Al Gore: clear proof that climate change causes extreme weather. Former US vice president tells Scottish green conference that evidence from floods in Pakistan and China is compelling
China and Pakistan have been having disastrous floods for as long as they have existed.
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
http://news.google.com/newspapers
.
That’s all very interesting but don’t you know nothing every happened on the Earth before 1950. All these catastrophic climate changing events have only occurred in the last 60 years!!! :-J
lol, Well, it is compelling……..
According to the link on Al Gore, the article said “more water was evaporating and getting stored in the atmosphere.” and “the amount of water vapour over the oceans had increased by 4% in 30 years, particularly around the tropics and sub-tropics.”
So, is the reason for the declining ocean levels going to be that more water is being stored in the atmosphere?
And the last time I saw a NOAA graph on water vapor in the atmosphere over time, the amount of it was either slightly decreasing or roughly staying the same (there were I think 4 graphs total for I think different parts of the atmosphere).
Al Gore is full of Olbermann. Is the ENSO 30 years?
I’ll just bet if you started at a particular point in the ENSO and ended at a different point that you’d show far more than a mere 4%.
Ocean levels are hardly “declining.” There may be a short-term fluctuation, just like there have always been such fluctuations. The long-term trend is up and no one expects much of anything different:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Actually David:
The long term trend is down since about 6000 BCE when the oceans reached their high point this interglacial.
The recent, 150 or more years of rising can be attributed to partial recovery from the LIA cold conditions. The globe has not yet returned to the climate conditions experienced in 1200 CE!
Let’s pretend for the moment that there has been a 4% increase in water vapor.
And let’s pretend that there has been relentless warming through that period.
Wouldn’t it be more logical to assume that the pretend increased water vapor -another dastardly GHG!!! – was the main cause of that pretend warming?
P.S. Debatable whether or not this is the stupidest thing Gore has said but it certainly is a classic.
The real fools are those who believe Gore’s garbage and pay him thousands of dollars to hear him speak. Its a money spinner. Its a business. Its not personal dedication to something he believes. They don’t call him the climate billionare for nothing.
Surely it should be:
Gore
Sets A NewBreaks His Own Record For Personal Stupidity.Gore looks terrible in that picture. All the tottering economy needs right now is a huge carbon tax. Taxes in the name of maybe improving the weather a little 100 years from now. Or maybe some unintended consequence that no one can forsee.
A carbon tax can easily be structured to be revenue neutral, by lowering income taxes at the same time, or even rebating it all on an equal per-person basis.
But Dave, that doesn’t allow for the required economic growth. That assumes a population neutral environment. More over, shifting the taxes from one form of wealth confiscation to another is meaningless. Jack the prices up on the wage payers, guess what happens…… Here’s something to consider………
Economic growth must equal the growth of the population or better(if we wanted to increase our standard of living) or there will be a decline in distributed wealth. Now, in this scenario, we could confiscate, in forms of taxes or other means, from the more wealthy. But, then, all that would mean would that we would all be more equally poorer and the general standard of living would decline universally.
I’ve much more to say on the subject, but I’m off to investigate the calculus and trigonometry of spheres on a plane.
I really don’t believe this is a lofty goal to have.
Taxes aren’t “confiscation” — they are the price for services performed by the government.
I have little idea what else you were trying to say. Perhaps you could try again.
David, taxes are confiscation, when we are not given the option to vote directly upon their implementation. Taxes are payments in many instances for unwanted, overpriced, mediocre services forced upon us by state coercion. Taxes are certainly not freely contracted services entered into by sovereign individuals.
> Jack the prices up on the wage payers, guess
> what happens……
The whole point of my reply is that a carbon tax doesn’t jack up prices on “wage payers,” but on “users of energy derived from fossil fuels.”
You need to come back to the real world for a moment.
“users of energy derived from fossil fuels” probably fall into 1 or 2 camps:
1) “wage payers”, who consume gas, electricity and heating oil (whose costs will go up)
2) manufacturers, who pass this cost down the food chain to “wage payers”.
Unless you expect the manufacturers to absorb these costs and go out of business to Chinese manufacturers, who do not have a comparable energy tax cost increase imposed on them?
Both wage-payers and non wage-payers use carbon-based energy. Both manufacturers and those not involved in manufacturing at all use carbon-based energy. The point is, these sets have overlaps, but are not identical.
In any case, as I said other taxes could (and should) be lowered to compensate for a carbon tax. The theory of capitalism says the demand for non carbon-based energy (free of the carbon tax) will go up, and capitalists will move to fill this demand.
The Chinese can’t (yet, at least) supply power to the US, so there’s no danger of nontaxed carbon being produced in China instead of here for the purposes of energy production. Yes, manufacturers could in theory move to a place like China that has no carbon tax. But this reflects the essential problem with global warming — we all produce it, but suffer in different amounts and live under systems that have insufficient incentive to solve a global problem. China needs to also have a carbon tax. Whether our world is up to a political and legal system like this is very questionable, but ignoring a problem because you don’t know how to solve it doesn’t make the problem go away. Besides, there are lots of ways to get international “cooperation” that aren’t being explored because the big players like the US and China prefer to ignore the problem. This can only work so long. It seems to me that China is already having some societal problems because of its internal pollution problems. These will occur with global warming, too, in the form of water wars and refugees escaping droughts and such, which can all be stressful on the world order. It’s all a big clusterf–k no matter how you look at it, but what isn’t these days?
Dear David A., for those of us who do not heat or cool our living spaces, eat food, or travel, perhaps you are right that carbon taxes will not affect us. Unfortunately, nearly 100% percent of the human race likes to eat, so carbon taxes will immediately increase food prices because it takes energy to produce and harvest food. C´mon, you have to do better than that to justify carbon taxes. I am certain you will profit directly from carbon taxes, but the rest of us will pay more, to receive less.
> Economic growth must equal the growth
> of the population or better….
Why?
*Wealth* must equal the population growth rate or better, but this isn’t the same thing as “economic growth” as currently measured by our society. Right now metrics like GDP measure only a subset of wealth, while actually counting wealth-destroying activities as a pure wealth-creation. An example is energy produced that emits pollution that harms health. Even providing the needed health care gets counted as GDP-positive, but nothing is ever subtracted for the suffering of people, animals, or the loss of ecosystem services. Etc. This is rampant through our current economic paradigm.
An economic depression is a probable outcome of raising taxes significantly at a time when the economy is already close to the brink. Won’t that be “stressful to the world order”?
At the same time, there is absolutely no guarantee that future floods or droughts can be avoided or significantly mitigated one way or another.
Andy:
I can almost guarantee you that any measures that are taken to mitigate the CO2 situation will not change future weather patterns in any way.
The amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere will have such an insignificant effect on long term weather patterns that it is not even worth the time it takes me to type this. The money that has already been wasted on this folly could have actually been put to some good use. Knwing government, they would have found something else to waste the money on.
David A. I agree that wealth is not the same as economic growth. During the soviet era, citizens were constantly reminded that their wealth was increasing, even as quality of food, access to basic consumer goods, and personal freedom were constantly lowered.
You can play word games and define wealth any way you want. For the majority of us, being forced to give parts of our labor efforts through forced carbon taxation will not make us wealthier, unless being forced to pay money to listen how good we now have it from commissars is your idea of enhanced lifestyle.
Total Bull Shit!
No tax is revenue neutral as the end user pays the costs. It is cheaper to just forget the tax as it will accomplish nothing other than put more people below the poverty level and kill off more people that will not be able to afford products that are taxed and are needed to sustain life.
It’s not bullshit. We pick and choose what to tax all the time, and the different levels. A carbon tax would not need to be any different — tax carbon while lowering taxes on other products and services. That’s “revenue neutral” — the total level of taxation stays the same.
A carbon tax is a VAT tax on everything that moves. The consumer will pay this VAT tax on every good and service that they purchase, and no one ever said anything about relieveing the public of the burden of the myriad other taxes. That they’re currently paying. The more tax revenue that the govt. gets the more they want.
I could delve into some of your more silly statements, but who cares? There’s not gonna be any phony baloney carbon tax or Cap & Tax scheme in the USA short of some kind of commie revolution occuring here.
A carbon tax would certainly accomplish something — it would create an incentive for people and companies to choose energy sources that do not emit CO2, etc, and an incentive for energy producers to develop such sources.
It’s not much different than charging you to dump your trash at the town landfill instead of allowing you to dump it in the street for free.
It needn’t make anyone poor. Via tax credits and levels can be shifted so that the poor are not burdened.
“choose energy sources that do not emit CO2”
Which, by definition, are more expensive.
“It needn’t make anyone poor.”
Then who pays the increased cost?
“the poor are not burdened”
If not, then who is burdened – given that there is an increased cost to be paid by someone.
In case you have any doubt about this, hear it from the lips of the Great One himself:
You just described the minutia of ‘redistribution of wealth’. But you already knew that. You are just painting a happy face on Socialism, or common theft. Congratulations dumbass.
Poor folks already don’t pay much in the way of taxes. However, It’s pretty much impossible for them to avoid certain taxes like property taxes (factors into rent) and retail sales taxes. It would also be impossible for them to avoid your very regressive carbon back door VAT tax as it would raise the cost of every finished good or service that exists.
JJ: Again, a carbon tax can be structured to be revenue neutral–in fact, Australia has done something like this. People could avoid a carbon tax with the power of their demand — that’s how capitalism works — by choosing power sources that do not emit carbon. Many already have that choice, as in the green power programs offered by utility companies. My current electricity provider doesn’t have one, but where I last lived I subscribed to it and it was only $2/month more expensive. That’s hardly onerous, and would come down with higher demand.
All tax decisions are about redistribution of wealth, including those of the last three decades, when the redistribution has been upward.
PS: “Socialism” is state ownership of the means of production–that does not include tax and policy decisions. You’re using it in the way many extreme conservatives do, just as a word to throw around and scare people, in lieu of an argument.
Can be structured… theoretically perhaps, but won’t be. The people of Australia are up in arms over the ‘Cah-bun’ tax because they know it will cost the consumer and hurt business. You’re using that as a “good” example?
Can we get off the pollyanna bit and talk in terms of the real world. BTW why do people with an obvious socialist bent bristle at being called socialists? Is it because the know that it is a PR loser?
> BTW why do people with an obvious
> socialist bent bristle at being called socialists?
Because people like you throw it around in one context while ignoring the huge socialism that takes place for corporations and the affluent (agricultural subsidies, TARP, government bailouts, Savings & Loan bailout, LTCM hedge fund bailout, saving GM twice, government subsidy of home mortgages, government tax deductions for health insurance, and on and on). You pretend to advocate a free market, but would rather complain about a 3 cent/kWh carbon tax than the trillions of dollars provided by government above. All while ignoring external costs.
Describe any example of money being redistributed upward (being taken from the poor and given to the rich).
Socialism is the redistribution of wealth. It is theft. Has been for centuries. Perhaps you should try to ignore what ivy league eggheads of the 20th century tried to redefine it as. All they were attempting to do is what you are attempting to do, that is placing a happy face on common theft. Taking something that does not belong to you is theft. You yourself are promoting theft. Why is this?
It’s all about other people’s money, that is where all your thoughts reside. Maybe you should ask yourself how you descended into this madness? Presumably at one time you were normal and not promoting crime. What did this to you? How does one begin to covet other people’s money?
“Because people like you throw it around in one context while ignoring the huge socialism that takes place for corporations and the affluent (agricultural subsidies, TARP, government bailouts, Savings & Loan bailout, LTCM hedge fund bailout, saving GM twice, government subsidy of home mortgages, government tax deductions for health insurance, and on and on)…” – Appell
Sorry Bud, Nobody that recognizes socialism would term most of the above as anything other than socialism to the degree that it is. It isn’t free marketeers that gave us those things. It was the Acquiescence to your type of philosophy that results in these types of policies, but anyway the solution certainly isn’t to pile on even more taxes and regulations onto the free market like regressive Carbon VAT taxes, which you seek.
Now as far as government subsidy of home mortgages, government tax deductions for health insurance, etc I wouldn’t call that socialism so much as social engineering. Again you’re the big proponent of this type of extra-market social engineering not me. I also don’t consider the government allowing someone to keep some of their own money a subsidy.
David:
I really hope you do not attempt to write about economics shit as you get that even less than you do the issues about weather and the fantasy of CO2.
What was supposed to be your area of Expertise any way?
So far you have proven how clueless you are!
I just have to go back to my previous comment:
“Don’t argue with morons – they wear you down and beat you with experience.”
It just takes my breath away that people can argue an issue from a standpoint of utter cluelessness. Case in point:
“The theory of capitalism says the demand for non carbon-based energy (free of the carbon tax) will go up, and capitalists will move to fill this demand.”
This is the theory of centrally-planned authoritarian social engineering at work here, not capitalism. Contrary to any economic principles, the price of carbon-based energy is forced higher through taxation, in an attempt to drive behavioural change, in the pursuit of non-existent technological solutions.
Did the doubling of the price of oil in 1973 drive any “non-carbon-based alternatives” (according to this “theory of capitalism”?) – No?
Has $80-a-barrel oil driven any technological breakthroughs? – No.
Every wonder why?
Ivan: Many of our current taxes are intended to drive behavioral changes, such as the deduction of mortgage interest, deductions for health insurance, etc etc.
It comes down to structure. Many states exempt food from sales taxes and have income cutoffs. The federal govt has the Earned Income Credit. Many conservatives argue that we should have low taxes on corporations and the wealthy because they are “job creators.” That’s nothing but an argument to using the tax code to encourage a certain behavior.
David – Yes, let’s all recall the “behavioral taxes” that moved societies and economies from wood and tallow and whale oil, to coal and coal oil, to petroleum energy and nat gas, and to nuclear. (/sarc) Of course there were no such “behavioral taxes” in any of these evolutions of human energy innovation and use. Governments past and present have proven themselves utterly incapable of innovation, except in the areas of corruption and misdirected incompetence.
So now the Western nations are regressing back to wood (“biomass” ha ha), apparently, as Asia builds more and more nuclear and coal energy capacity, and laughs uproariously at this self-inflicted immolation of Western nations.
Your hearty endorsement of moving more deck chairs around on the sinking energy ship of the West is gobsmackingly pathetic and preposterous.
“Yes, if we tax everyone to death it will drive energy innovation by the private sector.”
Quite frankly, that’s a demented idea.
Governments past and present have proven themselves utterly incapable of innovation, except in the areas of corruption and misdirected incompetence.
That’s complete bull. Turn off AM talk radio and think for yourself for a minute. Governments have innovated in all kinds of things–legal systems, human rights, defense of the country, building things like the Interstate Highway System, funding basic research that has led to thinks like the Internet, basic scientific research that has developed any number of sciences (quantum mechanics, nuclear science, biological sciences, genetics, lots of medical research) that without which almost no technology would work , the space program, and on and on.
You have swallowed every idiotic thing the extreme right media has shoveled your way.
“Governments have innovated in all kinds of things”
Bullshit. They have only ever channeled the money. The human genome project is probably an example. Gubmint innovation straggled along for 8 years until private enterprise finally got the project finished. Without private enterprise, we’d still be waiting for the first draft.
Ivan wrote: The human genome project is probably an example. Gubmint innovation straggled along for 8 years until private enterprise finally got the project finished.
In truth, Venter’s team built heavily on methods developed, and data collected, by the public team. Venter used the public data in his genome, seeding his shotgun approach, and then refused to give the public team access to his.
They published at the same time in recognition that each was essential to the final result.
When was a tax ever neutral? Even if all funds were redistributed, AFTER BUREACRATIC ADMINISTRATION, the amount will be rebated will necessary be less than the amount taken from taxpayers. In a zero sum game, after the bureaucrats get paid first, the remaining sums will always be less than neutral.
Personally David A. , I just assume you are a shill on the payroll of the various parties that would benefit from a carbon tax, such as Goldman Sachs, for example. So, I write the above to remind other readers that if you are not feeding from the trough, you will ultimately lose. Even the notion that the government can control climate through taxation and regulation is laughable, were it not so dangerous.
> Even if all funds were redistributed, AFTER
> BUREACRATIC ADMINISTRATION, the amount
> will be rebated will necessary be less than the
> amount taken from taxpayers.
The changes would be done via the tax code and those pesky forms people fill out every spring.
What, did you think an army of bureaucrats would collect all the dollars, count and stack them, and then head out into the country in little trucks to knock on people’s doors?
David:
Keep talking you are stepping all over your case and making it worse.
I will do what I can to help!
“What, did you think an army of bureaucrats would collect all the dollars, count and stack them, and then head out into the country in little trucks to knock on people’s doors?”
Apparently so. Didn’t you get the memo?
EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/
This, by the way, is “government innovation” in the area of delivery of services and products(?) at its finest. This is what our taxes are paying for.
This is your “government wealth creation machine” – firing on all 8 cylinders!
Governmentium:
The heaviest chemical element yet known to science. Governmentium (Gv) has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of three years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium–an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
In that very same Daily Caller article the EPA says the regulations are “absurd” and “impossible to implement.” Of course, they’re being forced into a straitjacket because of extreme denial that of the science that GHGs are causing climate change. Opponents in Congress are doing everything they can to make a mess of the whole situation (even proposing to eliminate the EPA) instead of implementing an efficient and intelligent system of monitoring and regulations for compliance.
What’s the cost of not doing so?
Ivan:
> This is your “government wealth creation
> machine” – firing on all 8 cylinders!
This cuts both ways: How much wealth, health (a requirement for wealth creation) and ecosystem services are being destroyed by our failure to properly price fossil fuels?
“Of course, they’re being forced into a straitjacket because of extreme denial that of the science that GHGs are causing climate change.”
You have any evidence to support this – or is it just more delusional rantings?
“This cuts both ways: How much wealth, health (a requirement for wealth creation) and ecosystem services are being destroyed by our failure to properly price fossil fuels?”
Again – back it up with evidence (not “estimates” or “suggestions.”) Otherwise it is just wild assertion and delusional ranting.
We have been providing evidence that no evidence exists to support David’s delusional rants.
That leaves David Howling at the Moon
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lunatic
I won’t post any of the hundreds of NY Times historic headlines about the incessant floods in “West Pakistan,” “East Pakistan” (Bangladesh), and China, going back to 1850.
What in the heck does Al Gore do with his famous multiple Mac screens and his $30,000 electric bill? Surely he could do some quick historic searches about floods, wildfires, and droughts using the NY Times archives or Lexis-Nexis?
Actually I’m quite sure he knows all of this, but counts on his dupes and sycophants to remain ignorant forever.
I really don’t believe the ‘inventor of the internets’ is all that bright. I think he fills his little mind with mush and he regurgitates it without thought or retrospect. He’s much like the president we have today.
And some of our recent visitors at this site that attempt to defend pathological science!
Yes, it’s very possible that South Park captured the essence of Al Gore in “Manbearpig.” All of his time, energy, Google$$$, and focus is driven to proving the existence of his manufactured catastrophe.
It depends.
If Al Gore is promoting AGW:
1) Save the world
or
2)Make himself rich
If it is 1, then he is stupid beyond stupid.
If it is 2 he is a genius.
The real stupids are the Rabetts, Fosters, Lamberts, et al who firmly believe Gore is doing this for 1.
Some of them are along for their share of the revenue stream!
Both Gore and Lord Monkey of Benchley are enthusiastic but slightly obsessed people who should be ignored.
Andy
As should you.
Re Pakistan. Actually the Punjab was a heavily forested region, wet and productive, until about the year 700 AD. At that time the population reached an environmentally terminal phase with deforestation and the destruction of habitat. A couple of hundred years later this was grossly accelerated by the advent Islam , which has no sense of preservation or conservation. Indeed, the Muslims thought it almost a religious duty to destroy the environment and the tribal groups that survived.
http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html#natural Why can’t the Termites pay tax, they are the 2nd biggest polluters on earth, David Suzuki called us some sort of insect in the 1970s, why are they having tax free status?
@David Appell: Your “revenue neutral ” carbon tax would work if instituted worldwide; but as it is now, we make CO2 producing energy production more expensive and subsidize solar and wind; people buy solar and wind installations to take advantage of it; they are made in China; China gets the profits; Western consumers get the bill. Your economy crumbles all around you and you wonder “Have I done anything wrong?” See Spain. Rest of Europe to follow. Germany will go last – we sell too many CO2-spewing cars to the Chinese to be affected, all the while carrying a holier-than-thou grin because we have so many (Chinese-made) solar panels.
Dirk: The US has an obligation to be the leader on the carbon issue because we have put much of the existing manmade carbon into the atmosphere: 30% of it, from 1900-2004, far more than any other country. (China’s number is 8%, which is small per-capita.) There are ways to pressure other countries to follow along.
We ought to tax fossil fuels even for our own purposes: their noncarbon pollution causes damage to our health and the environment. A 2010 study by the National Resource Council found at least $120 B/yr in damages from fossil fuel use, which does not include the cost of climate change. That’s $400 per person per year.
Bullshit and bullshit.
“We ought to tax fossil fuels even for our own purposes: their noncarbon pollution causes damage to our health and the environment…” – Appell
We already tax fossil fuels to the hilt. Anyway whenever a warmist gets called on the carpet. They always have the same fall back position, which to me is indicative of the shakiness of the CAGW argument. Even if CAGW is false we’d being doing right by the pwanet, The classic Pascal’s law of the warmist religion.
What would the “damages” cost of not having fossil fuels?
> We already tax fossil fuels to the hilt.
Hardly. What are the taxes on coal, which causes the most damage? A study just out in the American Economics Review finds that coal causes more harm than good, by perhaps even a factor of 5: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Taxes on gasoline are about equal to the damage they cause, which leaves nothing whatsoever for road construction and maintenance. Taxes on gasoline average about 40 cents/gallon, and Americans use about 9,000 thousands barrels/day (EIA’s “This Week in Petroleum”), so if I did the arithmetic correctly that’s $55 B/yr collected in taxes. Transportation causes damages of 1.7 cents/vehicle-mile according to the 2010 report from the National Research Council on “The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels,” and Americans drive about 250,000 million miles/month according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. That works out to $52 B/yr in damages. And the authors of the NRC report believe their numbers are a “substantial estimate.”
Still more bullshit.
Dave, I just looked at my electric bill. There’s about 20% of taxes and government mandated fees. I’m even being dinged for BS like “TEMP. GREEN POWER FINANCING (TRED) & RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM (REPR) Thanks to people like you. Now I’m really pissed. Coal isn’t taxed?
“American Economics Review finds that coal causes more harm than good, by perhaps even a factor of 5.” That’s fairly ridiculous, but what should one expect from a group that states, “the doctrine of laissez-faire Capitalism is unsafe in politics and unsound in morals. This gtoup has no credibility. Coal was part of the foundation of American prosperity for a couple of centuries, and it’s not like there was/is a viable alternative except maybe nuclear.
As far as you “hidden costs” of petroleum I find the concept silly to a point. Why not do a study on the hidden cost of food or the hidden cost of sex? You’re apparently quite concerned that the massive excise taxes collected per gallon of gas isn’t enough to cover the road maintenance costs. The per mile road maintenance cost would be the same even if you had your precious electric cars so it’s a moot point. We can help with road maintenance cost by employing the methodology of your heroes on the left. We can statr taxing people that don’t drive. Wouldn’t it be wonderfully re-distributive?
@ David Appell,
Sorry for leaving early yesterday. I made some statements I assumed self-evident, but apparently it isn’t evident to everyone. This seems to have led to a dreadful conversation that laid bear some lacked understanding. Don’t feel bad, I struggle with other things. Musical theory for instance….. augmented chords? I can play them, I just don’t understand why. At any rate, I won’t go into all of the wrong thoughts about the economy, but just make a couple of points, and hopefully you can work it out from there.
First of all, there is no viable alternative to carbon based fuels. They don’t exist.
You are correct, the GDP, the way it is currently calculated is a bit off. Services shouldn’t be counted.
The function of value creation, real value creation, only comes from: farming, mining, and manufacturing. These are the well-springs of wealth creation. (My thanks to Greg O) When I used the term wage payers, this is what I was referring to. Of course, all need carbon based fuels and energy to succeed. There is no viable, scalable alternative. And, everything else subtracts(at varying degrees) from this wealth created by the well-springs.
Regardless of the merit, taxes are wealth confiscation. They are taking wealth out of the wealth creation stream. The carbon tax schemes are simply examples and extrapolation of Keynes’ failed economic theory. True, it doesn’t fail as fast as Marx’s but it most assuredly fails just the same.
> there is no viable alternative to carbon based fuels.
That is not at all clear, so don’t state it as if it is a fact. Right now fossil fuels get to dump their trash in your front yard. If there were to pay for the cost of cleanup the cost-benefit curves shift. According to the 2010 NRC report I cited earlier, electricity generation by coal has an external cost of 3.2 cents/kWh, with damages due to climate change adding another 3 cents/kWh (for CO2e priced at $30/mt). According to the AER study just out (http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649), coal creates more harm than wealth. The same goes for oil-based generation.
[Note this study is by one of the anti-Stern crowd's favorite economists, William Nordhaus.] Add 6.2 cents/kWh to the cost of electricity and solar and wind are starting to look pretty good. Solar panels can now be installed for $7/Watt; $4/W with tax incentives. The payback time on that is very short, about a decade or less.
By pricing energy at its true cost, not its subsidized cost, alternative sources look very good. Of course, the fossil fuel industry knows this and is terrified of it, and will stop at nothing to see that it doesn’t happen. You all here are abetting this crooked paradigm.
Gore Sets A New Record For Personal Stupidity?
I think Steven forgot to add your name to that title as well.
There are probably more out there like you too, but you are the unfortunate first rock that rolled (moron) in here. And the best thing is you keep trolling, er I mean rolling. But hey we all know you were rolling here before.
David, you’ve listed reasons why you think fossil fuels are bad. I don’t happen to share those thoughts. For instance, I don’t believe there is any harm in a warming planet.
The thought that coal causes more harm than wealth is demonstrably false. Consider the positive wealth created prior to other forms of electricity fuels. It can’t be more wealth is consumed than generated else the economic advantage held be the U.S. because of industry wouldn’t have occurred.
But, most importantly, you haven’t shown what you think they should be using. Please point to a alternative that is scalable to be used by all American households, industry, and businesses. It is clear that there is no viable alternative. You’re proposing a tax on people and industry using carbon based fuels when they don’t have an alternative.
Now, if we had started building nuclear plants when we should have, it could have been an alternative. But, as it is now, it would take over 20 years to build the necessary facilities. And, the carbon tax in no way would facilitate the building of the plants. We have to fix the investment vs turn around time before that can happen. (if this part isn’t very clear, just ask, I’d be happy to go into further detail) But, nuclear and hydro could be used to properly supplant coal, if reducing CO2 emissions were a goal. But a tax won’t encourage their construction. BTW, some of our more environmentally concerned people are causing electric-hydro plants to be destroyed. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/loony-luddites-seek-to-end-cheap-reliable-and-co2-emission-free-electricity
David, I don’t expect you to buy into everything I’ve just shared with you, but I do wish you give some of this some thought. I plan to, in the near future, write a post on my blog detailing the our electricity generation mix, what each source should be used for and why, and the cost of not doing things in the proper way. What’s been good and what’s been bad for the electric industry. And how it effects all other industries and people in the U.S. From that, I may tackle transportation fuels. If and when I get this accomplished, I’ll invite you to read and ask for your critique.
James
> The thought that coal causes more harm than wealth
> is demonstrably false.
Yes, let’s ignore what respected professional economists
at Yale say in the peer-reviewed literature and reply on this paragraph in a blog comment.
> Consider the positive wealth created prior to other
> forms of electricity fuels.
That’s not the conclusion of the paper, which says nothing about “past wealth” but about present energy generation.
Let’s see what “respected professional economists at Yale” have to say:
The paper estimates the air pollution damages for each industry in the United States. An integrated-assessment model quantifies the marginal damages of air pollution emissions for the US which are multiplied times the quantity of emissions by industry to compute gross damages.
Right. Let’s do as you ask and close down the entire economy based on their “estimate”.
“Estimate” is a scientist’s way of saying “we can’t calculate this exactly.” They have done the best job they could with the data they have. Tossing it out because you don’t understand their word (let alone have read the paper) is extremely lame.
Nor did I ever say anything like “close down the entire economy.” I said transition to noncarbon sources of energy.
Both your points are, well, stupid.
“Both your points are, well, stupid.”
Exactly. I’m just trying to keep within the tenor of your incoherent argument.
> Please point to a alternative that is scalable to be
> used by all American households, industry,
> and businesses.
Nuclear fission.
And there are several plants in the American west that generate more than 25 MW; one of them generates about 350 MW. Germany now gets 20% of its power from renewables, and plans to phase out nuclear. If they can do that I’m sure we can.
Nor does the transition need to happen all at once. Technology is expected to lead to lower renewable costs, and experience does too.
In any case, the point of properly pricing energy to include its external costs is to *incentivize* a transition to noncarbon sources. Proper pricing will lead to demand which (in the theory of capitalism) leads to supply to fill it. It will lead to enhanced development and installation, as well as research.
And no matter what, companies and users ought to pay for the damage they do. If nothing else use that money to treat the growing number of people with asthma–rates in children have doubled since 1980, in part due to air (especially auto) pollutants.
David, Germany is phasing out nuclear to go with coal. They just signed a major contract with So Africa to buy coal from them.
Coal is cheaper…….
Despite Climate Concerns, Germany Plans Coal Power Plants
There’s a hitch, though, for Germany, said Reinhard Loske, a member of the German parliament and climate expert for the Green party parliamentary group: Currently, up to 26 coal-fired power plants — which would burn either hard (anthracite) or brown (lignite) coal — are either being built right now or are in the planning stages in Germany.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2396828,00.html
> Regardless of the merit, taxes are wealth confiscation. They are
> taking wealth out of the wealth creation stream.
Baloney. Taxes are the cost of the products and services provided by government. Those also create wealth, and the conditions to maintain and build wealth. Try running your business in a country that doesn’t have a viable police force, or fire protection, or military protection, or a court system. There is such a place: Somalia. Strangely, you don’t see a lot of wealth being created there.
A survey of a sample of AEA members identified their views on 18 specific forms of government activism, finding that about 8% of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles and that less than 3% may be called strong supporters. Even the average Republican AEA member is ‘middle-of-the-road,’ not free market.[11]
William McEachern, an economist at the University of Connecticut, analysed the 2004 campaign contributions of AEA members, committee members, officers, editors, referees, authors, and acknowledgees. He found that 2004 contributions heavily favored the Democratic Party, especially among leadership positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Economic_Association
A survey of American Economic Association members, examined by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern, finds that most economists support safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws. Another survey, reported in the Southern Economic Journal, reveals that “71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government.
http://mises.org/daily/2318
“Germany is phasing out nuclear to go with coal. They just signed a major contract with So Africa to buy coal from them. Coal is cheaper…….”
It may indeed be cheaper, but that’s not the driving force. It is due to the clamour and hysteria (not unlike the above tirades of unsubstantiated nonsense) of the green nutters in Germany following Fukushima. In short – it’s all politics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/8546178/Germany-to-shut-all-nuclear-reactors-by-2022.html
“Solar technology, he said, will have to get five times better than it is today, and scientists will need to find new types of plants that require little energy to grow and that can be converted to clean and cheap alternatives to fossil fuels. ” – Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy February 11, 2009
Only 5X? Sounds like solar is still not ready for prime time. Of course we’ve been hearing the same thing since about 1968.
> Only 5X? Sounds like solar is still not ready for prime time.
And, of course, one big thing that will help it get there is if fossil fuels were properly priced instead of receiving the huge subsidies they are today.
Dave, surely you jest. Carbon based fuels don’t NET any subsidies from the Government because carbon based fuels subsidize the government, #1 by the huge amount of tax revenue that the govenment collects directly from it and #2 by fueling the entire economy, which is the host that the parasitic drag that is the government attaches itself to. (FYI the economy wouldn’t exist without carbon fuels).
The best that you can say for solar is that if you could somehow burden the cheaper fuels (read viable & serviceable) with an excessive amount of artificial taxes & fees we can artificially affect the appearance that solar is cost competitive. Of course, this won’t make solar actually any more reliable, efficient, or powerful. Sorry I’ll pass.
Without fossil fuels, this dialogue wouldn’t be possible and most of the participants wouldn’t exist in the first place. We literally owe our lives to carbon based energy. Cool.
> We literally owe our lives to carbon based energy.
And some people owe their deaths to it, too. “Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution….”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/acs-nda072308.php
10-15% of lung cancers occur in nonsmokers.
Your comment is yet another red herring. No one is suggesting eliminating the use of energy, but (1) making producers and users pay for the damage their use of an energy product creates, and (2) incentivizing a transition to non-carbon energy sources.
“suggest”
That would be like “estimate,” wouldn’t it?
i.e. of no practical value.
Lets see the last time I read something about it life expectancy went from 30 some years to 70 some years due to the availability of cheap energy.
Cancer is an inherited condition in some people and they will contract it with any minor irritant.
There are many irritants that contribute to developing cancer and if the actual cause of cancer is ever found they will be able to develop a cure. In some cases with some forms of cancer they have made great strides because of the availability of cheap fossil fuel energy.
It is a matter of finding the balance and having fossil fuel energy is better than not having it. Increasing the price of energy will kill off more people than producing energy using fossil fuels. That means you are promoting killing off the poor and making more people poor so they to can be killed of by your scheme!
When are you planning to stop beating your wife and abusing your children?
“The evidence is mounting that tens of thousands of Americans will pay for the loss of jobs brought on by this economic downturn with their lives…The most dangerous Job is having no job!”
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/
How ironic.
Carbon tax, anyone?
Global Warming Study Finds No Grounds for Climate Skeptics’ Concerns
Independent investigation of the key issues skeptics claim can skew global warming figures reports that they have no real effect
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/20-8
honestly… all the worlds climate scientists are all in on a plot to deceive the world..