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

 

[cranky108]

So you are a fan of the public school system?

At least you did not say crack the whip.

 

[rb1957]

no ... people generally have a low ductility and are not very malleable.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

SomptingGuy, it has been a while so I don’t recall what aspect of the Selfish Gene you are referencing. However, Dawkins has made it abundantly clear that he feels that a “survival of the fittest” mentality that is natural in our genetic (and memic) makeup is an abhorrent base for anthropogenic morality, if that is what you were getting at. My point was to “live and prosper at the expense of others” (which is analogous to a “survival of the fittest” mentality) is at odds with behaving in the interest of society. And if humans have the natural tendency to do the former, you can’t expect them to do the latter without some form of restriction. Now, this doesn’t have to be through legislation but The Law offers little in the way of alternative solutions (besides accepting his god’s will).

Debodine, fair enough. Despite my opposition to much of what is said in The Law, I think it is a good look at the core of libertarian ideology. As it takes us even more off topic, I’ll leave it there.

TGS4,

Thanks for taking the time to do the analysis. The increase in day-trips is huge, I’m astounded at the jump from 2010 to 2011 (it’s around +35%). Your link didn’t work for me and I couldn’t recreate your numbers using Table 427-002 on CANSIM (Is that the same table you used? what filters did you use? I couldn’t get same day trips to generate results). Either way, with the filters I used (BC, Total Canadian vehicles returning (not US entering), All trip durations), the number of trips was up substantially: 2008 average = 323,472, 2012 average = 627,352, Increase = 303,880. However, this number is lower than what you used. Sorting out which filters will help.

I also don’t agree with your 70 L/trip number but, as you said, it’s a WAG and anything I would rebut with would be a WAG, even with reasons such as not 100% of vehicles would refill completely or need to refill at all in the US and a quick search on average vehicle tank capacity is 55 L (sketchy number off wikianswers). As I will show, taking whatever number we want for either the L/trips or number of trips/year, the conclusion is the same.

Regardless of whether these trips are for saving on the carbon tax or shopping, CO2 emissions are CO2 emissions. So here’s the real test: how has Washington’s CO2 emissions faired in the life time of the BC carbon tax? If Washington’s emissions have gone up, we still have the difficult task of separating out what percentage is related to the effect of the BC carbon tax and what isn’t. If Washington’s emissions have gone down, then we have a far simple conclusion: the displacing of CO2 emissions in BC by purchasing fuel is Washington is mute.

From the EIA – Total Emissions – Carbon Dioxide data for Washington (in Million Metric Tons of CO2):
Grand Total 2008: 79.6 (note 2007 was 81.8)
Grand Total 2010: 76.1 (latest data)
Grand Total Difference: -3.5

Transportation – Petro Products 2008: 43.0 (note 2007 was 47.8)
Transportation – Petro Products 2010: 41.6
Transportation – Petro Products Difference: -1.4

So, if both BC and Washington have reduced both their total CO2 emissions and fuel usage, there is no way that the positive effects of the BC carbon tax, in BC, are being offset by purchases in Washington. It could be argued that if Washington is reducing their CO2 emissions without a carbon tax then the carbon tax isn’t the driver. This is grasping at straws and is immediately counter by the comparison of CO2 emission reduction in BC relative to the rest of Canada: 10% reduction in BC, 1.1% in the rest of Canada (Original Source). I think it’s fair to conclude that the BC Carbon tax has been effective at changing consumer behavior and reducing CO2 emissions. This is not a trivial conclusion as many people argue against it, but now I believe we can say, through many different lines of statistical evidence, they do so incorrectly.

We can then move onto the question, “is reducing CO2 emissions really necessary”? This is a multifaceted problem not nearly as either to prove or disprove as the BC Carbon tax. I think it is necessary. I’ve presented many papers and arguments on these forums indicating why I think so. You and others have offered competing theories or standpoints. As specific ones are brought up (such as the Pause), I’ll try to provide counter-points (as I have). We may not be able to completely sway each other but I think much can be learnt through the discussion.

 

[ornerynorsk]

RE the ductility of people. There is a very fine line between outright coercion and leadership. I think it's safe to say that the line has been trodden to where it is no longer visible or even apparent, and that society in general seems to willingly accept it right up to the point of submission to the fascist state. We've very little choice in most matters nowadays, to the point of even being dictated what we will and will not be allowed to have for lunch. (transfats, drink sizes, etc).

Good intentions gone awry have toppled many empires. Why do we think we're exempt from natural law?

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.

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - good thinking to check the Washington data (it was late the other night when I put that together... Not sure if I could recreate the info from the CANSIM data. )

So, it appear that, in the short term, the BC carbon tax is coincident with a reduction in emissions. I am not ready to make the leap to cause-effect (you know, the whole correlation=causation thing), but the data is interesting. At least it is data/facts. Thank you for that.

Several years ago (during that last Canadian federal election) I ran some numbers based on some proposed carbon [sic] tax values. If I recall, if the true desire is controlling run-away temperature, then each degree Celsius of warming "prevented" was worth around $4 quadrillion dollars - with a whole lotta assumptions on price elasticity and climatic sensitivity. I may try to dig that up one of these days - the math was interesting... The biggest question is to understand the cause-effect relationship between carbon dioxide pricing and consumption/emission reduction (price elasticity).

I agree that we need to move to the same question that you asked. Because I think that adaptation is much cheaper than mitigation, when you account for the existing "damage" done to humanity by weather/climate.

Anyway - tip of my hat to you. I would certainly discuss this with you over a BEvERage or two any day.

 

[rb1957]

whatever the rationale, a carbon tax is expected to give the government revenue that hopefully will be used to fund environmentally friendly projects. this could subside "renewable" sources or improve efficiencies or plant trees.

interestingly, it is a self defeating tax ... the more temperature increases are avoided, the less tax is raised, the less revenue is available for improvement projects.

of course the problem with nation-based taxes is that they put the nation involved at a competitive disadvantage, at least on the face of it. of course the counter to that is that ethical investors will be attracted to ethical nations.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

When returns drop, it is amazing how quickly the "ethical investors" run to better returns. The whole "reinvest carbon taxes into renewables" concept is such a trap. Our Congress-whores apportion the money to contributors, family, friends, and shell companies that they control. None of those activities has a very high possibility for success (measured in producing an integer multiple of the energy than the energy it took to create and transport the product).

The ethanol/wind-farm/solar-array crowd would say that throwing money at them is just good environmental policy, they are incorrect, and the dead eagles would attest, if they weren't dead. It really makes me sick that if a sparrow gets into a reserve pit and dies from the oil or brackish water I get fined tens of thousands of dollars, but a wind farm has a budget of hundreds of dead endangered species a year that they don't even have to report. We really are not capturing the whole cost of these eyesores.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[jgailla]

This is for your anti-Green post, David. Sustainable!

http://xkcd.com/1007/

 

[zdas04]

I think that cartoon nails the issue, thanks for sharing.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[hokie66]

The others are good as well. Click the one with the windmills.

 

[rb1957]

i got as far as "kerning" ... had to look that up !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[Compositepro]

Regarding windmills killing birds:

http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2...et_cid=3620227&et_rid=45600374&linkid=http://

http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2013/11/guilty-plea-in-bird-deaths-at-wind-farms-a-first

 

[zdas04]

I hadn't seen that, my reference was to the story linked on the page you linked ( Wind Farms Get a Pass on Eagle Deaths). One quote from that story kind of says it all

"What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK," said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent based in Cody

The article goes on to mention that BP paid $100 Million in fines under the Migratory Bird Act, without any evidence that they harmed any endangered species. Duke's $1 million fine for killing 14 golden eagles seems kind of wrist-slappish. The wind farm in Northern California that they mention in the article that has killed 60 eagles without any consequence is also illuminating. As always the administration (whichever one is in power) gets to cherry pick the laws it is going to enforce.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[rconnor]

TGS4,

I greatly appreciate the acknowledgement. I tip my cap right back at you. I find you to be a true skeptic: requires and appreciates hard evidence or careful, rational thought to support theories, presents evidence of similar quality to support own counter-theories and shows a willingness to change or alter opinions if the former is stronger than the latter. This makes debating with you a worthwhile exercise.

Your correlation/causation point is well taken. It’s always possible, and sometimes very reasonable, to be agnostic on the causation of effects at a societal level, such as this, due to the inherent complexity and interdependency of the wide range of influences. However, when statistical evidence and control examples are used, a theory gains weight from moving from mere correlation to causation. Furthermore, when competing theories falter in light of statistical evidence, the causation appears stronger. As far as I see it, that is the case here. I certainly could be wrong; there could be another factor that I’m not thinking of that explains away the causation or time will show that the first 4 years were merely noise.

For the rest, I thought it would be useful to run through a summary of the BC Carbon Tax. I found 2011 BC Emissions data so I’ve updated some of the numbers (BC Gov .xls file from here).

Correlation: BC has reduced CO2 emissions from sources influenced by the tax by 10% per capita since the carbon tax was enacted
Causation Theory: The carbon tax has altered consumer behavior resulting in reduced CO2 emissions
”Controls” that Support the Theory
(1) Rest of Canada:
BC CO2 emissions/capita by sources affected by taxes (2008-2011)= -10%
Rest of Canada CO2 emissions/capita by sources affected by taxes (2008-2011) = -1.1%
(2) BC Prior to Carbon Tax:
2008 to 2011 (with Tax) Total CO2 Emission Change (in kt CO2e) = -4,618 (-6.9% or -2.3%/year)
2005 to 2008 = -907 (-1.3% or -0.4%/year)
2003-2008 (5 year) = +1,215 (+1.85% or +0.37%/year)
1998-2008 (10 year) = +4,099 (+6.53% or +0.65%/year)
(Also see Figure 1 at the first source for fuel consumption/capita trends for BC and the Rest of Canada from 2000-2012, which illustrates both controls)

Counter-Theories/Arguments and Statistical Refutations
1) Population growth means the total emissions are actually higher – BC’s population has grown 3.4%, lagging behind CO2 reductions ~3:1 (also total emissions from all sources is down 4,618 kt CO2e)
2) GDP reduction is the cause – BC’s GDP has grown 3.8% since the tax
3) The rest of Canada is reducing emissions as well – the rest of Canada has reduced emissions/capita by only 1.1% (8.9% difference)
4) Any reduction in emissions in BC are offset by increases in Washington – Yes, boarder travel to Washington has increased significantly but Washington’s emissions, both total and from vehicle petro, have decreased by 3.5 and 1.4 Million Metric Tons of CO2, respectively
5) The CO2 reductions are coming from aspects not affected by the Carbon Tax – the 10% reduction is on sources subject to the carbon tax but total CO2 emissions have also been reduced by 6.9%
6) It may be effective at emissions reductions but people hate it – approval of the tax went from 54% (15% strongly, 39% somewhat approve and 28% strongly oppose) in Feb 08 to 64% (25% strongly, 39% somewhat approve and 17% strongly oppose) in Nov 12 (note: the tax increased incremental in that time) (Source)
7) Climate taxes like this will adversely affect the poor – Part of the revenue from the tax goes to providing $115.50 + $34.50/child to low income families
8) The time span is too short to establish significant conclusions – I understand this point and why people may choose to remain agnostic about the causation but, to me, 4 years of significant reductions that outpace all controls and account for other metrics (population, GDP, off-sets in Washington) gives me confidence in the causation.

 

[cranky108]

So it seems the tax (fines) on bird kills is biased away from alternative energy, and more at fossil energy providers, and utilities. Is this the same type of bias we can expect from a carbon tax? So what would reason would we want another unfair tax, let alone that not every one agrees with the science?

Why not just require the end of such fuel wasting accessories in cars, and homes? Air-Conditioning, water heaters, automatic transmissions, dish washers, etc. The reason is clear, that the people will riot. So the desired goal is to yell there is a problem, and slowly ratchet up the regulations.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Interesting thought cranky. I've often thought that a barbaric, strength-based system would fare well for the brutish, intolerant types (me included, I'm not proud to admit). But then, after considering, that is essentially what we are coming back to as society devolves. I really believe we are approaching a flashpoint. People will only put up with so much regulation and nonsense before declaring "enough is enough". We see it oft repeated throughout history. We're not on an inclined plane, we're on a sine wave. The ups are pretty nifty for society, the downs not so much.

Don't particularly want to start any debate on this thought, it's just a Monday morning musing.

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.

 

[cranky108]

Sine wave? Well maybe sort of. Like the wave of in-sourcing, then out-sourcing. I really thought it was a way to remove the debre from the corportion. Maybe this is the same sort of thing.

Intolerant types? It sort of cuts both ways, because there are people like that on both sides. My perspective is more like, why should I change? Give me a good reason (Al Gore dosen't do it for me).

I contend that with so many laws, we are all guilty of something, so all the goverment needs to do is arrest us for some law we never heard of. The laws should be simple to understand, and taxes too.

Just to make a point, how much energy did we save with the 55 MPH speed limit? Does anyone have that number? What did it prove, except that the goverment has power over us?

 

[zdas04]

There are statistics in existence that show that there was a non-trivial reduction in motor fuel consumption during those years, but the number is so politicized that it is really hard to put much credence in it. One study (based on a computer model of course) tries to show that the savings were the same as would have happened with a 0.5 cent increase in the motor fuel tax. I think the price elasticity in that model was really optimistic, but the paper is out there. Motor-fuel use per capita did decrease measurably (according to EIA which is less immune to political manipulation than they should be) during the years that the Federal Government threatened to withhold Federal highway funds (our money) from any state that failed to follow the 55 mph mandate. The decrease was not enough to change the direction of the crude-oil import numbers that it was trying to impact.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[cranky108]

So figures don't lie, but liers can figure, is what I am hearing. That's why many of us are not sure of climate change studies. We can't seem to believe what we read, or hear.

So renewables sound like a good idea, if the price is right. I just don't see them as being in the right price, and there take the energy when it available, dosen't fit with the existing produce energy when you need it (electrical energy). The renewables are causing added wear and tear on existing power production assets, as they are not constant and dispatchable.

Calforinia seems to be taking a step to make renewables more stable with energy storage. However, the leader, in this case, is going to pay a cost for being a first. It's worth watching, but I don't want to put my money there.

There was a recent article in TRAINS magizene about the railroads looking into other fuel sources, like CNG, LNG, and gassified coal, but the leader is still diesel. This seems to be a trend to look at other fuels because of CO2 concerns and cost, for several power sectors (at least transportation, and electric energy).

 

[zdas04]

There is a narrow gauge railway in Durango, CO that takes sightseers to Silverton, CO and back. It is fueled by coal. Durango is a hotbed of environmental extremism. When Amoco proposed converting the train to LNG (Durango sits on the edge of the San Juan Basin and has huge gas resources available), the environmentalists protested, sued, and disrupted city council meetings because somehow the coal was "natural" and the LNG would be man made. The economics were good (they could shift the guy shoveling coal to a different job, the LNG was available for slightly less per BTU, and the black cloud that the train spewed could be replaced with a steam cloud for ambiance).

Renewables are mostly pretty good retail technology. Power a remote cabin with solar panels and/or wind turbine, power a remote wellsite with solar panels, power your landscape lights with tiny solar panels, etc. Great use of technology. Not very energy efficient, but great life cycle costs (since you don't have to build grid power to those sites the capital goes way down). If I'm powering a city (or a man camp), then I don't want to pay the efficiency hit and I'll install real generation capacity that has decent carnot efficiency, and it is going to be powered by fossil fuels.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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