush_cheney2004]

CO₂ is bad ? Take away all the CO₂ and see what happens....now that would be bad.

[Shady]

CO₂ is bad ? Take away all the CO₂ and see what happens....now that would be bad.

Lol! Good point. That statement about CO2 being bad is about as dumb as I've heard. It's only bad if one doesn't want plants to grow. Other than that little thing.

[On Guard for Thee]

Most people also believe in an afterlife. Doesn't make it true. Also, the idea that CO2 is bad or good is too simplistic. If we had no CO2, most life on Earth would cease. The marginal effect of CO2 is good, up until a certain point, then it is bad.

Me too.

I've seen some very strong arguments using empirical evidence by economists on Judith Curry's climate blog recently that suggest that removing all this anti-nuclear phobia and all the absurd regulatory hurdles of building nuclear power plants in western countries would do more to combat climate change than a pigouvian CO2 emission tax.

At least you see to get that CO2 (and other GHGs) i the atmosphere does have a tipping point, where it becomes ....baaaaaad.

[On Guard for Thee]

Lol! Good point. That statement about CO2 being bad is about as dumb as I've heard. It's only bad if one doesn't want plants to grow. Other than that little thing.

Talking about dumb statements. CO2 with regard to plant growth exists within what is called the closed carbon cycle. A little different than what is sequestered in the earth that we release when we dig it out and burn it. I thought they taught about photosynthesis in public school. Perhaps you missed that day.

[dre]

Talking about dumb statements. CO2 with regard to plant growth exists within what is called the closed carbon cycle. A little different than what is sequestered in the earth that we release when we dig it out and burn it. I thought they taught about photosynthesis in public school. Perhaps you missed that day.

Yeah this is a funny spin on the whole... "Humans contribute to global warming by breathing meme". Like Mr Bush asked... "Is our children learning?"

[-1=e^ipi]

At least you see to get that CO2 (and other GHGs) i the atmosphere does have a tipping point, where it becomes ....baaaaaad.

That's not a 'tipping point'. That's a point of marginal indifferent. A tipping point does not exist because runaway global warming is not possible for the next 1-2 billion years.

Talking about dumb statements. CO2 with regard to plant growth exists within what is called the closed carbon cycle.

A plant doesn't care about where CO2 comes from. CO2 is CO2. Greenhouses often have purposely elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 to enhance plant growth.

[dre]

Most people also believe in an afterlife. Doesn't make it true. Also, the idea that CO2 is bad or good is too simplistic. If we had no CO2, most life on Earth would cease. The marginal effect of CO2 is good, up until a certain point, then it is bad.

Me too.

I've seen some very strong arguments using empirical evidence by economists on Judith Curry's climate blog recently that suggest that removing all this anti-nuclear phobia and all the absurd regulatory hurdles of building nuclear power plants in western countries would do more to combat climate change than a pigouvian CO2 emission tax.

Problem is private investors wont buy plants accept in countries with natural gas. In fact its almost impossible for you to get them to buy nuclear plants period, and its not just because of environmental regulations... They are extremely expensive to build and decommision, and as an investor you just flat out make more money by building a gas plant.

A far more likely outcome, is that NG plants will bridge the gap between us and whatever comes next. Even existing plant designs produce about 1/2 the CO2 that coal does.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's not a 'tipping point'. That's a point of marginal indifferent. A tipping point does not exist because runaway global warming is not possible for the next 1-2 billion years.

A plant doesn't care about where CO2 comes from. CO2 is CO2. Greenhouses often have purposely elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 to enhance plant growth.

Yes they do. But that has no effect on increasing CO2. They only cycle the stuff.

[Shady]

Talking about dumb statements. CO2 with regard to plant growth exists within what is called the closed carbon cycle. A little different than what is sequestered in the earth that we release when we dig it out and burn it. I thought they taught about photosynthesis in public school. Perhaps you missed that day.

Perhaps you shouldn't have made such a dumb generalizing comment then.

[On Guard for Thee]

Perhaps you shouldn't have made such a dumb generalizing comment then.

Oh I think you beat me hands down on that one.

[Shady]

Oh I think you beat me hands down on that one.

Nope, you won. CO2 is bad!!

[Bonam]

I've seen some very strong arguments using empirical evidence by economists on Judith Curry's climate blog recently that suggest that removing all this anti-nuclear phobia and all the absurd regulatory hurdles of building nuclear power plants in western countries would do more to combat climate change than a pigouvian CO2 emission tax.

I'd tend to agree... except for the basic impossibility of "removing anti-nuclear phobia" in Western populations. Western populations are now inherently suspicious of anything that sounds scientific/technological/unnatural... witness the irrational fear of and lobbying against GMOs. Nuclear energy suffers from this worst of all. Heck, NASA can barely even manage to overcome anti-nuclear lobbying when it does a launch with an RTG onboard once or twice per decade.

Likely the only way to shift to greater utilization of nuclear power is to enter into electricity-purchasing agreements with other countries where nuclear is being built, as well as shifting industries that are heavy users of electricity to these locations. For example, China is building lots of new nuclear reactors, and other nations that follow China's development path are likely to follow suit.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Bonam

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't think it's impossible for the public's opinion of nuclear power to change though. Look at how public opinion has changed on gay marriage over the past decade for example.

[Wilber]

The only time this happens is when there is a technically and economically viable technology ready to use and all industry needs is a nudge from government. When it comes to CO2 emissions there are no universally viable solutions available and no government mandate is going to change that.

Except you don't need a universally viable solution to make a difference. This is not an all or nothing situation. The fuels being developed by Audi and partners are compatible with existing petroleum based fuels. If you could use a mixture containing 25% of the manufactured fuel you would be reducing vehicle produced CO2 emissions and the other nasty components of petroleum based fuels by 25%. The gasoline produced by this process also has an octane rating six points higher than the highest octane premium presently available at Canadian gas stations. It could be used to raise the rating of existing gasoline's and increase engine efficiencies by allowing things such higher compression ratios, higher boost pressures and different timing.

You seem to think that if there is no silver bullet, it isn't even worth trying.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think it's impossible for the public's opinion of nuclear power to change though. Look at how public opinion has changed on gay marriage over the past decade for example.

A lot of convincing will need to be done in the wake of Fukushima.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nope, you won. CO2 is bad!!

Hope at least you now have a handle on that photosynthesis process.