<b>jungletrunks</b> In my blog post, I tried to be clear on this -- its about things like oil tax credits <b> only specific to the oil industry</b> and not general tax credits taken by oil companies and others. This is <b>exactly</b> the argument that people like Republican Senator Grassley (and other Republicans) are making (who I think grasps the issue). I linked to a Sen. Grassley talk on the U.S. Senate Floor about this. So -- it isn't a liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican "thing" as many people here at CE want to make it.
Comment on Overreach at the EPA by Stephen Segrest
↧
↧
Comment on Overreach at the EPA by rhhardin
Epstein’s only problem is that he, like John Derbyshire, credits the climate science. His analysis, given that, is fine.
For the same reason as Derbyshire, too. He thinks he’s not the expert.
I always say that he hasn’t worked with actual career-minded STEM types. They’re much different from actual physicists.
They supply what pays rather than what interest them.
Derbyshire and Epstein don’t know how numerous these are.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
However, I’d also point out that people get stuff wrong, it isn’t a big deal, so don’t give them a hard time for it, especially if they are willing to stand corrected. We are all only human, and it is unreasonable to expect people to overcome their cognitive biases all the time with complete effectiveness (again without exceptions).
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
CO2 levels do lead temperature already since at least 1900, as the increase in CO2 is (far) beyond what Henry’s law shows for the temperature increase.
The main problem is to separate the influence of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere with the influence of natural variability (including the warming since the LIA).
Climate models are mainly based on the warming in the period 1976-2000, but can’t explain the current “pause”. That is because they overblown the sensitivity of temperature for the CO2-aerosol tandem.
If the current “pause” is caused by some ocean oscillation, the sun or whatever natural cause, the same (or a different) natural cause can be responsible for a (large) part of the warming 1976-2000 and the influence of CO2 is far less than what the models imply…
That is far more important to discuss than the cause of the CO2 rise, which is a lost battle where skeptics only can loose their credibility…
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by hidethedecline (@hidethedecline)
+1 PA.
It’s pretty clear for folks like Michael that they believe climate science is professional and rigorous, like medicine and engineering. The test is the courts. Engineers get sued when their bridges fall down. Doctors get sued when they misdiagnose or leave a suture inside some patient. Litigation has a way of concentrating the professional mind to deliver a quality service or suffer a costly court consequence when damages can be claimed. There’s a reason no tort lawyer has bothered to litigate, despite the hysterical claims of damage asserted by warmies. That’s because there is no damage. Climate science of the cAGW variety is the only damages game in town and right now it’s pure conjecture. You wouldn’t sue a numerologist or an astrologist – everyone knows that’s nonsense. Climate science of the cAGW variety is in that camp.
↧
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
Judith, you list “Some things that Jamieson said that I like or find insightful.” My comments on them:
“Prudence implies that we should follow “no regrets” policies:” in a market economy, resources flow to their highest-value use, as determined by myriads of suppliers and users. Therefore (optimally), there are no more valuable projects available, therefore, there are no “no-regrets” options available. I agree that the best response is “those that are likely to make sense whatever the future holds,” but I disagree with the particular examples suggested by Jamieson – moving people, rather than letting people decide for themselves, and “liberating” ourselves from the coal which has liberated so many from lives of abject poverty. The main source of non-optimal choices is government interventions which distort the markets: better to undo the distortions. Jamieson wants to pursue his ideas rather than those freely chosen buy others.
“… distributional concerns are involved in all social policy decisions. The right response to these concerns is compensation, not inaction.” Not necessarily, see my recent comments drawing on Coase. Also, all social decisions will have winners and losers, the many decisions can mean that things even out, it should not be assumed that any particular loss warrants compensation. My paper dealing with the compensation issue is at: http://competitionpolicyreview.gov.au/files/2014/12/Cunningham_M.pdf (The paper looks at a particular deregulatory issue, but has a broad application.)
“I think common-sense morality is at a loss when faced by questions like that, even when you supply a lot of detail about climate change.” I’m not sure what Jamieson means by “commonsense morality,” but I discussed morality in the climate context at Bill Hooke’s site recently: http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=1269 Some specific points: “How should we currently value damages to people who will live 500 years in the future?” Well, it’s absurd to even think in those terms, imagine arguing about that in 1515.
“These questions outrun the resources of economics to make sensible evaluations.” Decisions are never made purely on economic grounds, such evaluations are only part of the policy mix, and as I’ve often argued, our capacity to foresee the future is so poor that attempting to do so from highly speculative scenarios, including the scientific ones, is inferior to adopting policies which increase our capacity to deal with whatever emerges from the always uncertain future.
“We need to figure out how people can act from within their existing moral psychologies in a way that is both more environmentally friendly and will help to give them meaning.” Let people figure it out for themselves, I strongly support people developing the wisdom and understanding necessary for a moral life, one which is good for oneself and good for others, support this and all issues will be better dealt with.
“help us to live with meaning and grace in the world that we are creating.” What Jamieson refers to as “green virtues” are by no means confined to environmentalists. Development of a soundly-based morality will naturally lead us to care for others and our world, but we might come up with different ideas than Jamieson on what that entails.
JC comment: “I think this interview raises some fundamental issues, and reinforces my sense that philosophers (well some of them anyways) have important contributions to make to the climate change debate.” Judith, philosophy is derived from thinking processes. Wisdom and understanding arise from the deepest parts of the mind, not from the thinking, surface part of the mind. The mass of people engaged with the world on a daily basis will often find better solutions than philosophers.
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
“… How can they say anything useful …” Indeed, see my long post below.
Faustino
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
+ 100
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
Sadly, Australia has just decided to embark on a massive program of building wind turbines over the next few years, although, as Peter Lang and others will attest, the cost-benefit analysis is horrific, a complete waste of resources at a time when we already have over-supply of lower cost power. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/new-wind-turbines-must-be-built-to-meet-ret/story-e6frg6xf-1227360744968
↧
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
I have some comments on compensation below. My paper dealing with the compensation issue is at: http://competitionpolicyreview.gov.au/files/2014/12/Cunningham_M.pdf (the paper looks at a particular deregulatory issue, but has a broad application).
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
H G Wells on Winston Churchill in 1920:
“([Churchill] believes quite naively that he belongs to a peculiarly gifted and privileged class of beings to whom the lives and affairs of common men are given over, the raw material for brilliant careers …”
Plus ca change; though Churchill had a better basis for delusions of superiority than those promoting CAGW or leftist government in the UK.
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by Michael
” Hasn’t been proven that CO2 is bad.” – PA
Golly gosh.
We just understand the radiative forcing properties of GHGs, which has come about through a century of scientific discovery.
But who needs physics when we can just play dumb.
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
+ 10
↧
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
Jeffrey, I posted along similar lines before reading existing posts. Faustino
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by jim2
From the post:
D.J.: Prudence implies that we should follow “no regrets” policies — those that are likely to make sense whatever the future holds. For example, it makes sense to move people and critical infrastructure away from vulnerable areas.
*****
How is this suggestion that we expend massive amounts of money to move people and infrastructure in any way, shape, or form a “no regrets” policy. The cost is huge. The opportunity cost, even hugher :)
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by genghiscunn
Matthew, agreed. Years of living cheaply in non-Western countries, on top of growing up in a poor family in impoverished post-war Britain, help to provide a clearer perspective.
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by jim2
Meanwhile, from the free enterprise space.
*****
Buh-Bye, Corn Ethanol: Joule Makes The Same Thing From Recycled CO2
May 12th, 2015 by Tina Casey
The biotech company Joule Unlimited has just announced that its unique brand of recycled CO2 ethanol has successfully passed a round of third party testing, bringing it another step closer to commercializing the product in Europe and the U.S. Somewhat coincidentally Joule has just closed a $40 million round of financing, which will enable it to expand its flagship plant in Hobbs, New Mexico to commercial scale. The ultimate goal is to convert 150,000 tons of waste CO2 into 25 million gallons of ethanol per year at that facility. If you’re starting to hear a loud hammering noise, that would be another nail in the coffin of corn ethanol.
Along with our sister site Gas2.org we started following Joule’s solar powered, microbe-assisted recycled CO2 technology in 2009 when the company emerged from “stealth” mode, but we haven’t really checked into it since 2010. Our bad, since a lot’s been happening since then!
…
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/12/buh-bye-corn-ethanol-joule-makes-thing-recycled-co2/
↧
↧
Comment on What can we do about climate change? by jim2
If the UN were worth one red cent of the money given it by the US, which it isn’t, it would be facilitating wind and solar in the third world. It doesn’t need a grid, that’s a plus for that application. What about the governments of the third world countries? Why does it have to be the West that does all this? Let them do it.
↧
Comment on Overreach at the EPA by jim2
Obama is the worst thing to happen to the US since Hitler.
From the article:
…
But critics say there is a reason for the overwhelming result: The E.P.A. had a hand in manufacturing it.
In a campaign that tests the limits of federal lobbying law, the agency orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from Republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal environmental groups and a grass-roots organization aligned with President Obama.
The Obama administration is the first to give the E.P.A. a mandate to create broad public outreach campaigns, using the tactics of elections, in support of federal environmental regulations before they are final.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102691786
↧
Comment on Overreach at the EPA by jim2
The EPA needs a good nut-cuttin’.
More from that article:
“The agency has relentlessly campaigned for the rule with tweets and blogs, not informing the public about the rule but influencing the public to advocate for the rule,” said Ellen Steen, general counsel at the American Farm Bureau Federation. “That is exactly what the Anti-Lobbying Act is meant to prevent.”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
