another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[KENAT]

Zdas, I'll merrily agree with you that requirements - be they government regulation or technical specs etc. - that prescribe the 'how' rather than 'what' are often a bad idea.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[CheckerHater]

Guys,
Am I the only one having strange feeling like somebody is manipulating you into never-ending CO2 discussion?
One would expect engineers to be aware of other aspects of pollution besides elusive global warming.
With all due apologies, this is how I see never-ending climate-change arguments on this forum:

 

[rb1957]

@CH ...

nah, it's more like ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

You know, CheckerHater, if there is a discussion underway that you find pointless, ridiculous, or ill focused you always have the option of not opening it. I do that pretty often and find that it either: (1) continues with the same pointlessnes without me; (2) dies; or (3) changes direction into something that is either more or less pointless. If I stop cranking, the dang world does actually keep spinning. Please leave the rest of us to our pointlenssness. We seem to enjoy it.

If you want a discussion of "real" problems, there is a button for that called "start a new thread". Try it, it often leads to interesting and worthwhile discussions. You can also stay in the GD&T forum and avoid non-tech discussions altogether. Most eng-tips.com users take that option.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[ewh]

SnTMan,
Does lack of wealth let you dump your oil after an oil change, or even through your cigarette butt out of the car window? I realize that there are laws regarding these examples, but would you do it if there weren't a law against it? Concern for the environment can be reflected in many more ways than using your wealth to show it.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[CheckerHater]

zdas04,
It wasn't me who used the word "pointless", but I agree wholeheartedly.
With your permission I will pick forums to participate it all by myself, thank you very much.

 

[SnTMan]

ewh, I do not throw my butts out the window

No I was not speaking of individuals so much, all I really mean is that until a population, however you define it, has basic needs assured it is not really able to expend resources on hopes, dreams, causes, hobbies, etc. For example, you have to have a sufficient supply of food of any kind before you really worry about "healthy" food.

Using rich in relative terms, too much of the world is not rich enough.

Regards,

Mike

 

[ornerynorsk]

Tick, Thank-you! Why do people always see climate change as a BAD thing?!?!

So we lose New York City and Miami. Oh well.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[zdas04]

CheckerHater,
OK, how's this, no one is manipulating me into a never-ending CO2 discussion. I don't speak for anyone but myself and don't care what forums you choose to frequent.

Many of us here are very much aware of pollution in its broadest definitions. The current state of pollution-control activities and regulations seems to be a very delicate balance between sources and regulations and there really is not a huge area of disagreement.

Where there is a disconnect is between people who see CO2 as a pollutant and those that don't. Plenty of room for a discussion in that arena. It looks like COP 19 in Warsaw has dissolved into shouting, walkouts, and hunger strikes. I think there is room for discussion, finally.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[cranky108]

ewh, lack of wealth means you can't buy a car that has oil, and you can't buy cigarettes. So you can't afford to have those problems.

The issue is if you can afford those things, how do you choose to despose of the waste? Education is the answer, not taxes. But because the education is so poor here, we can't see what it really is.

 

[rconnor]

Carbon Tax,

Some people can point to Canada's BC as an example - but guess what - their CO2 emissions have INCREASED, coincident with their GDP - in spite of this tax. Well, that accomplished, ummm, nothing...

Not true.
- Fuel consumption has fallen 17.4% per capita (Rest of Canada grew 1.5% per capita) in the period of the tax
- GDP is out pacing the rest of Canadian (-0.15% for BC, -0.23% for Canada – note: recession)
- In 2010, fuel consumption dropped 2.4% while the GDP grew 1.64%
- In 2011, fuel consumption dropped 7.1% while the GDP grew 1.92%
- Source

It can be argued that part of the reduction can be attributed to people crossing into Washington State to fill up. The number of same-day trips has increased since 2008. However, how many of those trips are purely fuel related is unclear. Furthermore, it’s a fairly large jump to connect the increase in same-day trips to Washington to a substantial portion of the 17.4% reduction – keep in mind that those trips have to be for the sole purpose of filling up. Even still, if I’m being very generous and saying that 50% of the reduction in fuel consumption is offset by people buying gas in Washington, you are still left with a 3.55% reduction in fuel consumption for a 1.92% increase in GDP in 2011.

The Pause,
I’ve already discussed this here (see my posts at 24 Sep 13 17:28 and 26 Sep 13 14:10). I’ve got 15+ links to papers and articles and my thoughts on the issue.

But I can now add the following research paper to the pile: Cowtan and Way 2013. See the video explanation of the paper here and an article from Real Climate. Yup, Curry has had her say and here is a pretty neat response to her criticisms and the paper in general.

La Loi/The Law,
I’ll truncate my first draft but I can’t let it go without a comment. It’s very relevant to my original question because embracement of La Loi puts you in direct ideological conflict with sustainability. You can’t have maximum liberty and be “forced”, through taxes or regulations, to consume less. This is a priori to any talk about the science (or even economics). I really liked zdas comments on regulating the what not the how but even that is a violation of Bastiat’s liberty.

La Loi also seems to have some fuzzy logic at the core of its argument. It states:
1) Mankind’s [sic] natural faculties lead him [sic] to be self-interested (“When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others”. “This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.”)
2) Anytime the law is used to force man [sic] to be philanthropic, it is plundering and should not be done (“it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction”)
3) Man [sic] should be allowed use his [sic] natural faculties to choose to be philanthropic (“And it is under the law of justice…that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being”)

Therefore, Bastiat must conclude one of the following:
1) The logical paradox that humans are naturally self-interested but, if there are no laws forcing them to be otherwise, won’t be
2) That divine intervention will clean up the paradox (his final sentence suggests that this is his answer)
3) A truly just and fair society is one that is apathetic and self-serving

 

[zdas04]

Rconnor,
I've read several counterpoints to Bastiat's paper since I was pointed to the paper last week. I find them all to miss the fundamental concepts and put their own words into his mouth with interpretations that are exactly counter to his actual words (as translated).

I certainly don't have a problem with people saying that my ideology is in conflict with "sustainability". Every fiber of my being is in conflict with the myopic and twisted way that that concept is being shoved down our throats. The idea of "consume only what you can produce" implies static technology mix, static production methods, and a static mix of raw materials required. In 1900 Gallium had no known use and was not bought or sold. In 1970 people were starting to think about such things as solar panels and it sold for around $0.40/gram. Today it is $15/gm. A "sustainability" analysis in 1890 would not have included that mineral at all. Who's to say what will be the next generation of compound that goes from "no market" to "shortage". When England ran out of trees near London to use as fuel, they figured out that they could use coal. When they found that they couldn't breathe in the high sulfur smoke, they used different coal and brought in methane. Sustainability (as the concept has been perverted today) would have said that they all would just freeze to death in the dark when the trees ran out.

I don't see any of the concepts that you cherry picked as being "fuzzy" at all. Government cannot be philanthropic without taking the money from people unwilling to provide it. Government philanthropy is a failed concept that should be driven from society with extreme prejudice.

It is pretty arrogant to conclude that a guy that has been dead for 170 year "must" do anything. I'm in no way competent to speak for him, but I can give you my take on your last three points.
[ol 1]
[li]The paper was very clear on this point. The purpose of the law is to create disincentives to plunder. Self interest is a good thing. Stealing from others to satisfy your own self interest is a bad thing. The law creates consequences to that plunder[/li]
[li]I don't see any call to divine intervention in the document at all. The call is for society to act only in those cases where one party is plundering the person or property of an individual. That "plunder" could be dumping industrial waste into rivers. The law should create penalties for that class of activity.[/li]
[li]The document does not say that at all. It says that a truly just and fair set of laws is limited to the prevention of plunder. The law should be apathetic and non-philanthropic. Plundering me to improve the lot of farmers, oil companies, the city of New Orleans, the Jersey Shore, or "welfare moms" is not a role that should be included in the law. If the law were fair and just, then people would have a significantly larger portion of their income in hand to show their philanthropic nature. People can have that characteristic, governments can't and shouldn't try.[/li]
[/ol]

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - re BC carbon tax - you seem to be talking right past me. I never claimed that per capita fuel usage increased, I said that total CO2 emissions increased. You have presented nothing to refute that statement. And your further analysis confuses per capita with total fuel consumption - a common error (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - I don't think that you are a charlatan playing a thimble and pea game...). Besides, isn't it total CO2 emissions that are supposed to damn the world to Thermageddon, not per capita emissions? And the population is increasing, so unless you have a plan for reducing population, small per capita decreases (to 2011 - what happened in 2012 and this year??) won't do anything.

So, please answer my question: what is the price elasticity/sensitivity of carbon-based fuels? What level of carbon [sic] tax will actually result in a net decrease in total emissions.

And: What, where, and when is the damage (that wouldn't have otherwise occurred - i.e. the null hypothesis) from CO2-driven higher temperatures? I'm all for preventing damage. I just don't see the damage from CO2 emissions that wouldn't have otherwise happened. Now, the benefits of higher plant productivity, that is certainly a positive.

 

[zdas04]

Price inelasticity is an interesting concept. Preliminary EIA data is showing that we imported less crude in October than we exported (it is preliminary and subject to change, should not have been released, may not be true, the release was totally political). Response to that rumor was a $0.50/gallon drop in pump prices in several major markets (prices dropped $0.35/gallon here compared to Monday). The White House is taking credit for this great thing (lowering per gallon price). They don't seem to care that lower prices will reverse the conservation that was a component in the shift in import/export balance. The White House doesn't seem at all upset about the increased CO2 that will result from the lower price just before the holidays (one radio station was asking people in a mall if it changed their plans and about half of the people interviewed were going to take trips over Thanksgiving that weren't in the cards just last week).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

zdas, I'm really not trying to cherry pick but he does say humans are inherently self-serving ("live and prosper at the expense of others") and then says that, in the absence of laws, humans will behave in the best interest of society, does he not? These two statements are in direct odds with one-another. The only solution to humans inherent selfishness that I see from him is mention of embracing his god's will (read the very last sentence again). I find this monopoly on morality by his religion both unconvincing and rather insulting (but I know it was a product of the era it was written in).

I do agree with the premise behind the corruptibility of the law, and it is a very good point, but I don't take it as far as he does (any law that reduces liberty or takes property is plundering). Basically, you can't tax anyone and therefore cannot provide any public services. He explicitly states that education should not be paid for by taxes (nor any form of welfare...or support to the needy/disenfranchised).

I never claimed that per capita fuel usage increased, I said that total CO2 emissions increased. You have presented nothing to refute that statement. And your further analysis confuses per capita with total fuel consumption - a common error (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - I don't think that you are a charlatan playing a thimble and pea game...)

Darn, you caught me in a web of lies! I was using per capita fuel usage to mask the truth! Alas, I shall come clean.

Here you go, from the original paper:
Total GHG Emissions per capita from sources subject to BC Carbon Tax (2008-2011): -10%
Please note the nefarious use of per capita in the paper.

From BC Gov, the population of BC was:
2008: 4,349,412
2011: 4,499,139
Change: +149,727 (3.4% increase)

As for the GDP, from Statistics Canada (CANSIM tables 379-0025 and 379-0026) (in million of 2002 $):
2008: $151,695
2011: $157,525
Change: +$5,830 (3.8% increase)

So, from 2008 to 2011:
GHG Emissions per capita: -10%
BC Population: +3.4% (emission reduction outpaced population growth almost 3:1)
BC GDP: +3.8%

Or from Gov of BC 2010 Emissions Report (the latest report):
Total GHG Emissions (*all sources*) (kt CO2e)
2008: 65,417
2010: 61,993
Change: -3,424 (5.2% reduction)

So, as I said before:

Some people can point to Canada's BC as an example - but guess what - their CO2 emissions have INCREASED, coincident with their GDP - in spite of this tax. Well, that accomplished, ummm, nothing...

Patently false.

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - thank you for the data (and the links to the courses). I do indeed stand corrected, based on your data sources. However...

Let's focus for a moment on motor fuels (gasoline as an example). In-province sales from 2008 to 2012 is as follows:
2008: 4,467,255,000 litres
2009: 4,536,112,000 litres
2010: 4,560,666,000 litres
2011: 4,537,496,000 litres
2012: 4,348,707,000 litres
(source)

Also, same day trips to the US looks like this (I apologize for the formatting):
[tt]2008
January February March April May June July August September
400,746 418,588 446,849 407,328 407,792 421,665 420,424 405,062 407,015
October November December
364,892 338,425 289,879
2009
January February March April May June July August September
326,022 358,178 329,991 342,921 348,014 362,421 360,379 387,233 404,059
October November December
410,860 430,834 442,420
2010
January February March April May June July August September
517,042 470,223 533,901 543,440 551,601 558,498 589,743 595,939 597,915
October November December
632,344 645,227 695,904
2011
January February March April May June July August September
702,832 705,620 756,696 750,889 767,268 782,428 777,407 794,429 820,175
October November December
860,661 867,305 880,266
2012
January February March April May June July August September
819,616 884,500 867,729 875,721 889,901 873,214 858,567 827,101 860,696
October November December
871,553 862,129 859,166
2013
January February March April May June July August September
899,714 920,243 881,351 829,622 869,735 894,504 914,116 873,188 882,287[/tt]
(source)

From 2008 to 2013, the monthly average number of day-trips increased from 394k per month in 2008 to 789k per month (in 2011) up to 885k per month (average of monthly values up to Sept 2013). So, let's assume that each day trip is filling at an average of 70 litres (just a swag), that's an additional 12*(885,000-394,000)*70=412,440,000 litres.

So, adjusting the above annual fuel sales by cross-border shopping (not including those who buy from Alberta):
2008: 4,798,261,200 litres
2009: 4,851,354,680 litres
2010: 5,045,890,320 litres
2011: 5,200,114,040 litres
2012: 5,073,199,440 litres

So, total gasoline consumption is up from 2008 to 2011, by about 8.4% (it's obviously less to 2012), while, as you say, GDP went up 3.8%.

The carbon [sic] tax didn't reduce consumption, it just exported sales increases. Indeed CO2 emissions of bought-in-province motor fuel sales went down. But CO2 emissions of out-of-province motor fuels has seen a huge increase.

However, in the grand scheme of things, even using the CO2-temperature values from the IPCC, we're arguing about thousandths of a degree.

Assuming that you could impose a world-wide tax scheme on CO2 emissions (so there would be no cross-border leakage), again I ask: what is the price elasticity/sensitivity of carbon-based fuels? What level of carbon [sic] tax will actually result in a net decrease in total emissions, even as GDP increases?

And: What, where, and when is the damage (that wouldn't have otherwise occurred - i.e. the null hypothesis) from CO2-driven higher temperatures? I'm all for preventing damage. I just don't see the damage from CO2 emissions that wouldn't have otherwise happened. Now, the benefits of higher plant productivity, that is certainly a positive.

 

[debodine]

rconnor said:

"zdas, I'm really not trying to cherry pick but he does say humans are inherently self-serving ("live and prosper at the expense of others") and then says that, in the absence of laws, humans will behave in the best interest of society, does he not? These two statements are in direct odds with one-another."

I would like to suggest that Bastiat actually implied something just a bit different. The typical person, according to Bastiat, will live and prosper at the expense of others when that causes less pain than applying their faculties to resources to develop what they need. He also implied that in the absence of all laws EXCEPT THOSE LAWS NECESSARY TO PREVENT INJUSTICE, humans, by behaving in their own self-interest (avoiding the pain of punishment for unjust activities) will be acting in the best interest of society. It is a similar argument to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" concept.

Any way, that is how I interpret Bastiat on those issues. Of course as zdas indicated, we have a translation of his thoughts and he is no longer around to correct any mistakes we make in reading his ideas.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Self-serving or behaving in the interests of society? These statements aren't at odds with each other. Someone should dust-off their copy of The Selfish Gene.

- Steve

 

[cranky108]

The Selfish Gene, simply states that I can keep my more of my money if I pay less taxes, right? Wrong.

With that logic, I can save money by not having a washing machine, or dish washer, however I have both, not because they save money, but because they save time.

The Selfish Gene is more like if it makes me more confortable, reproductive, healthy, or gives me a higher status, or makes me live longer.
So do taxes do any of that? Do dirty air and water do that? Do regulations that don't have a good basis do that? Where is the motovation?

Example: I don't recycle because it costs me extra to do so. However I burn wood to heat my home, because I have to despose of the wood anyway.

If the values you wish people would follow, are important, then make them fit peoples needs.

Develope reneable energy to fit peoples needs, like the solar calculators.

 

[rb1957]

"If the values you wish people would follow, are important, then make them fit peoples needs."

nah it's more like "If the values you wish people would follow, are important, then mould them (the people) to fit."



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati