David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[-1=e^ipi]

Oil used to be $2 a barrel but that price never included the cost of pollution because that's an "externality". What's your point?

You are moving goal posts here. You start by claiming that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels so we should switch to renewables anyway. Then in cases where renewables are not cheaper it's 'oh but that's not including the externality'.

There are 3 possibilities (obviously this is an oversimplification but at least things will be consistent):

1. fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables even after the externality is taken into account.

2. fossil fuels are more expensive than renewables when the externality is taken into account but cheaper when the externality is not taken into account.

3. fossil fuels are more expensive than renewables even without the externality.

Pick one and stop convoluting 2 and 3 by moving goal posts.

[ReeferMadness]

You are moving goal posts here. You start by claiming that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels so we should switch to renewables anyway. Then in cases where renewables are not cheaper it's 'oh but that's not including the externality'.

There are 3 possibilities (obviously this is an oversimplification but at least things will be consistent):

1. fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables even after the externality is taken into account.

2. fossil fuels are more expensive than renewables when the externality is taken into account but cheaper when the externality is not taken into account.

3. fossil fuels are more expensive than renewables even without the externality.

Pick one and stop convoluting 2 and 3 by moving goal posts.

You keep trying to quantify everything but you can't. There isn't enough information. And even if you could, then what? What's the cost of an x% probability of the collapse of civilization?

When I post costs, it's not to do some cost benefit analysis on moving to renewables. There isn't one set of numbers - the cost of energy varies according to the circumstances that it's produced. People around here repeatedly (and without any evidence) claim that moving to renewables will mean we have to take a huge cut in standard of living. It isn't true.

[-1=e^ipi]

You keep trying to quantify everything but you can't. There isn't enough information.

Well not with that attitude!

And even if you could, then what?

Then advocate the implementation of optimal policy.

What's the cost of an x% probability of the collapse of civilization?

Define collapse of civilization.

As long as you can quantify different outcomes and associate a probability distribution to the various outcomes, you can determine the set of policies that maximizes expected social welfare.

There isn't one set of numbers - the cost of energy varies according to the circumstances that it's produced.

Indeed that is the case. But that doesn't mean you can't try to model what will occur under different policy regimes.

People around here repeatedly (and without any evidence) claim that moving to renewables will mean we have to take a huge cut in standard of living. It isn't true.

Some people claim we do, you claim we won't. Personally I find the quantification of the size of the cost of renewables as 'huge' to be quite vague and ambiguous.

Ultimately, disagreements as to the size of the cost can be resolved using empirical evidence provided that both parties are not dogmatic in their beliefs (although I suspect many are).

[TimG]

And even if you could, then what? What's the cost of an x% probability of the collapse of civilization?

There are many catastrophic risks we just have to live with because the cost of preventing them is simply too high. A CME event or dinosaur killing meteor are two examples. The fact that a catastrophic risk exists is not an argument in favour of spending any sum of money on gestures that may not make any difference.

People around here repeatedly (and without any evidence) claim that moving to renewables will mean we have to take a huge cut in standard of living. It isn't true.

That is a belief without evidence. If you want to understand the impact of energy prices on the economy look at what people were saying when $200 oil was not an outlandish suggestion: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/whatever-happened-to-200-oil/article4204162/

By the time oil reached $147 a barrel, the economic drag was more than sufficient to trigger a chain reaction of events—including spurring higher interest rates which pricked the U.S. sub-prime mortgage bubble—that ushered in the deepest global recession of the post-war era.

To me it is obvious that artificially increasing energy prices to levels necessary to force a switch to renewables will likely produce a recession and a drop in standard of living because that is what the actual data tells us happens when oil prices spike. What data do you have to show that society could tolerate the cost of renewables without sacrifice? Edited October 1, 2015 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Then advocate the implementation of optimal policy.

As long as you can quantify different outcomes and associate a probability distribution to the various outcomes, you can determine the set of policies that maximizes expected social welfare.

Personally I find the quantification of the size of the cost of renewables as 'huge' to be quite vague and ambiguous.

Optimal policy? Maximize expected social welfare? Vague and ambiguous?

Do you think this is something that you can just plug into one of your physics formulae and come up with the perfect answer? It doesn't work like that.

All of the available evidence says that we can live without fossil fuels. But you and others won't accept it. So believe what you will.

Define collapse of civilization.

If things get really bad, to the point where there is large scale starvation, wars are going to break out. Imagine what will happen if nuclear armed states start fighting over limited water.

Oh, yeah, and plug that into your optimal calculation too.

[ReeferMadness]

There are many catastrophic risks we just have to live with because the cost of preventing them is simply too high. A CME event or dinosaur killing meteor are two examples. The fact that a catastrophic risk exists is not an argument in favour of spending any sum of money on gestures that may not make any difference.

That is a belief without evidence. If you want to understand the impact of energy prices on the economy look at what people were saying when $200 oil was not an outlandish suggestion: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/whatever-happened-to-200-oil/article4204162/

To me it is obvious that artificially increasing energy prices to levels necessary to force a switch to renewables will likely produce a recession and a drop in standard of living because that is what the actual data tells us happens when oil prices spike. What data do you have to show that society could tolerate the cost of renewables without sacrifice?

I'm done responding to you. You don't pay any attention to information, your arguments make no sense and you have a vested interest in the status quo.

[Ask Your Mother]

I am not a JT loyalist but Suzuki is known to have a big head in academic circles

[TimG]

I'm done responding to you. You don't pay any attention to information, your arguments make no sense and you have a vested interest in the status quo.

Gawd you are a piece of work.

First, my arguments make a lot of sense to anyone who is not a desperate ideologue. Second, the idea that I have a vested interest in the status quo is a pure fiction you created because you want an excuse to dismiss arguments you can't answer. Lastly, I gave you a link and a rational argument to support my argument that increasing the cost of fuels will put our standard of living at risk. You can ignore if you like but it does not make it any less valid.

Edited October 1, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

Imagine what will happen if nuclear armed states start fighting over limited water.

Well, one positive effect from global warming will be an increase in available water so if this is a real risk global warming will help reduce it.

[-1=e^ipi]

Optimal policy? Maximize expected social welfare? Vague and ambiguous?

It's not ambiguous. If you don't understand what a social welfare function is you can always use a search engine to look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_function

More specifically one can restrict the set of possible social welfare functions based on certain axioms that I think most people would accept. The separability axiom and the anonymity principle reduce the problem of finding a social welfare function to the problem of finding the mean utility function for an individual in society.

Next you generally want to consider utility as a function of only the parameters relevant/necessary to the analysis (in this case, utility solely as a function of consumption is probably sufficient, although for other applications more parameters may be necessary). Next, we know from expected utility theory that it is possible to attain a unique utility function up to positive affine transformation by looking at risk averse behaviour (and you only need the utility function up to positive affine transformation for the sake of maximizing the social welfare function); so it's possible to get the utility function from empirical evidence.

However, given that data available isn't infinite and has error associated with it, one cannot determine the functional form of the utility function from empirical data alone. In which case, you need Occam's razor to justify that you should go with the simplest functional form that is relatively consistent with empirical observations. I would argue that a constant relative risk aversion utility function (CRRA) is relatively consistent with empirical observations. This reduces the problem of determining the utility function to determining the coefficient of relative risk aversion, which can be measured empirically. Not only that, but there are many methods to measure the coefficient of relative risk aversion in humans other than looking at risk averse behaviour, such as looking at market price elasticities, looking at country taxation policy, looking at results of happiness surveys, looking at estimates of the statistical value of life, and comparing economic growth rate with market interest rates between countries and using something called Ramsey's equation.

A coefficient of relative risk aversion of 0 corresponds to 0 risk aversion and a coefficient of infinity corresponds to infinite risk aversion. Only values of the coefficient of relative risk aversion between 0.5 and 2 are consistent with empirical observations. I especially find Raj Chetty's recent meta study fairly compelling in which he finds that the best estimate of the coefficient of relative risk aversion to be very close to 1. This corresponds utility being a logarithmic function of consumption. Not only that but there have been some recent papers that argue based on evolutionary theory that humans and other species would evolve to have roughly logarithmic utility functions of consumption. Heck, people like Kenneth Arrow have been arguing that human consumption utility can't be very divergent from logarithmic based on certain moral/empirical arguments. I could go into further detail, but perhaps it is better to link to other threads where I have discussed this.

Anyway, the final part of defining the social welfare function is you need to determine a discount rate. I would argue (along with Nordhaus, Tol, Arrow and others) that the appropriate discount rate is the social rate of time preference, which can be obtained from empirical evidence and using Ramsey's equation. Again, I'll try to keep things short though perhaps I should link to other threads. Basically what is consistent with a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 1 is a social discount rate of about 2%. William Nordhaus for example uses a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 1.45 is a social discount rate of about 1.5% in his recent DICE IAM. Perhaps I disagree with William Nordhaus, but any disagreement we have can eventually be resolved with better empirical evidence. Although I find the Kenneth Arrow arguments, the evolutionary psychology arguments and the simple fact that logarithmic consumption utility greatly simplifies calculations especially when dealing with a roughly Cobb-Douglas production function quite compelling.

So this means that a reasonable social welfare function is:

Sum(t = 0 to infinity;1.02^(-t)*Sum(t = 1 to N(t);ln(C(i,t))))

Where t is time in years, i is an individual in society at time i, N(t) is the global population at time t and C(i,t) is the consumption (in PPP) of individual i at time t.

Now what is expected social welfare? Well that is simple the expected value of social welfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

So this gives you an empirically justified mathematical objective function that you want to maximize in order to maximize the well being of society.

Do you think this is something that you can just plug into one of your physics formulae and come up with the perfect answer?

Perfect? No. Best given available empirical evidence? Yes.

All of the available evidence says that we can live without fossil fuels.

Of course humans can live without fossil fuels. They have done so for hundreds of thousands of years. What do you think hunter-gatherer societies where?

Imagine what will happen if nuclear armed states start fighting over limited water.

Why would water suddenly not be abundant due to climate change?

Oh, yeah, and plug that into your optimal calculation too.

I'm not going to/can't plug in things without empirical justification and an estimate of the probability distribution of the event occurring. Much like I'm not going to/can't plug in the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster getting angry over climate change, suddenly appearing, and then turning everyone into meatballs.

Edited October 1, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Well, one positive effect from global warming will be an increase in available water so if this is a real risk global warming will help reduce it.

Exactly. But appeals to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation or empirical evidence of vegetation changes since the last glacial maximum are lost on people with an emotional attachment to a certain narrative.

[On Guard for Thee]

Water wouldn't be as abundant because it would be in vapor form. You know...clouds? And what's wrong with meatballs? You should try plugging into some. Get to know the real meat of the discussion.

[-1=e^ipi]

Water wouldn't be as abundant because it would be in vapor form. You know...clouds?

Are we going to put this up their with On Guard for Thee doesn't understand the basics of cellular respiration or photosynthesis or On Guard for Thee doesn't understand physics of heat engines and the second law of thermodynamics? On guard for Thee doesn't understand the water cycle and the implications of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation?

Your history on knowledge of climate change related science has not been good on these forums.

And what's wrong with meatballs?

I personally don't want to become a meat ball. If you wish to, then you can always go to North Korea where there is a market for cannibalism, so I'm sure someone would be willing to turn you into one.

[On Guard for Thee]

Are we going to put this up their with On Guard for Thee doesn't understand the basics of cellular respiration or photosynthesis or On Guard for Thee doesn't understand physics of heat engines and the second law of thermodynamics? On guard for Thee doesn't understand the water cycle and the implications of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation?

Your history on knowledge of climate change related science has not been good on these forums.

I personally don't want to become a meat ball. If you wish to, then you can always go to North Korea where there is a market for cannibalism, so I'm sure someone would be willing to turn you into one.

Do you still think human.s breathing adds to CO2 emissions,or did you get that sorted out by now?

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you still think human.s breathing adds to CO2 emissions,or did you get that sorted out by now?

How about closed carbon cycle? They have that in North Korea too.

[WIP]

Pretty much what Canadians have done for years.....watch American media, buy American products, work for American subsidiaries, and complain about lower American gas prices.

Well, thanks for trolling by, but you should know by now that this is not an argument that's going get me outraged. I've pointed out many times to the chagrin of Canadian patriots from left to right, that voting and accepting more and more cultural and economic entanglement with the American Empire removes our legitimacy to challenge the aspects of Pax Americana that we don't like, and we knew our national identity would start to unwind back when the first FTA treaty was signed. But, there were too many opportunists who bought that bullshit line that we could get richer exporting more and more to US markets. So, we sold our sovereignty and independence for 30 shekels or whatever would be the modern equivalent.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, thanks for trolling by...

You are quite welcome. It really doesn't matter what Al Gore wannabees like Suzuki or Trudeau do in Canada.

We know what Canada is....it's just a matter of negotiating the price.

Keep challenging the aspects of Pax Americana that you don't like, while voraciously devouring so much more of the rest.

Go Blue Jays !

[WIP]

That is a belief without evidence. If you want to understand the impact of energy prices on the economy look at what people were saying when $200 oil was not an outlandish suggestion: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/whatever-happened-to-200-oil/article4204162/

Which only proves once again that capitalist markets are hard to predict how they will react to outside pressures because they are fundamentally irrational to begin with! The %200 per barrel prediction was advanced by a number of economists like former CIBC chief economist - Jeff Rubin (one I read several articles by), because the reaction to increasing costs of oil production and flattening world production levels after 05 would logically be an increase in the price of oil. But, after oil spiked to $147 (thanks to futures markets panic buying) oil dropped down to $100....which is still too high for economic growth in most capitalist economies....so, after almost a year of a glut in supplies on the world markets, oil prices started reflecting the lack of demand.

I don't find any mainstream economist (left or right) who has a good explanation for why falling oil and commodity prices aren't spurring another rise in economic activity and production. The best explanation over the past year I've found has come from Danish actuary and Oilprice.com contributor - Gail Tverberg, who posted a lengthy editorial on her Finite World blog making the case that the lack of real economic growth has led to excessive debt loads at all levels, so even if $50 per barrel should restart production, the debtload is reflecting the real hard limits to growth today, and keeping prices for oil and commodities at levels where it has become impossible to exploit them profitably.

According to the latest numbers, the rig count of active drilling rigs in the US shale fields has dropped from 1600 to less than 600; and with low oil prices and investors pulling out, a crash in shale oil production and some other high priced oil ventures, will likely lower supply enough for demand to raise prices. But, all indications are that once oil goes beyond $60, then everything slows down again. This is why the peak oil economists like Rubin predicted that the longterm trend would be gradually downward, with each 'boom' being less than enough to recoup the losses from the previous recession, and that would be the course over the coming decades. On that point, I think Rubin is probably still on track!

Where this issue of peak oil and limits to growth intersects with the environment issue of carbon production, is that we will likely see much less carbon being produced by industry and transportation in the coming years, and neither the big environment groups/nor the oil industry propagandists are factoring declining carbon production into their predictions of the future. So, we may meet carbon targets...but not for the reasons that Suzuki or Greenpeace or 350.org are expecting to meet them.....instead we may meet our carbon targets by the same means that Russia was easily able to meet their Kyoto targets: economic collapse!

[Big Guy]

Well, thanks for trolling by, ...

I have enjoyed your well prepared opinions which have been presented in a civil and scholarly tone. You have obviously spent some time on these kinds of boards so am surprised and disappointed that you succumbed to acknowledging one of our resident trolls. Trolls are like cockroaches who tend to hover if they are fed. This one appears to have surprising longevity and I fear that the few crumbs that are intermittently thrown its way have been enough to encourage its continued lurking on this board. Please consider the rest of us the next time you are tempted to feed it.

Also, please continue to share your views.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Big Guy

[WIP]

Since, according to my Twitter feed it is World Vegetarian Day today, I want to mention that one of my great frustrations with mainstream environmentalism is that all of the attention is on transportation and power generation.....like in this thread! While at least 30% of carbon emissions in modern economies like Canada and the US, comes from industrial agriculture....primarily dealing with the meat and dairy industries and their high demands for the large chunk of the corn, wheat and soybean production.

I don't know about Suzuki, but Mckibben and his 350.org group that gets so much money and attention and celebrities doesn't deal with the carbon footprint of industrial agriculture.

So, if most environmentally conscious Canadians want to make a major reduction in their personal carbon footprint, stop eating meat and dairy products....or at least cut down your intake! I noticed yesterday when I had to make a trip to the supermarket that hamburger was about $5.50 a pound and better cuts of beef were $8 to $10.00.....so, aside from environmental, health and ethical reasons, consumers can save themselves a lot of money these days by shifting to a vegan diet. And, it would probably do more to reduce your carbon footprint than buying a Prius or a new solar panel or whatever yuppies are doing these days to be eco-friendly!

How Factory Farming Contributes To Global Warming

Edited October 1, 2015 by WIP

[ReeferMadness]

It's not ambiguous. If you don't understand what a social welfare function is you can always use a search engine to look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_function

If you want to spend your time turning this into an equation, I wish you luck. I'm not going to spend time debating it with you for three reasons:

1. I don't think you or anyone else understand the problem well enough and an error in assumptions will render the answer meaningless. In the previous case involving ICE vs electrical engine efficiency, I caught you making flawed assumptions and that was at least a couple of orders of magnitude simpler than this.

2. This isn't the way people make decisions. In my line of work, I've spent a lot of time preparing and making recommendations for senior management and executive. Nobody makes decisions on the basis of the types of functions you're talking about. At best, executives will be guided by analysis (providing they understand it). At worst, as I've observed cynically many times, executives go with their gut instincts and analysis is for peons.

3. It isn't necessary. This problem lends itself to a risk management approach. The available evidence suggests that we have a high probability of there being at least moderate impacts and at least a moderate possibility of there being high impacts. And that's just due to climate change - the fossil fuel industry also causes a whole raft of other environmental and health problems. The logical approach is to eliminate fossil fuels over a period of time, using policy levers available to governments.

Why would water suddenly not be abundant due to climate change?

Here's an excellent example of the type of flawed assumption that is warping your conclusions. Increased average temperature will allow the atmosphere to hold more water vapor (itself a greenhouse gas) which will increase precipitation. But increased precipitation doesn't necessarily translate to more available fresh water - unless your idea of available water includes low lying towns being flooded in the spring. Rivers that flood in the spring and dry up during the summer; or cropland that is flooded in the spring and bone dry in the summer doesn't work for anyone.

NASA

Global climate change will affect the water cycle, likely creating perennial droughts in some areas and frequent floods in others.

You can find similar predictions on Environment Canada and EPA websites.

You (and someone else around here who I no longer debate) seem to think that you can just apply your own logic and formulae to make your own predictions, regardless of what the people who make their livings studying climate think. If that's how you like to spend your time, go for it. Just please don't waste my time with it.

[ironstone]

Trudeau has no chance debating Suzuki

It seems to me David Suzuki is the one that usually avoids debates.This is why he does not like to debate:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/

For the record,Justin Trudeau has a key advisor that could have easily written the Leap Manifesto,one Gerald Butts.

[WIP]

I have enjoyed your well prepared opinions which have been presented in a civil and scholarly tone. You have obviously spent some time on these kinds of boards so am surprised and disappointed that you succumbed to acknowledging one of our resident trolls. Trolls are like cockroaches who tend to hover if they are fed. This one appears to have surprising longevity and I fear that the few crumbs that are intermittently thrown its way have been enough to encourage its continued lurking on this board. Please consider the rest of us the next time you are tempted to feed it.

Also, please continue to share your views.

Thanks for the encouragement, and I have to say that since my experience on forums started about 10 years ago, when I was more rightwing thinking and was on mostly US rightwing boards, I've seen worse....a lot, lot worse when it comes to trolls than bc. I often wonder why he's stayed here so long also! He would be much more at home on American forums....where he would be part of the mainstream thinking.

[WIP]

It seems to me David Suzuki is the one that usually avoids debates.This is why he does not like to debate:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/

For the record,Justin Trudeau has a key advisor that could have easily written the Leap Manifesto,one Gerald Butts.

Most scientists are not very good debaters It really doesn't tell much about the merits of someone's position on issues. And thats most of the reason why a clown like William Lane Craig can win so many debates on religious issues with atheists and scientists!

[bush_cheney2004]

....You (and someone else around here who I no longer debate) seem to think that you can just apply your own logic and formulae to make your own predictions, regardless of what the people who make their livings studying climate think. If that's how you like to spend your time, go for it. Just please don't waste my time with it.

Such predictions are easy to make, because unlike basic economics, "climate scientists" do not determine private or public policy. Thank you for the links to my taxpayer funded, American resources. They seem to be a favorite 'round here.