Originally Posted by James50

but picture doing away with all subsidies for renewables, nuclear, and fossil fuels. Get rid of all the depletion allowances, tax credit, FITs, and everything else. Let's have a pure market based choice. Is there any doubt that all the renewable installations would end the next day?

Why should I want to picture doing away with government subsidies? We need them. So does any large economic project or technology. You seem to accept the free-market ideology. Getting rid of that, is even more necessary to save our planet and our economy than giving up oil.

I know you really believe this stuff, and parts of it may be right, but what you have written is more a faith statement than an argument with facts. Thats OK, we all need to have faith in something, but you cannot be expected to persuade others with faith statements. I think we should move toward renewables for a lot of reasons, but we do not need to immolate the economy on the altar of green energy. We need to talk about costs. Just waving your hands and saying its all going to be cheaper is not convincing. All the current US subsidies are in place for a reason. The renewables are more expensive than alternatives. We can and should absorb some of these differences in cost, but let's at least do some arithmetic.

Also, keep in mind that we do not all live in California. Georgia has fairly meager renewable resources - little wind except perhaps offshore and too many clouds to make solar viable. Our best bets for electricity are biomass (we have lots of trees) and nuclear. If you want to go all solar in CA, be my guest, but I will want the same subsidies for Georgia nuclear that you are getting for CA solar and wind.

James50

Just calling them faith statements does not answer my points.

We do not have the subsidies for green energy yet that we need to really do the job fast. Meanwhile there are lots of subsidies for highways and such. You mentioned some of them too. I don't know the figures, but the real costs of the global-warming energies would boost their cost greatly if they were figured in. That's why greens call for true-cost pricing.

For you out there in Georgia, I would say you'll be fine with solar and wind as long as you don't seceed from the union (or maybe even if you do; there's always trade agreements!). Transmission lines can be built from the windmills in the plains; that's the plan in fact. But there's really plenty of sunshine and wind in Georgia; more than in Germany and Denmark I'm sure, which do very well! And plenty more sun just across the border in the sunshine state-- again, the plan would be to have solar plants there and transmission lines.

Oh, and we don't have 40 years; only less than 10 according to the scientists.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We do not have the subsidies for green energy yet that we need to really do the job fast. Meanwhile there are lots of subsidies for highways and such. You mentioned some of them too. I don't know the figures, but the real costs of the global-warming energies would boost their cost greatly if they were figured in. That's why greens call for true-cost pricing.

It is near impossible to price the externalities ("real costs") and easy to show the costs of change. As a statement of political science, if you push too hard and too fast, you will lose the war.

For you out there in Georgia, I would say you'll be fine with solar and wind as long as you don't seceed from the union (or maybe even if you do; there's always trade agreements!). Transmission lines can be built from the windmills in the plains; that's the plan in fact. But there's really plenty of sunshine and wind in Georgia; more than in Germany and Denmark I'm sure, which do very well! And plenty more sun just across the border in the sunshine state-- again, the plan would be to have solar plants there and transmission lines.

Being in CA, I am sure you will appreciate that Georgia does not want to import its electricity and be in the position of depending on others for such an essential commodity. As much as possible, we would like to take care of ourselves. Again, I think its hand waving to say "you'll be fine with solar and wind". If you were responsible for keeping the grid up in Georgia, you would want more assurance than that. Take a look at the solar and wind maps and then get back to me.

James50

BTW: My current car is a Toyota Camry Hybrid. I bought it while my son was in the Army and about to leave for Iraq. I was sick of sending money to people who it seemed were trying to kill us. I hope my next car will be total electric - probably a Leaf. I was really excited about the Aptera until I saw the recent trial runs through an obstacle course. Did you see that video?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You seem to accept the free-market ideology. Getting rid of that, is even more necessary to save our planet and our economy than giving up oil.

Yep, you have me there. Its not a matter of whether you or I or anyone "accepts the free market" and as long as there are human beings, you will not be able to get rid of it. It is there and eventually seems to have its way. The Russians found that out, the Greeks are finding that out, the Chinese are about to find that out, and we would be fools to ignore its power.

The question about government incentivized technological change is always the same. Who is going to pay?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

It is near impossible to price the externalities ("real costs") and easy to show the costs of change. As a statement of political science, if you push too hard and too fast, you will lose the war.

I think, James, that the science of politics shows the opposite in many cases, considering the compromises inevitable in government and legislatures. If you push fast and hard, only then will you be able, maybe, to get not-fast-enough and some little portion of what we need.

Being in CA, I am sure you will appreciate that Georgia does not want to import its electricity and be in the position of depending on others for such an essential commodity. As much as possible, we would like to take care of ourselves. Again, I think its hand waving to say "you'll be fine with solar and wind". If you were responsible for keeping the grid up in Georgia, you would want more assurance than that. Take a look at the solar and wind maps and then get back to me.

I don't have "solar and wind maps" whatever that means. But again, as long as you are still in the USA, you are not talking about "importing" electricity. "You'll be fine with solar and wind" means (as a reply to your statement about Georgia) there's enough in Georgia in comparison with other states and nations that are converting to solar and wind (I gave the example of northern Europe). I think you need assurance that global warming will be avoided, with all the catastrophe to the economy which that will cause, than assurance you might not have to turn off your lights and conserve more often.

My current car is a Toyota Camry Hybrid. I bought it while my son was in the Army and about to leave for Iraq. I was sick of sending money to people who it seemed were trying to kill us. I hope my next car will be total electric - probably a Leaf. I was really excited about the Aptera until I saw the recent trial runs through an obstacle course. Did you see that video?

I'm not too up on the brand names; no I didn't. I'm also hoping I can buy an electric car soon. Meanwhile I am stuck with my Toyota Corolla and riding my bike. Hybrids are somewhat better, but unfortunately not much better; to get the value for our gas money we got a few years ago, we need to have 80 mpg mileage or all-electric. Hybrids only get 40 or 45. At least owning a hybrid is a fine start, James.

Originally Posted by James50

Yep, you have me there. Its not a matter of whether you or I or anyone "accepts the free market" and as long as there are human beings, you will not be able to get rid of it. It is there and eventually seems to have its way. The Russians found that out, the Greeks are finding that out, the Chinese are about to find that out, and we would be fools to ignore its power.

The question about government incentivized technological change is always the same. Who is going to pay?

James50

Getting rid of the "free market" is not the point; it is getting rid of the ideology of the free market. (hey, isn't that what I said??) If you have read many of my posts, you know what I'm talking about. People are getting fooled by charmers like Reagan and Bush. There IS no free market; it is controlled by huge corporations, and that is not "free" but manipulated and owned. Wealth is power. When government allows business to do what it wishes, and does not regulate, tax, and direct/invest in it with subsidies, etc., then a few rich, greedy people take over the market and the country, and lead it to ruin. Some weeding and gardening needs to happen. And this definitely includes in the "fields" of energy and ecology.

We Americans have just found this out again, but people like the Tea Party are good at ignoring the facts. They don't want to pay, but without a progressive tax system, then the middle class pays, and the rich get off scot free while the national debt soars. We all need to pay something for clean energy, but this is an investment that will be well worth its dividends. "government incentivized technological change" is always in-part paid by taxpayers, and it is always worth it, since without it there IS no technological change that benefits our lives. The issue here is not the accounting details; you can work those out if that's your expertise. The right direction needs to be kept in mind first, along with the most important facts of the whole situation. We can't keep fiddling while Earth burns.

Note the review of How To Cool The Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth's Climate.

Scroll down to culture & books.

David Roberts has included scenarios in which a country takes unilateral action to promote global dimming.

60 Minutes this week revealed some of the facts related to this discussion. These oil rigs cost something like $650 million dollars, and pumping costs $1 million a day. The PBS doc "Heat" reported that companies such as Exxon devote 99% of their profits to searching and drilling for oil, much of it in the ocean. It is simply a lie to suggest that it would cost too much to transition to clean energy, and that it couldn't be done quickly. If Exxon devoted 99% of its budget to researching and producing solar and wind energy and electric batteries for cars, the transition would happen almost overnight. The cost to our economy is not the problem; it is the cost to our political stalemate, and the CEOs and politicians like McConnell who profit from it.

Safety violations are also rampant at another oil rig, I believe it's called the Atlantis. The costs of this greatest oil spill and possibly greatest environmental disaster ever are mounting quickly. The problem is that Americans don't know who is to blame (themselves, and the Republicans they elect, and might elect even more of this November). Yes, BP is to blame; even more to blame are all of us (politicians, and those who elect them or fail to contact them with the truth) who permitted offshore oil drilling (and really ALL oil drilling) to continue so long after we have all known what the price is-- destruction of the life on this planet. And who continue to keep our political system dominated by money.

Global Fever How To Treat Climate Change by William H. Calvin

The author extrapolates the last interglacial to the present. That interglacial was substantially warmer than the our Holocene. The book has a revised map of Greenland, with much of the present ice cap gone. The world would experience a 6meter/20ft. rise in sea level.

Maps show submergence of coasts around the world.

Consider the fate of the Netherlands. As shown in the book, the change reminds me of a movie that depicted an abrupt melting of the Arctic - Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

artificial global dimming

Global Fever....

"The discussions of geo-engineering heard in the science policy community have an air of unreality about them, as they assume some sort of global scientific consensus before deploying anything. I think it more likely that political leaders under pressure to 'do something' because of a persistent heat wave will order their power plants to produe more aerosols to achieve local sunscreen, then order planes flying over their territory to use high-sulfur jet fuel, and later order their air force to disperse sulfur in the stratosphere-all without international consensus or scientific wisdom...."

hot rocksgeothermal power

car powered by compressed air

Global Fever....

The author states that we must start implementing remedies by the year 2020. This means using current technology to decrease the use of carbon-based fuels. He proposes using either 4th generation nuclear reactors or hot rocks geothermal. Electricity could be distributed internationally using aerial DC lines. He is enthusiastic about cars powered with compressed air, compared to alternatives such as cars using batteries or biofuels.

Global Fever....

"Going to the moon was a major national effort that, while expensive, did not require a wartime economic restructuring. I had lunch with George Mueller, who ran the Apollo Project for NASA in those critical years from 1963 to 1969. I asked him what it would it take to stage, on an urgent basis, our energy makeover and climate restoration.

"First, he said, simply banning certain energy uses would not work any better than the U.S. experiment with banning alcohol, which simply created a bootlegging industry. (Imagine cheap Chinese incandescent bulbs smuggled into California, Australia and Canada, now that they have decided to ban the old-fashioned bulbs.)

"For an Apollo-scale project to create non-carbon energy alternatives, Mueller said that we needed a goal that was easy to understand (something like putting a man on the moon and returning him safely). And the goal needed a time frame (President Kennedy's 'this decade') to persuade the public to act now."

Calvin proposes:

"The 2020 target would be stopping the annual growth in emissions to keep the eventual fever below" 2 degrees Celsius.

Global cooling is on its way in fact it has already arrived....

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...tists-warming/

Originally Posted by Weave

Global cooling is on its way in fact it has already arrived....

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...tists-warming/

Thanks for providing information from such a notably reliable source.

Here is some from provided through the auspices of that Commie Rag, the NY Times (left scale of graph is in .01 degree Celcius):

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Thanks for providing information from such a notably reliable source.

It's not just that it is Faux news doing the reporting, but the Heartland Institute that sponsored the conference is a think tank with a distinct slant as well. Their front page features bits on the Tea Party, the Contract from America, Lott's More Guns Less Crime pro gun position and anti-Obama health care.

Global Fever....

Calvin considers that the Greenland ice cap may not melt away drop by drop, but rather, collapse into the sea catastrophically.

"...we don't know how fast Greenland will collapse, having neither a comparable collapse in the climate records nor a tested dynamic model of collapse. It's clear, however, that the hills and valleys underlying an ice sheet can play a crucial role in slowing collapse, by pinning the bottom of the ice sheet.

"...it is a matter of ice getting pushed off the land and instantaneously raising sea level. And how quickly ice gets pushed off the land depends on the ice mountain pancaking, spreading out sideways like that melting ice cream scoop on the sidewalk."

Global Fever....

Re: the ocean turning acidic due to high carbon dioxide.

One proposed remedy is to bring water from the depths up to the surface. Wave action would power pumps, which would suck water up through long tubes.

Several on the left on this forum are always saying the the right is not fact based. I am curious whether they can adjust to these facts.

Recently a Spanish newspaper published an expose about an internal document from the Spanish cabinet about the supposed job effects of a green economy. Obama has often pointed to the Spanish as a model for green economy. I suggest you read the English translation (or you can try the original Spanish if you are so inclined.)

"The internal report of the Spanish administration admits that the price of electricity has gone up, as well as the debt, due to the extra costs of solar and wind energy. Even the government numbers indicate that each green job created costs more than 2.2 traditional jobs, as was shown in the report of the Juan de Mariana Institute. Besides that, the official document is almost a copy point by point of the one that led to Calzada being denounced [lit. "vetoed"] by the Spanish Embassy in an act in the U.S. Congress."
...
"The numbers in the long run are even scarier. The government itself says that the alternative energies sector will receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years. Just an example: The owners of solar plants make 12 times more than what they pay for the energy coming from fossil fuel combustion. The majority are subsidies charged to the consumer.
The conclusion is that with the economy at the point of bankruptcy, it is not possible to keep injecting money in such a costly sector. And the government seems to realize this now."

Rest here: http://bit.ly/cNtO5K

Now I am in favor of long term development of renewables for a variety of reasons but mainly to reduce burning of fossil fuels, but can we at least agree that the transition will be extremely costly and should not be undertaken without respect for these costs? We are talking a 50 year project at a minimum and maybe longer.

We have a saying in our company that the three most dangerous words in the English language are "Oh you just...". I have heard people on this board say things that sound very much like "Oh you just get rid of fossil fuels and replace with wind and solar and we will create jobs doing it". It ain't that easy, and we would be foolish to pretend otherwise.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Several on the left on this forum are always saying the the right is not fact based. I am curious whether they can adjust to these facts.

Recently a Spanish newspaper published an expose about an internal document from the Spanish cabinet about the supposed job effects of a green economy. Obama has often pointed to the Spanish as a model for green economy. I suggest you read the English translation (or you can try the original Spanish if you are so inclined.)

"The internal report of the Spanish administration admits that the price of electricity has gone up, as well as the debt, due to the extra costs of solar and wind energy. Even the government numbers indicate that each green job created costs more than 2.2 traditional jobs, as was shown in the report of the Juan de Mariana Institute. Besides that, the official document is almost a copy point by point of the one that led to Calzada being denounced [lit. "vetoed"] by the Spanish Embassy in an act in the U.S. Congress."
...
"The numbers in the long run are even scarier. The government itself says that the alternative energies sector will receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years. Just an example: The owners of solar plants make 12 times more than what they pay for the energy coming from fossil fuel combustion. The majority are subsidies charged to the consumer.
The conclusion is that with the economy at the point of bankruptcy, it is not possible to keep injecting money in such a costly sector. And the government seems to realize this now."

Rest here: http://bit.ly/cNtO5K

Now I am in favor of long term development of renewables for a variety of reasons but mainly to reduce burning of fossil fuels, but can we at least agree that the transition will be extremely costly and should not be undertaken without respect for these costs? We are talking a 50 year project at a minimum and maybe longer.

We have a saying in our company that the three most dangerous words in the English language are "Oh you just...". I have heard people on this board say things that sound very much like "Oh you just get rid of fossil fuels and replace with wind and solar and we will create jobs doing it". It ain't that easy, and we would be foolish to pretend otherwise.

James50

All these are good points, but what alternative do you suggest? We never do things in good times, because times are good. That may be circular logic, but has that stopped anyone in the past? On the other hand, we know ... not surmise, know, that alternatives are mandatory and soon. I seriously doubt that we have 50 years to make major reductions, and world usage is still rising. So doing nothing is not viable and waiting for good times never works, meaning we do it at this worst of times.

Will there be pain. You bet, and plenty of it. It's our own fault. We have to pay for past sins, and the longer we wait the worse the pain. But there will be pain, of that there is no doubt. There may be parts of the world that fail. Let's not be part of them.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

All these are good points, but what alternative do you suggest? We never do things in good times, because times are good. That may be circular logic, but has that stopped anyone in the past? On the other hand, we know ... not surmise, know, that alternatives are mandatory and soon. I seriously doubt that we have 50 years to make major reductions, and world usage is still rising. So doing nothing is not viable and waiting for good times never works, meaning we do it at this worst of times.

Will there be pain. You bet, and plenty of it. It's our own fault. We have to pay for past sins, and the longer we wait the worse the pain. But there will be pain, of that there is no doubt. There may be parts of the world that fail. Let's not be part of them.

What makes me nervous about the current dialog is that those who want to take measures to mitigate global warming and move away from fossil fuels try to sell it on the basis that we can do it at little or no cost. Tom Friedman and Barack Obama both talk about the wonderful green economy that will result. I am OK with the vision, but we need to tell the truth about what the transition will mean and not try to sell it on false pretenses.

The analogies of going to the moon or the Manhattan project to create a non-fossil based energy infrastructure don't hold much water with me. These were discrete engineering projects and did not involve a complete remake of our society.

If the Spanish experience is correct, the transition will cost jobs in the short run. There is still a case to do it, but we need to tell the truth about it. It is going to be a decades long effort and will require sacrifice. I don't know if we are capable of such an effort and sacrifice, but trying to get it started by telling people its going to be painless will backfire in the end.

You ask what should we do. My personal favorite is a carbon tax that increases over time and replaces part or all of the payroll tax (FICA). The basic idea is to raise taxes on something you don't want (carbon) and lower taxes on something you do want (work). There would still be a net cost to the economy, but maybe less impact on jobs which is the most sensitive to real people.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

What makes me nervous about the current dialog is that those who want to take measures to mitigate global warming and move away from fossil fuels try to sell it on the basis that we can do it at little or no cost. Tom Friedman and Barack Obama both talk about the wonderful green economy that will result. I am OK with the vision, but we need to tell the truth about what the transition will mean and not try to sell it on false pretenses.

The analogies of going to the moon or the Manhattan project to create a non-fossil based energy infrastructure don't hold much water with me. These were discrete engineering projects and did not involve a complete remake of our society.

If the Spanish experience is correct, the transition will cost jobs in the short run. There is still a case to do it, but we need to tell the truth about it. It is going to be a decades long effort and will require sacrifice. I don't know if we are capable of such an effort and sacrifice, but trying to get it started by telling people its going to be painless will backfire in the end.

You ask what should we do. My personal favorite is a carbon tax that increases over time and replaces part or all of the payroll tax (FICA). The basic idea is to raise taxes on something you don't want (carbon) and lower taxes on something you do want (work). There would still be a net cost to the economy, but maybe less impact on jobs which is the most sensitive to real people.

James50

Silly Rabbit, you are being practical again. I agree with your process on Green Power and Taxes, but the other posters on this forum will have none of it.

Carbon taxes sound like a good idea to me, too, and far simpler and more direct than cap-and-trade.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Carbon taxes sound like a good idea to me, too, and far simpler and more direct than cap-and-trade.

Cap-and-Trade has been a failure on the European Continent. For some reason, the Democrats and the President are still fixated on it per the Kerry-Lieberman bill. Lesson not learned.

Originally Posted by James50

What makes me nervous about the current dialog is that those who want to take measures to mitigate global warming and move away from fossil fuels try to sell it on the basis that we can do it at little or no cost. Tom Friedman and Barack Obama both talk about the wonderful green economy that will result. I am OK with the vision, but we need to tell the truth about what the transition will mean and not try to sell it on false pretenses.

Both are truth. Truth about the wonderful green economy and truth that is will cost terribly. I don't hear anyone, Obama included, skirting the issue that sacrifice will be necessary, pain inevitable.

I started a business when I was in college. An asphalt business. My two buddies backed out because the start up costs were huge ($20,000 in 1979 dollars). They couldnt stomach the sacrifice, short term costs and pain. I footed the whole bill via a high interest loan. I took the risk, and I made the money. Instead of working at McDonalds and cutting grass I took the pain and in the long run, I only had to work 4 months a year and had a ton of cash the whole time I worked on my undergrad.

What it boils down to is nuggets. If you are spending your time worrying about the taxes, "pain" and short term problems, you are a grasshopper, not an ant and you are not cut out for the demands of a 4T era challenge.

The analogies of going to the moon or the Manhattan project to create a non-fossil based energy infrastructure don't hold much water with me. These were discrete engineering projects and did not involve a complete remake of our society.

Certainly those two exercises served to change our societies wholesale. Certainly a new energy program would do the same. Actually why would we do just one project, instead of several. The idea is to focus resources on solving a really big set of problems. Those without the nuggets to attack really big problems tend to use arguments about pain, short term discomfort, etc. This is a time to act boldly and pragmatically, not a time to natter about pain, sacrifice and personal discomfort.

If the Spanish experience is correct, the transition will cost jobs in the short run. There is still a case to do it, but we need to tell the truth about it. It is going to be a decades long effort and will require sacrifice. I don't know if we are capable of such an effort and sacrifice, but trying to get it started by telling people its going to be painless will backfire in the end.

You are right. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. To do that, you need to talk about Germany, the Dutch, the Chinese and everyone out there that is making great strides and doing it without the problems the Spanish are encoutering. After all, the Spanish are a wreck to begin with! Why is it that naysayers always point to the weak end of the spectrum and seem to conveniently not see the broader spectrum of experiments many of which are halmarks of success.

You ask what should we do. My personal favorite is a carbon tax that increases over time and replaces part or all of the payroll tax (FICA). The basic idea is to raise taxes on something you don't want (carbon) and lower taxes on something you do want (work). There would still be a net cost to the economy, but maybe less impact on jobs which is the most sensitive to real people.

Taxes are not only likely but needed. Tax the true cost energy and watch people innovate, conserve and reduce use in a heartbeat. When people innovate, jobs are created. Add some government joint ventures with private sector and universities to develop new energy alternatives and you are at least on the way to a solution.

Possibly we are not ready yet. Too many nattering folks afraid of pain and risk. When things get bad enough, and Xers are in the management role and Millies are in the workforce full tilt, things will happen.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

the Chinese and everyone out there that is making great strides

Last time I heard the Chinese were building a coal fired power plant every 10 days. They use more coal than the US, European Union, and Japan combined.

Germany is cutting its FIT which has made it the largest solar market in the world. http://bit.ly/6b4x2J A German politician has made the statement "The current rate of support not only harms the consumer durable with extra electricity costs, it also impedes the technological breakthrough"

I hear what you are saying about nuggets although risking all on the success of sudden change, I would call more like cannon balls.

James50