Barnes — (1) The tax credit for biomass has expired (as well as the wind tax credit). A U.S. CO2 credit market never materialized. A couple of our U.S. projects used to qualify for European credits to their EU Parent Companies, but this has gone away. We develop projects in the U.S. Southern States which don’t have Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards.
(2) I don’t understand your comment about Renewables being Federally subsidized whether they generate power or not.
SteveF, Don and gang, “You may be right about the mental block. I sure don’t have any other explanation. This entire crazy thread seems to have been transferred in its entirety form WUWT.”
Let me give an example of looking at the next step. Based on Mass balance and general carbon accounting practices “sustainable” fuels like corn ethanol, oil palm, wood chips for Drax etc. have been pushed. Converting land use to fuel crops ends up producing more atmospheric CO2 in many cases since it impacts the sink efficiency and still introduces CO2 into the atmosphere. That increases the “Sustainable” CO2 uptake in the oceans increases acidification. That is a WUWT kind of topic and of course “sustainable” fuels have mass balance constraint supporters.
Since the overall uncertainty on the sink side of the balance is close to the total emissions value, the land use part of the cycle is so grossly underestimated that action with potentially more harm than benefit is recommended by the mass balance. You need more information or at least more respect for the uncertainties.
I still don’t know what you mean by bottom up if it is not the INDCs, or the States choosing how to do their energy mix. I say this is bottom up by my definition.
Did you even look at the Cato piece? I was commenting on their numbers. You can disagree with them, but it’s the IPCC numbers too for global mitigation effectiveness.
Jim D,
Bottom up doesn’t involve a UN based entity. States, if truly allowed to address things independently would be an example. Individual actions are also.
The UN framework helps set comparable targets and to compare notes on how successful various countries are with their targets. This allows for later adaptation when it is seen what is working and what isn’t. It also allows for peer pressure when some countries are perceived to be beholden to their fossil fuel industries more than global climate or their public interest (and some are).
That’s a faux poll, yimmy. Indistinguishable from a pole. You aren’t fooling anybody with that huffpo crap. Everybody knows that if the folks have to pay a few more dollars, or shekels, or yuan, or whatever for energy, they ain’t going for it. Paris will be a bigger flop than Copenhagen.
Yes, of course, you are right.
I had forgotten the desire of Governments to prevent us returning to the abundant life of previous eras associated with elevated CO2 levels. They prefer, for some bizarre reason, to maintain the relative near desert conditions which presently apply.
We evolved to presumably take advantage of conditions created by Nature. I am happy to go with the flow.
The Australian Government is about to announce it has reached an agreement with the Opposition that will mean wind energy has to increase by about a factor of three by 2020 – a threefold increase in 5 years!
“In-principle deal struck on Australia’s Renewable Energy Target
The government and Labor have reached an in-principle deal on the Renewable Energy Target that should be cemented early next week.
At a meeting in Melbourne today Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, Environment Minister Greg Hunt and opposition environment spokesman Mark Butler agreed on a large-scale RET target of 33,000GWh.
A deal is subject to cabinet and shadow cabinet approval and the backing of their respective partyrooms.
The in-principle agreement ends months of deadlock over the future of the RET scheme, which currently has a large-scale target of 41,000GWh.
A review of the scheme every two years by the Climate Change Authority will be maintained under the terms of the agreement put on the table today.
Mr Hunt said a large-scale RET at 33,000GWh would produce a 23.5 per cent renewable energy target.
Regulations around small-scale solar schemes will remain unchanged.
Federal cabinet last night agreed to seek a deal with Labor after a growing push for a deal at 33,000GWh from its own ranks, with several backbenchers publicly speaking out in favour of that level. The government last month issued a ‘final offer’’ on the RET that would see the large-scale target to 2020 reduced from 41,000GWh by 2020 to 32,000GWh.
However, Labor backed a Clean Energy Council compromise at 33,500GWh. More recently, the CEC has signalled it would consider 33,000GWh amid growing support within the Coalition backbench for a deal at this level.
Business groups including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia are calling for a deal on the RET at 33,000GWh.
When the RET was originally implemented with bipartisan support, it was established at 41,000GWh, representing 20 per cent of electricity in 2020. However, falling electricity consumption meant the 41,000GWh target represented a larger share, prompting calls for it to change to a “true” 20 per cent.
The government and Labor have faced calls from both the renewables sector and energy-¬intensive industries to resolve the impasse.
The stalemate has led to a collapse in investment in renewable energy and concerned energy-intensive industries, particularly the aluminium sector, which will pay $80 million in RET charges this year unless it receives a full exemption from the scheme in any deal between the parties.”
Judith,
Lomborg’s role was not primarily about climate change. it was to give Australia good, economically rational and well justified advice about how to make best use of its aid dollars. $4 million would be well spent if it avoided even a small proportion of the massive waste of Australia’s aid expenditures on poorly directed, ideologically conceived and instigated, aid programs.
It’s a total disgrace that the Left has got total control of academia, school teachers, and the media in Australia.
mosomoso, Lomborg is a (somewhat) warmist who correctly advocates that there are far more important issues, with far greater returns and benefits to human welfare, than GHG reductions. I heard him talk at UQ several years ago. I don’t think that he’s over-impressed with the CAGW story, but that rather than fight on that front, he’s sensibly said, “Okay, but look at all these other pressing issues where we can get enormous benefits, predominantly for those in poorer countries.” That undercuts the Green-left claims that we must act against warming to benefit the Third World.
“The 2014-15 Budget will support a sustainable, affordable and accountable aid program that invests $5 billion each year to promote prosperity, reduce poverty and enhance stability in our region, the Indo–Pacific. It will be stabilised at $5 billion in 2015-16, thereafter increasing annually by CPI.”
$4 million is less that 0.1% of the aid budget. Lomborg’s rational advice could easily save many times the $4 million for the Australian Consensus Centre.
Jim D,
I’m not digressing, you Let me remind you what your comment said, wrongly:
The Cato item shows several degrees difference between global emissions scenarios and this makes a good case for the effectiveness of global action versus global inaction.
Your comment is wrong, for the reason I explained in my reply to that comment. You have not addressed the substantial point I made in my reply to your comment – you’ve dodged it.
Jim D,
what on earth are you talking about. It seems you simply have no clue. It’s just blabber. The costs of mitiigation with the policies being advocated so far greatly exceed the benefits throughout this century.
If you believe this statement is incorrect, demonstrate that the benefits of mitigation exceed the costs over time periods that are relevant for a policy to be sustainable.
Refer to the red line on this chart and demonstrate it is wrong:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/
Would you agree, then, the CAGW catastrophists should pool their sheckels and fund climate research, renewable energy and the propaganda outlets like the ABC, and SBS themselves?
Costs are for adaptation. Less adaptation means less cost. Less climate change means less adaptation. It is not that hard to understand.
On the failure of “expert” predictions of the UK elections, from the article:
“Other possible explanations for the surprise election results and the apparent failure of the expert predictions are as follows:
This is just a short-term fluctuation – a hiatus, or pause, in the Labour vote – that the models cannot be expected to predict correctly. The experts have much more confidence in their projection for the 2100 election. (HT David)
The raw data from the election results is not reliable, and needs to be adjusted by the experts. After suitable UHI and homogeneity adjustments have been applied, the results are in line with the expert predictions, and Ed Miliband is declared the new Prime Minister.
More funding and bigger computers are urgently needed, so that we can get more accurate predictions.
The missing Labour voters are hiding at the bottom of the oceans.
Finally, Feynman’s rule applies again:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
+11
Jim D
You are dodging the issue – mitigation costs versus benefits. That’s what your comment was about and what I responded to. Adaptation has no effect on temperatures which is what your comment was about.
