Carbon taxes are not the solution. Gruber is an idiot. Cleaner sources of energy and ending subsidies for dirty energy would be just fine and no new tax would be needed. It's like the soda tax. Stop subsidizing corn syrup and charge what a soda should cost and people will vote with their wallets.
5:44 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
And focusing on carbon is not the solution either.
> the reality of climate change
Is that the reality that there has been no significant warming since 1998 (the pause). Or the reality that climate change faithers fudge data, hide data, and mislead the public (see https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/)?
So really, the only ones in denial about the reality of climate change is the faithers.
6:00 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
More taxes are ALWAYS the solution!
8:28 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
To Be Fair:
>Is that the reality that there has been no significant warming since 1998 (the pause).
No, that's completely untrue.
Of course, you wouldn't be you without ignoring reality and facts.
>So really, the only ones in denial about the reality of climate change is the faithers.
No, that's you.
8:49 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
@Patrick Henry, the 2nd
> So really, the only ones in denial about the reality of climate change is the faithers.
Then I'd expect there'll be a flood of scientific papers by eager scientists looking for fame and a change in the the science consensus soon based on the new revelation.
Otherwise, no, linking to a minority voice in the science community doesn't make it "the reality", just like there are still scientists who deny evolution.
> More taxes are ALWAYS the solution!
Unfortunately in energy industry it really is the solution because it's a classic case of where the business profits directly but the negative impact to the society is often shared amongst people, not borne directly by the business.
8:57 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
>Unfortunately in energy industry it really is the solution because it's a classic case of where the business profits directly but the negative impact to the society is often shared amongst people, not borne directly by the business.
The cost should be borne by the consumers, not the producers. In fact, the cost only CAN be borne by the consumers, because the producers would just pass those costs along to the consumer anyway.
My earlier sarcastic remark aside, a Pigouvian tax on petroleum products is probably the least objectionable of the policies brought forth. It's a good, second-best approach.
9:07 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
The price has to reflect more realistic cost with the negative externalities accounted for and "passing those costs to the consumer" is exactly what we want them to do, so that consumers and government policies can decide which mode of energy production is most economical.
Regardless it's a difficult question. Think of old days when they estimated the deconstruction cost of oil rig and power plants based on the standards then, and the prices have shot up dramatically since. This is of course a major problem with a Pigouvian tax approach as well.
9:34 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
So where do we draw the line? There are negative external impacts in almost every single thing we do and buy. Materials need to be mined, chemicals need to be used for just about everything, poor working conditions abound in just about any industry you can think of.
What would be better than a carbon tax that is only lining the pockets of the wrong people would be to encourage cleaner sources of energy. Rather than looking for more oil, build more wind farms. These companies are in the business of selling energy and shouldn't care that it comes from a solar panel instead a lump of coal. If they can't transition to cleaner energy and compete in the market then maybe they can sell horse whips. More taxes are never the answer. These politicians should just grow some balls, change the regulations and just outlaw dirty energy instead. But instead they want to line their pockets and change nothing.
9:35 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
> For those of you who erroneously claim I never link to stories about Republicans with approval
I wonder what handle John uses for his DFwC posts
10:10 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
>I wonder what handle John uses for his DFwC posts
"To Be Fair" is my guess.
10:12 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Funny how To Be Fair disappeared when the fake Dicknose troll showed up.
10:20 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
The power for China for the next fifty years will come from coal-fired power plants. There are more than seventy under construction there right now.
The scale of China means the rest of the world could stop using power altogether and it wouldn't make a difference.
Solar panels are a net power loss when you factor in power used in manufacturing and the total useful lifetime of the panel.
The reality is that if climate change is real, we're stuck with it.
10:27 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
"Solar panels are a net power loss when you factor in power used in manufacturing and the total useful lifetime of the panel."
That is simply untrue. Industry estimates range from 6 months to about 4 years before the solar panels "pays for itself" in energy needed to produce the panel depending on the technology used for the panel and its location.
Panels are getting better every day and the newer thin -film panels use far less hazardous chemicals during manufacturing.
On a side note China has 36 nuclear power plants and 21 under construction. Something we should be doing in the US to augment other cleaner power sources. Nuclear is a great source of energy when done properly. The only problem is when done wrong the outcomes can be devastating.
Solar, wind, hydro, wave power and others eventually will power the globe IMO.
10:45 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
> Funny how To Be Fair disappeared when the fake Dicknose troll showed up.
To be fair, I also disappeared shortly after my impersonator showed up, so I'm not sure if this is actually meaningful.
11:53 pm — Wednesday, 8 February 2017
To Be Fair:
> I'm not sure if this is actually meaningful.
If we were looking for something meaningful, we wouldn't be on DFwC.
1:10 am — Thursday, 9 February 2017
@To Be Fair:
No one is impersonating you.
You have clearly been outed as impersonating others and you don't know how to handle it.
Give it up. Don't be a piece of shit anymore. Be better.
Some of us actually have meaningful conversations here. If you don't realize that then you are mental. There are plenty of people here that add useful information and insight. There's also plenty that just rip on Gruber for being a douche.
Either way, pull it together and get your mind out of the gutter. Up your game and stop being a childish bitch.
3:34 am — Thursday, 9 February 2017
My predictions, with no timeframe given:
* Carbon sequestration will become viable and even profitable.
* Other forms of climate engineering (solar radiation management, etc.) will also become viable.
* Thus, climate change will be solved not before any impact is felt (too late for that), but before the catastrophic events forecasted by the alarmists.
* Environmentalists will find the next thing to complain about, and will silently regret that their obsession with climate change indirectly leads to other types of pollution and environment damage (for instance, increased particulate matter due to Europe's use of diesel fuel, and the damage from mineral mining for electric/hybrid car batteries).
* Climate alarmists will call anyone who doesn't subscribe to the most pessimistic and catastrophic view a "denier". Skepticism, once a virtue in science, will be an unforgivable vice.
Okay, I do have a timeline for the last prediction. It's already been happening.
8:45 am — Thursday, 9 February 2017
"Carbon sequestration" is little more than a PR ploy to pump more oil. Most sequestration plants just pump the carbon gases into wells to produce more oil.
2:26 pm — Tuesday, 14 February 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment,
install the Safari extension!