Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

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

 

[JohnRBaker]

Are you saying that you have a proposal that will work and in the process it will NOT make one group a lot of money, REALLY? And exactly what will be the motivation to put this plan into place? If you say, just the satisfaction of knowing that it's the right thing to do, can you please share with the rest of us whatever it is that you're smoking? Not that it'll solve the problem, but it just might make the problem LOOK a lot more solvable

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[beej67]

Wow, taxes again eh? Guess I'll requote my last post in the other thread.

No, I don't want to argue semantics, that's what you're doing. I want you to link me to a "peer reviewed study" that says carbon trading or carbon taxing will arrest or reverse global warming. I anxiously anticipate the entertainment value of reading it.

I also want you to acknowledge that a climate model that erroneously doubles the net effect of one warming source, while erroneously halfing the net effect of another warming source, can give "good" results if the two sources are in reality equal contributors to warming. And since this sort of error is inherent to the "calibration" process in modeling, the models cannot be used to prove causation from a correlation simply because their results are "good."

I'll leave whether or not the current results are "good" for someone else to argue, but I would like to point out (again) that the equilibrium climate sensitivity shown in AR5 is actually about half what the IPCC says it is, purely based on an objective analysis of their own studies.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[Maui]

Greg, thanks for the link to that study. A star for you.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

Are you saying that you have a proposal that will work and in the process it will NOT make one group a lot of money, REALLY? And exactly what will be the motivation to put this plan into place? If you say, just the satisfaction of knowing that it's the right thing to do, can you please share with the rest of us whatever it is that you're smoking?

JohnRBaker's post really puts things in perspective. Clearly, the people who are preaching doom and gloom with respect to climate are not doing it because it is the right thing to do; otherwise, they must be smoking something. Consequently, they must be in it for the money because there is no other motivation for preaching doom and gloom.

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

 

[SomptingGuy]

I wonder how much of the extra revenue from taxing fuel usage (a.k.a. CO2 production) is used for gov-sponsored building projects. Those that require large amounts of concrete and steel to be produced.

- Steve

 

[cranky108]

The problem simply put is that taxes take money out of a productive economy, as well as increase the cost of goods and services. IE, I don't buy new cars because I don't want to pay the higher taxes. This inflating the prices of used cars, while depressing the sales of new cars (cash for clunkers in reverse).
The other thing I see is people cutting down trees instead of buying other fuels for home heating (thus avoiding more taxes, and decreasing tree population).

What happens is tax revenues would go up for a time, then drop as people find alternitives. But the politicals don't stop spending, and soon they need more money so they find something else to tax.
If anyone is smoking anything it is in Washington, because they don't understand how more taxes dosen't equal more tax revinew, and will over time tend to move the economy either in ways they don't expect, or just move it underground. The off the grid movement is an example of this.

So I ask, is cutting down more trees really what you want to achieve?

 

[rconnor]

The ubiquitous “TAXES ARE BAD” comment by cranky that completely diverts the conversation away from anything regarding the science…

Changing Consumer Behaviour
I second JohnRBaker, my work in Demand Side Management continually shows “the stick beats the carrot” when trying to change people’s consumption habits. I work on the “carrot” side of things (financial incentive on top of energy savings) but our electrical rates are so low that it is difficult to incent customers to make changes. Ironically, the difficulty we have with controlling demand growth has led to the need to build new generating stations which in turn, is raising the electrical rates.

Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Systems
Why does every conversation about carbon tax always assume it’s cap-and-trade? The largest real-life carbon tax we have in North America is in British Columbia and is NOT cap-and-trade. It is Revenue Neutral – all funds raised by the tax go back into predefined aspects of the economy. Here are the major areas where the taxes went:
[ul]
[li]Low Income Tax Credit – $195 million[/li]
[li]5% Reduction in first two personal income tax rates (the poorest) - $235 million[/li]
[li]General corporate income tax reduction (12% to 11%) - $450 million[/li]
[li]Small business corporate income tax reduction (4.5% to 3.5%) - $261 million[/li]
[/ul]

Now, to the question – but is it effective in reducing CO2 emissions? The real-world statistics show that it is effective. Here were my concluding remarks from the other thread:

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.

 

[beej67]

Now, to the question – but is it effective in reducing CO2 emissions?

For the record, that's not my question. I'm sure taxing CO2 would reduce some CO2 emissions. That just makes sense. My question was different, and the difference is pretty important:

I want you to link me to a "peer reviewed study" that says carbon trading or carbon taxing will arrest or reverse global warming. I anxiously anticipate the entertainment value of reading it.

If your goal is to reduce CO2 emissions for some other reason, such as local pollution, or acid rain, or whatever, then CO2 taxes seem like a pretty good way to do that. But I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that they'd arrest or reverse global warming, so using global warming to justify them is somwhere between completely disingenuous and outright lying. Especially when the IPCC is intentionally snowing over their own research to hide that their equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate is off by a factor of two to three.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

So how is low income tax credit in any way revenue neutral? It would seem to me that you are reducing demand in business use, and encuraging poor people to use as much as they want.
So your carbon tax is should be named the "Robinhood tax" as it takes from the rich and gives to the poor, and in the worst case could increase demand.

If the goal was to reduce carbon, why wouden't you use the funds to insulate homes, and replace out-dated applinces?
What you have is nothing but a 'Feel good' system.

What we have seen in the past, (any one look at history) is oil, and natural gas runs in a cycle. It's plentiful when the price is high, and scarece when the price is low. What we have now is the price of oil is high, and natural gas is low. It won't stay that way for ever.

Because some fuels don't work well for every purpose, and no fuels work for everything, it then becomes important to maintain a healthy fuel mix.
Attempting to replace any fuel source is foolish. A better method would be to either expand some little used fuel sources to reduce some more wideley used fuel sources, such as wood for coal, or develop newer technology to make fuels cleaner, such as low NOX burners.

While it is true that you can replace some coal with wind and solar, there is a point where there over use can make the grid unstable. One solution is to use storage technology. Another is to time wise dispatch hydro assets.

But to attack coal because carbon is bad, just makes it the whipping boy. After all look at how well the electric car is doing, err.. not doing.

All the taxes in the world won't solve this. They will just move the issue to another fuel, and another until we don't have one or two left.
And the taxes become another form of social engineering, where we lose more and more of our freedom.

Debate all you want. Even better offer a better solution. But giving away freedon is a looser in my books.

 

[beej67]

So how is low income tax credit in any way revenue neutral?

It doesn't remove money from the system. I see what he's saying. It's just another way to shuffle money around. We do the same thing in the US with our graduated tax system, social security, and medicare. Last I saw, 70% of US federal outlays were simply moving money from one person to another, mostly tied to medicare/medicaid/social security.

But what he's failed to show, which is what they always fail to show, is how moving that money around is going to arrest or reverse global warming.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

because the orthodox viewpoint is that increased CO2 is causing global warming. so if tax strategies reduce the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, then that'll reduce the global warming.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[beej67]

By how much? Note the keywords "arrest or reverse" in my question.

You can't have a meaningful discussion about policy without assigning a dollar figure to a temperature difference.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

the models predict future temperatures based on assumed CO2 outputs. these include the "absurd" (= financially ruinous) strategies that are needed to "arrest and reverse" global warming, something i think is meant to emphasize the point that this is a really serious problem. the other take away is that this problem/solution is too extreme to be practical.



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

I see in the news this morning that more people are switching to heating with wood. Now that's neutral as long as there are trees being replanted. However, because there is no attempt to control the burn tempetures this will add to NOx polution/acid rain (we fix one problem and we create another).

Now someone needs to develop a small heating plant that also generates electricty, and required little attention. Some thing like it can be left unattended for 10 to 12 hours a day.
I once saw a device (solid-state)that was to be attached to an exaust pipe that uses the thermal difference to generate electricty (I haven't seen it lately).

Something else I noticed is many trees will have lower limbs die while the tree is growing. It's sort of a fire hazard, and resource for wood burning.

 

[beej67]

Here's some cutting edge science (!) by the National Wildlife Federation:

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazin...w-Climate-Change-Threatens-School-Spirit.aspx

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JJPellin]

Cranky108,

GE makes a device to harvest energy from a hot surface. They use it to power some of their wireless vibration monitoring equipment. Here is a link.


Johnny Pellin

 

[zdas04]

Whole bunch of "may be" "could be" "might be" in that paper. All of these are code for either "simple conjecture without any data" or "the computer model says". There is zero factual data in that whole article, but it takes careful reading to ascertain that simple fact.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[GregLocock]

At my nearly carbon neutral house we burn dead trees. I also have a 30 tree coppice which is harvested one tree at a time, and for which we plant two saplings. I hadn't thought about acid rain.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

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

 

[rb1957]

market forces are driving the price up much faster than taxation. (thinks ... i wonder how they separated taxation costs from increased market price in that BC study). people are still buying SUVs and Hummers, ok some are buying prius's (should that be prii?) but most are just sucking it up.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

Greg, I haden't thought about it until I was typing. Strangly the wood ash is just the oposite, as I have been trying to find a use for it, like mixing it with some liquid weak acid before returning it to the forest.

Actually any burning of fuels will create some NOx, so there will be some acid rain caused by any fuel, even natural gas. However if it were scrubbed like they do in coal plants, it can be removed and possibibly be used for a plant fertlizer (in dry or liquid form). SOx is the same way, if Sulfer is in the fuel.

Interesting that CO2 is used in large plant grow facilities to stimulate plant growth, as well as being used in some oil completion wells.