Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by GaryM

0
0

Why all of a sudden do all the progressives around here, Bart R, Max_OK, and now The Unskeptical Warmist. want so bad to claim they are not?

“I believe in the spirit of free enterprise.” But I still want the governments of the world to unite to decarbonize the world economy.

Be still my conservative heart.


Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by omanuel

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Rob Starkey

0
0

Gary

Tax rates did not go up tax revenues increased as the overall economy grew. the problem is that government spending grew faster. The only semi significant tax increase is effective this year.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Chief Hydrologist

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Wagathon

0
0

The Left has become expert in demonizing those who actually do the work of dealing with the challenges of life.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Max_OK

0
0

I don’t know, but there was a link to the survey in the linked article. The survey may say.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Max_OK

0
0

Waggy, I congratulate you on meeting the challenge of whining incessantly. I know you work hard at it.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

0
0

No worries Rob, if you spend time in D.C., you know more than most.

The topic of this tread is about energy, and course, energy, money, and politics all come together in a nice little cluster in D.C. Everyone wants a share of the pie, or for the government to keep it’s hands off their pie, or for the government to protect their piece of the pie, or support their piece of the pie, or subsidize their piece of the pie, and on and on.

What energy will win in the end? The cheapest, greenest, leanest, and most sustainable wins– eventually. Most likely artificial photosynthesis will be the energy our great grandchildren will take for granted, and be amazed that oil vs solar vs fission vs fusion vs wind was even an issue. It will be a mix during the transition years, but future artificial photosynthesis will provide energy that will be plentiful, green, decentralized, and as nearly as cheap as breathing air. It’s a form of energy made for the nanotechnology revolution, and the two are converging very rapidly:

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-fully-artificial-photosynthesis-nanosystem.html


Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Joshua

0
0
Rob - <blockquote> I suspect the math behind your numbers is highly subject to debate especially the supposed increase in health care costs.</blockquote> Of course. These are very complex matters. </blockquote>Construction of infrastructure in order to promote or support business expansion is not considered a subsidy. </blockquote> The question is whether they are "de-facto subsidies," in particular with respect to the cost of gasoline. Would gasoline costs be higher if the construction of roads were not socialized? Now there are user fees for operating vehicles that help pay for the infrastructural costs, but every analysis I've seen finds them to be insufficient to cover the entire cost. </blockquote>The localities that actually fund the construction of said infrastructure go through an economic analysis to determine whether the additional tax revenues generated by the business will be adequate to fund the investment in the infrastructure over the long term. That really is not a subsidy, but a long term investment by the city or State. All of these “investments” do not turn out well, but the analysis is pretty simple.</blockquote> Perhaps not so simple. I would say that even if we take all those that "turn out well," there are choices made that are relevant to gasoline costs. Investment in public transportation can have a very significant stimulative effect on businesses and subsequent tax revenues. When federal or state or local funds are spent on maintaining automobile infrastructure, there are opportunity costs (related to the question of spending on public transportation) that may or may not then be reflected back into the cost of gasoline. In other words, if we had spent more federal/state/local dollars in this country on public transportation, relative to the amount spent on automobile infrastructure, we might get the same stimulative effects with a lower cost of public transportation and a higher cost of gasoline, along with a better ratio of positive to negative externalities. One man's "investment" is another man's "boondoggle." At any rate - I don't see how people can seriously discuss the cost of gasoline in the U.S. without attempting to address these issues comprehensively.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Max_OK

0
0

I’m decarbonizing as I write.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

‘Non-developing countries, or states with a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita above $15,000, no longer benefit from improved social well-being from economic growth. From the end of the Second World War, increasing levels of real economic activity measured by economic growth created the conditions to raise material living standards. Living standards were raised because when economic growth increased, income levels also increased, improving access to basic material entitlements, thus enshrining economic growth at the core of government policy.’ http://www.worldwewant2015.org/node/348457

It is the politics of limitations – an agenda that can’t be named except in hidden corners of the internet or obscure social science academic publications.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by GaryM

0
0

Rob Starkey,

“The US has NOT had any large tax increase in recent years. ”

“The only semi significant tax increase is effective this year.”

I think a one year $149.7 qualifies as a wee bit more than “semi significant.” One might almost call it…”large.”

Frankly, I call it massive, given the economic circumstances of the time. Oh wait, I already did.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Max_OK

0
0

AK said on May 23, 2013 at 4:55 pm
[...] quaint 19th Century notion of an economy with no central planning.

Where would that be? The US, where railroads got huge land (and sometimes cash) subsidies for their Western expansions?
_____

Yes, I forgot about that. I could go back more.

How about a quaint stone age notion of an economy with no central planning?

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

We have lost about 100,000 jobs in manufacturing in recent years – and gained a 1,000,000 elsewhere. Manufacturing volume has increased at the same time as a result of increases in productivity.

If Ford can’t manufacture in Australia with or without subsidies they should go. It is the nature of capitalism. I note that product engineering, research and development and testing will continue in Australia.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Joshua

0
0

How about a quaint stone age notion of an economy with no central planning?

Indeed. Living in caves and allocating resources at the end of a club. How quaint.

Still, doesn’t compare to Somalia.


Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

You on the other hand are a paragon of informed, considered and balanced opinion rising above the personal to make a valued contribution.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

0
0

GaryM,

You just need your little labels in order to even conceptualize the world, don’t you? Where would you be or how could you even think clearly without placing people into neat and tidy little categories? In your tiny world, one must be a “Progressive” if they believe that humans are warming the planet? Right? And then, in Gary’s little world of easy labels and neat boxes, one must certainly not believe in free enterprise, thrift, hard work, and innovation if they are a “Liberal” or “Progressive”.

What a small, extremely myopic little reality you inhabit GaryM.

Seriously, I mean S E R I O U S L Y Gary, you would do your mind a huge expansive and enlightening favor by pulling yourself away from Faux News now and then (if its not already way too late for your mind). Though Rupert Murdock is glad he owns your psyche.

Comment on Mainstreaming ECS ~ 2 C by Peter Lang

0
0

Chief Hydrologist,

Thanks for the link. Interesting find and would answer VP’s questions … if it was correct. But it is not. It is way off. It is the solar PV industry’s spin.

Three wrong figures for Australia I noticed after a very brief look are in the first Table are:

1. Solar PV does not substitute for coal generation, or for the average emissions intensity of the grid. It substitutes for gas generation, i.e. the highly flexible generators that provide power during intermediate and peak demand. So the ‘avoided emissions factor’ is too high by 50% or more.

2. The average energy yield is nowhere near 1800 kWh/kWp. This is a theoretical figure and not even close to what the roof top PV installations average. It’s also too high by probably 50% or more.

3. The 10 year interest rate of 4.89% is not close to the discount rate used for analysing electricity generation technology options. The Australian government uses 10% in the most recent analyses.

4. Average operation life o\f PV module of 25 years is overstated, probably b y about 100%

You can recognise the author’s bias from the first sentence in the article:

By converting abundant sunlight directly into electricity without any fuels, photovoltaic modules (PV) are an ideal technology to reduce green house gas emissions. No wonder it has caught the attention of many governments that have made tackling climate change their declared priority.

Comment on Open thread weekend by lolwot

0
0

noone has demonstrated the gistemp and hadcrut adjustments are wrong.

skeptics are always free to do the work themselves in a BEST-like project and show what amazingly different result they get. BEST was meant to be that job but skeptics turned on it when it didn’t produce the results they wanted. Until they do the work to demonstrate there’s a problem I think complaints about adjustments should be ignored (as they are) as irrelevant sniping.

Comment on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy by Michael

0
0

“back-to-the-’50s industrial relations laws, class warfare, rising illiteracy and innumeracy in school- leavers and uni graduates, deterioration in the conditions of non-urban Aborigines, high-cost water and energy, uncontrolled illegal immigration and academics like Lewandowski, and have attempted to overturn freedom of speech.” – faustino

Delusional.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images