Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? 25

[davefitz]

My own take on the global warming issue:

a) not all technical measures used to address CO2 reduction also preserve or conserve fossil resources- for example , removing CO2 from the exhaust of coal plants for sequestation implies an enormous penalty in net cycle efficiency which would accelerate the depletion of coal reserves. IGCC with CO2 scrubbing is another technical fix that incurs a huge efficiency penalty ( associated with the air separation plant). So, the 2 objectives are sometimes in opposition.

b)while I am not a psychologist or familiar with games theory, I suspect those that are familiar with strategies for steering society may have come to the conclusion that it is easier to reduce the rate of fossil consumption by misdirection and use the religion of global warming as a rationale ; if outright concern on finite fossil resources is publically voiced, then there would be a frantic race to obtain property rights to remaining reserves ( aka war).

c) the instant cooling we are now experiencing may be due to a new 11 yr solar cycle, or it may be due to the large increase in submicron emission of particulates from the large increase in coal fired capacity of china from that last 5 yrs ( Mie scattering, complex index of refraction, etc) .

d) over the millenium of human existence , peoples have traditionally responded by simply moving to a better area , if their current place of abode is no longer hospitable.( Duhhhhh !) If it comes to pass that a risign ocen level displaces 100 million people, one possible outcome might be relocation to ( Siberia !!!)- as wild as it sounds, if Russia ( ot other nation with huge uninhabited expanses) were to admit such a huge influx of persons, their economic strength would likely realize a step increase within 1 generation.

 

[moltenmetal]

A carbon tax is a lot cleaner than a cap and trade system. Far less likely to be evaded or defrauded. And far more likely to affect EVERY user of fossil fuels, rather than just the major ones. That makes it far more likely to work- and far LESS likely to be politically possible.

 

[CajunCenturion]

While the emissions problem is a direct result of consumption, it's not necessarily true that the only solution to the emissions problem is to reduce consumption. To that end, nothing should be taken off the table. When someone suggest that something be taken off the table, it smacks of running contrary to that one's agenda. All avenues should be explored. There may be several ways of dealing with CO₂ emissions. Granted, the referenced article talks of a technology that is in its infancy and may turn out to be non-productive, but it is investigating a technique of recycling CO₂ and should be pursued.

The second point is that I completely agree that conservation is a must. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and they will run out if not properly managed. However, as soon as one ties AGW as a reason to conserve, one loses the point behind the conservation. It comes off as a manufactured reason to conserve and that will never sell.

Conservation needs to be promoted for the sake of conservation. I do not believe that can ever be done successfully via taxation. Rather than taxing those who do consume, we need to find a way to reward those who do not consume. There are four reasons against taxation. First off, punishing a behavior (taxing consumption) is not the most effective way of changing that behavior. Secondly, there are too many layers of consumption to effectively target the right consumers, and thirdly, the biggest end user consumers are the ones most able to pay the tax, thus reducing the desired behavior modification. Finally, the whole notion of taxation is one of government sticking their hands in our pockets and not one as a means to manage consumption.

I think we should try to find a way to reward those who do not consume. Rather than tax consumption, we should find a way to reward conservation. Maybe we can find ways to offer tax deductions and/or credits for those who do conserve rather than tax those who consume.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[NomLaser]

Either way (Taxes or Cap-n-Trade) will place the burden on the backs of the consumers and push us further into another recession or an inflation of currency. How many people could afford to pay another 5-10% of their wages in taxes? It won't cut our consumption. It may make us find smarter ways to get around paying the taxes though.

 

[NomLaser]

I think we should try to find a way to reward those who do not consume. Rather than tax consumption, we should find a way to reward conservation. Maybe we can find ways to offer tax deductions and/or credits for those who do conserve rather than tax those who consume.

The US IRS already gives tax breaks to those that purchase hybrids and fuel economic cars. Maybe those need to be increased some. Cajun does bring up a good point that we shouldn't be punishing behavior, rather use positive reinforcement to get the message through that conservation is what is needed and not use scare tactics that only backfire.

 

[moltenmetal]

Cajun: the money to promote the behavior you want has to come from somewhere. Only a segregated carbon tax will provide the carrot AND the stick, both of which are needed to motivate people who are not moved by their own virtue.

What fundamentally I want is for all this subsidy and lifecycle analysis crap to go away. It’s too easy for businesses, governments and lobby groups to manipulate, hype and mis-purpose. It muddies the waters too much, making it tough for even well-intentioned people to make intelligent decisions about conservation.

Tax carbon and put 100% of the tax revenue into CAPITAL subsidies to help people and businesses reduce how much fossil fuel they use. Now all of a sudden people can do simple economic analysis to determine if their choices make sense from a greenhouse gas or fossil fuel extinction perspective. You no longer need people to be virtuous to have a hope of them doing what’s right.

Take the example of the “embodied energy” argument made against certain building materials. Tax carbon and all of a sudden, materials with high embodied fossil fuel energy will cost more than those that don’t. People who don’t give a sh*t one way or another about fossil fuels will STILL be inclined to do the right thing. Not in every case, but in a normative, overall sense. Right now, you have people arguing against installing foam insulation because of its embodied energy, even though the savings in heating fuel will dwarf this embodied energy in a year or two. It’s NUTS.

Another example is the “100 mile diet” or “eat local” movements: since production of food takes far more energy than transportation, people who buy local food might actually be doing more environmental harm than those who buy food from wherever it’s cheapest. But if you tax carbon appropriately, the price alone will tell you most of what you need to know.

Then there’s corn ethanol, cellulosic, ethanol, biodiesel, fast pyro oil, biomass co-burning, windfarms, wave and tidal generators, rooftop solar etc. etc. etc. How the !@#($)* is anybody or any government supposed to know which of these to bet on? No problem. Tax carbon, kill the subsidies, and let the economy sort ‘em out.

Tax carbon and give no credit for sequestration, and you get effective conservation. The users who have made the investments to reduce energy consumption get the benefits forever- the tax just helps them get there. Will that destroy the economy? I sincerely doubt it. YES it will make some products and services more expensive, and require som adjustment and lifestyle changes, but it will also reduce the amount of treasure sent abroad to those who won the geological lottery- and it will reduce every one of those other very real and non-controversial harms associated with exploring for, extracting, transporting, refining and combusting fossil fuels. That’s worth something too, isn’t it?!

Remember that economic growth, particularly GDP growth, is a poor measure of what’s actually good for a society. A major disaster destroys wealth and kills and harms people, but it also causes local GDP to increase by forcing people to spend money to rebuild.

Of course this will never, ever happen. Politicians will continue to hope for the deus ex machina “technological fix” to the whole thing, and there will be plenty of snake-oil salesmen who claim to have it in a bottle.

 

[KENAT]

I don't know molten, if certain countries tax carbon and other don't then you'd expend some migration of certain most effected industries, wouldnt' you?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> What fundamentally I want is for all this subsidy and lifecycle analysis crap to go away
The US does not subsidize fuel consumption. The US, both at federal and state levels, does tax fuel consumption; however, I grant that they don't tax it at the unreasonably high levels that other countries charge. But don't confuse lower tax levels with subsidies. They are two entirely different things.

==> Only a segregated carbon tax
I disagree. Yes, credit monies need to come from somewhere, but forcing it to come from a segregated carbon tax is an unnecessary and unreasonable limitation. You could just as easily (relative term to be sure) add one or two percentage points to highest income tax level and use those monies. Actually, that's probably more effective because you're still generating the revenue but not taking from the people who still need to heat their houses, but not require them to pay a tax on that heating oil.

Your positions statements always seem to be tax, tax, tax.

==> Of course this will never, ever happen.
Then WHY do you continue to propose it and push for it? Why not start thinking about solutions that are not simply tax, tax, tax.


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[CajunCenturion]

Hey, here's an idea. Maybe the credit monies could come from a reduction in government spending. Maybe if Obama got rid of say, 25 of his 30 something czars and used their salary and staff payroll monies for providing conservation credits, ...
Probably won't happen either. Let's just raise taxes on the citizens.


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[moltenmetal]

Kenat: you deal with that via tarrifs. Or not. The most affected industries are already moving en masse, and there's no reason to expect any different regardless.

For clarification, the wretched subsidies I'm talking about are the various subsidies on renewable electricity generated by photovoltaics, or on the generation of corn ethanol, or any number of other dumb-assed government interventions in the marketplace that we have at present. And yes, there ARE subsidies, or holidays from royalties or tax breaks or other incentives, which are doled out to the fossil fuel companies at present- these are NOT zero. ALL these subsidies are counterproductive at best. ANY energy consumption which is not NECESSARY has SOME environmental cost- a cost which is currently assigned ZERO value.

Tax the evil- the fossil fuels themselves- in proportion to their filthiness which happens to match their carbon content in lock-step- and stop subsidizing the alternatives. Do that and you stop fighting the market and have it start working FOR you. This is an economic problem, not a technical one.

Cajun: I push for it because it's the right thing to do. This isn't a tax on citizens like a head tax, or a tax on something otherwise desirable like an income tax. It's a tax on consumption. Consume more? Pay more tax. How could you be against that? You can dole out the subsidy money for the energy efficiency retrofits preferentially on an inverse of ability-to-pay basis if you want to make the tax "progressive".

But I'm cynical enough to realize that if you can't even convince a room full of ENGINEERS that there's a problem here worth tackling vigorously with more than mere platitudes about how virtuous it is to conserve, the chance of convincing a sufficient mass of both the great unwashed public AND the politicians who govern them is ZERO, or so close to zero that it's indistinguishable from zero. Doesn't make it any less right, though. You can't be a true cynic unless you still have a tiny kernel of hope left in you, and I'm no different.

 

[KENAT]

Tarifs, I didn't know that kind of language was allowed here on Eng-Tips.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[imcjoek]

I believe the preferred term is "Ograbme".

See how he nick 'em!

 

[rb1957]

pink floyd said it best .. "riding the gravy train"

 

[GregLocock]

"Conservation needs to be promoted for the sake of conservation. I do not believe that can ever be done successfully via taxation. "

So why does the Eurpoean private vehicle fleet average (say) 30 mpg, and the US one say 20 mpg? You don't think higher fuel taxes might have something to do with it?

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[cranky108]

Are you calling production tax credits subsidies? Actually this is an incitive to produce oil, or gas, simular to a r & d tax credit. This is an incitive to produce here, vs producing in say Iran.

Is there anyone really saying you prefer your oil or gas to be produced somewhere other than where you live? Do you really feel that we need to create jobs over there?

I'll be happy to trim down my energy usage, but I need for these talking heads to show me how (not tell me).

(check the air in your tires)
(replace your light bulbs, with toxic replacments)
(drive cars that are sure to get stuck in the snow)

 

[owg]

We have a few of those efficient light bulbs. For most of the year in Ontario they just give off less heat from hydro which is replaced in the home by natural gas. Duh!

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[moltenmetal]

cranky, you'll breathe far more mercury from coal-fired power plant emissions in your lifetime than you'll ever get from compact fluorescent lightbulbs. And I live in Canada AND drive a Prius- and that car has never been stuck in the snow.

No, you don't need the "talking heads" to show you rather than telling you. You, and I, and all of us, need a REASON to do things better, or we WON'T. Right now, the payback period on doing the right thing is NEVER. That needs to change.

 

[cranky108]

Maybe you don't see the fact that the one size fits all solutions don't always work. Sort of like the one size fits all clothes.

As owg points out above, the lower carbon solution for his case is electric resistance heat, and convential light bulbs.

There are parts of the US where the snow plow dosen't come by very often. And yes we use coal mined from the US. It has a lower transportion cost than oil, and we aren't giving our monies to people who hate us.

Yes we could use natural gas, however with little incentive to drill, the price is higher than coal. And hydroelectric dosen't produce much without large dams. And the wind only seems to blow at night when we don't need the power.

Has anyone tried to use a floresent light outside? They don't work to well. What do you think will happen in your freezer? Or have you replaced your head lights on you car with floresents?

 

[FeX32]

I got halogen bulbs in my vehicle. You can see me from a mile away coming at you like a lightening bolt.
And it will be like that until there really is an intelligent change. ...

P.S. Those of you in Canada if you see this lightning bolt (me) WATCH OUT! lightening bolts are pretty quick.


Fe

 

[imcjoek]

So why does the Eurpoean private vehicle fleet average (say) 30 mpg, and the US one say 20 mpg? You don't think higher fuel taxes might have something to do with it?

UK gallons are bigger than US gallons (granted only by ~15%?).

The solution. Double the size of gallon and we double our milage! Problem solved.