WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey.
Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.
Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not.
Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.
The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions.
Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.
No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century.
Sadly, the old-style agreement planned for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures. This renders meaningless any declarations of “success” that might be made after the conference. We must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto and create a smarter, more realistic strategy.
********************
Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”
This article was first published in the New York Times on April 25, 2009, and entitled ‘Don’t Waste Time Cutting Emissions’. It is republished here with permission.
The picture is of Professor Lomborg.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The problem with Lomborg’s arguments is that he bases them on false dichotomies.
Lomborg is a believer in AGW, just not CAGW.
If you don’t want to burn coal, oil and natural gas there’s nuclear. That’s a place where R&D spending is likely to have a huge payoff.
The problem with Lomborg’s arguments is that he bases them on false dichotomies.
his argument is borderline stupid.
how does Lomborg think those reductions will happen without additional alternative energy sources?
every time those “free market” right wingers complain about emission trading, they completely expose themselves..
We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not.
i d love to see some numbers on this. provide them, and another “Lomborg truth” will dissapear…
There is not the slightest doubt we should have much more research into other energy sources like nuclear, geothermal and new very cheap solar polymer plastic cells.
These new polymer panels could be made quickly and cheaply by the companies that make our plastic bank notes. This has already been achieved ( small run) and one estimate is that enough polymer could made in a two month run to equal the capacity of an average coal fired power station.
BTW I respect Lomborg’s energetic mind, but most of all his good natured civility although I obviously don’t agree with him on AGW.
so what – it isn’t base load power.
It’s just like the “lets put solar panels on everyone’s roof” idea – sounds good but is practically useless.
Janama I have to agree with you about base load power and as things stand I certainly wouldn’t be changing from coal (for Aust) until a genuine alternative such as clean coal, geothermal or nuclear proves to be the answer.
But perhaps at some future time cheap polymer solar cells plus storage will be a reality, who knows?
Lomborg does point out an interesting aspect of AGW hype:
The promoters have been so busy getting the money they need to support their fear mongering that very little has been done to actually accomplish what they claim is their goal.
Tens of billions $US have been spent supporting AGW ‘summits’ and ‘studies’ and general propaganda…how much more could have been accomplished if that had been applied to actualy helping the environment?
Neville, we should be pouring the research money into storage systems, new batteries etc.
Until we get something happening there all the solar and wind systems are useless.
Lombord is calling for spending. But he hasn’t come up with any sort of justification for the spending he is calling for. He thinks that CO2 is warming things. But he hasn’t said either how that could be a bad thing and he hasn’t shown any evidence for this assertion.
So he’s compromising with Nazis is what he is doing. He’s creating an impression that these Nazis aren’t engaged in science fraud. And what good does that do? It does no good. Look at the above comments and you will see that it does no good to compromise with these science fraudsters. They will just heap abuse on Lomborg and use Lomborgs own implied compromises as a substitute for evidence.
So Lomborg does deserve this abuse but not for the reasons the Nazis are liable to abuse him for. If this sort of triangulating were helpful we would not have the problem of these CO2-bedwetters trying to get people killed and ration energy anymore. Lomborg is the same as everyone else. If he is asserting something he needs to make good with the evidence. Why on earth would you spend money for socialist research when we need to cut budgets and fire people? Why would you do this when we are desperately short of capital needed for fission and synthetic diesel plants to get moving?
The real answer to the problem of mass-hysteria and orchestrated anti-science lying is as unavoidable as it is urgent. Sack these guys. Start sacking them. Sack the people they work with. Their bosses and subordinates. 360 degrees sackings. Mass-sackings. Start saving the taxpayer a whole lot of money. Then he’ll be able to buy a heater and some warm clothes. Plus business will be able to make the investments necessary to cope with the energy crisis.
And energy crisis comes with a food crisis also. And has done so for 1000 years. We don’t have a moment to waste with these mass-sackings.
Uh, Graeme, are you using a picture of Senator Joe McCarthy as your icon? You know the guy whose name became notorious…
“the term “McCarthyism,” coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy’s practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.”
Just curious.
Although I don’t agree with all Bjorn Lomborg says, I like his style. He does not bluster and spray abuse around. Perhaps Denmark has an education system where people are encouraged to think for themselves, rather than being indoctrinated to think in a dogmatic way. If so, then Australia could learn from the Danes. They gave us a beautiful Opera House, how about an educational philosophy?
Um, Wes. Our pal Cohenite could have advised you never to ask a question unless you know the answer to it. Never mind… you’ll see what I mean. I just wish I could sell tickets.
For a review of the effectiveness of low-carbon technologies, I suggest a read of Professor David MacKay’s book “Sustainable Energy — without the hot air”. It gives all the numbers and is freely downloadable at http://www.withouthotair.com/.
“Lombord (sic) is calling for spending. But he hasn’t come up with any sort of justification for the spending he is calling for. He thinks that CO2 is warming things………. he hasn’t shown any evidence for this assertion.”
May I provide the evidence on Lomborg’s behalf Graham Bird?
Over 41 years of the highest gas, oil and coal production, total atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 61.82ppm therefore these figures are a good indication that CO2 has significantly increased during the period of greatest growth – the last half century or so.
Coal Production (million tons/year)…Atmospheric Concentrations CO2
1965 1566.3…………………………………………..320.03
1976 2969……………………………………………..332.06
1998 3548.3…………………………………………..366.50
2001 3602……………………………………………..371.07
2005 3897……………………………………………..379.75
2006 3914……………………………………………..381.85
In fact, over 750 years i.e. 1000 to 1750, atmospheric CO2 concentrations actually reduced by 0.23ppm.
Here are the data for temperatures from the year 1000 to 2006 which is well worth one’s perusal unless one prefers to remain in denial:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2008_data3.htm
By the way, just who are you calling “Nazis?” Could the real Nazis please stand up?
Eco,
Oh dear, you really have missed the point. By a very long way indeed.
The assertion Mr Bird was calling for evidence about, was that increasing CO2 is causing warming.
And you apparently think a bunch of figures about CO2 concentrations is somehow relevant to that question. Are you serious?
The question isn’t about whether atmospheric CO2 has increased. As far as I know, that’s not really controversial. However, what is contributing to this increase, whether this increase is potentially beneficial or not, and what its potential influence on global climate could be… these are what you could see if you can find some evidence about, if you’re keen.
Here Sod,
This is essentially what Lomborg has been saying.
Global GDP is $65 billion at present.
if we assume a 3.5% growth rate for the next 91 years to 2100 GDP would come in at around almost $1,500 trillion.
Now assume there is a loss of GDP of 20% as a result of AGW.
We therefore have an unmolested GDP of $1.190 trillion. (stern suggested we could lose 20% of GDP)
Now take the cost of mitigation that would lower the growth rate by 1% over the same time to 2.5%.
Mitigated GDP therefore becomes $614 trillion over this period.
Small changes that effect GDP potential have a huge impact over oceans of time.
My example would require a little finessing but that is what Lomborg is saying. In fact if I finessed my numbers even more the differential would be even bigger.
It’s all about innovation. Technological evolution is occurring faster today than at any time in history. I have little doubt that “just-in-time” solutions will arrive, since it is human nature to solve problems in the time allotted, rarely earlier.
But I have little faith that our currently in-fashion bias of what those solutions (or problems) might be are prescience. The novelty factor of the universe is simply to great to predict the future of science, tech and design implementation outside a few years hence. Unless, of course, you are a science fiction genius.
The problem is that some things look deceptively easy, like nuclear powered flying cars (in the 1950’s) or solar power replacing fossil fuels (today).
You got to ask yourself – If solar energy is so appealing as a free and readily available power source then what has Gaia done with it over about a 1000 million years of evolution? Well, a whole lot, really. Photosynthesis is the basis of all life on Earth.
But most interesting is what the evolution of life on Earth has NOT done with solar energy. After all Gaia has had a very long time to work out evolutionary solutions to all sorts of problem. Many of her solutions, such as the human mind, are completely beyond our current understanding. Yet the best evolution could do with sunlight is photosynthesis. I wonder why?
Trees don’t walk. I wonder why? Wouldn’t it be an advantage to be able move from the south side of a ridge in summer where it is cool and damp to the north side in winter? (or the reverse in the N Hemisphere.) Why aren’t there any photosynthetic animals, (outside a few single cell anomalies?)
I wonder if converting sunlight to useable and storable energy might not have some intrinsic limitations we haven’t thought of yet? Or at least hurdles that a billion years of natural selection was unable to leap. Why did evolution choose to convert sunlight to grass or fruit or phytoplankton first then let grazing animals concentrate the energy into the complex proteins that ultimate powers the top of the food chain? Or bury to create fossil fuels for humans to find and release massive energy stores very quickly. I’d be far more optimistic about rapid solar if there were at least hybrid photosynthetic animals. Perhaps green birds with chloroplastic feathers supplementing their photosynthetic energy with edible protein. Wrong planet maybe.
Of course, we are Nature and if we crack the sunlight conversion problem, then it will simply be the next phase shift to the next higher energy level, even further away from thermodynamic equilibrium for our biosphere. There never is any going back.
Wes:
I’m not sure we can make the assumption that tech innovation will arrive in time. If they had stopped the use of coal etc in the 1860’s Britain the industrial revolution will have ground to halt.. stopped it dead in its tracks. The only certainty we have to replace coal fired plants and provide ourselves with clean energy is nuke. That’s basically all we have and even here a good part of the green barbarians are against it.
What is your point eco-warrior? How does what you are saying contradict anything that I’ve said?
Try again and this time with the brain switched on.
Steve Schapel
I don’t believe it is I who is missing the point at all . You see I care not whether CO2 warms or chills the planet for my interests lay in environmental toxicology, a subject which is suppressed by the pseudo scientists on this forum who continue to bang on about global warming.
Global warming? Well it’s all you poor critters have you see because there is no conflict of opinion amongst toxicologists on the destructive impacts of fossil fuel emissions on ecosystems, biodiversity or human health.
These chemicals are predominantly emitted by pollutant industries who are supported by industry parasites, both remaining in denial and who persist in raising the uncertainties about global warming so long as they can keep the workers alive long enough to make a handsome profit before the resources run out.
Industrial hazardous emissions include those chemicals which are carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic and they are fouling the planet. These are the carbon based chemicals which, after combustion, oxidize to CO2 in the atmosphere.
I am amused by your indifference to the correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 and the increase in fossil fuel production.
Nevertheless, I sincerely trust that humanity will soon ascend to a higher vibrational level though I understand that you can not give some people more than what they are ready to receive.
But it goes without saying that without the health and well-being of the Planetary host there will be no life as we know it and if industrial man continues to multiply his numbers and expand his operations he will succeed in his apparent intention, to seal himself off from the natural and isolate himself within an imminent, synthetic prison of his own making.
Perhaps you coud find a correlation between the “Nazis and Nuclear Energy” on the following link or offer a solution as to where the taxpayers in the UK could find 83 billion pounds to clean up their nuclear waste?:
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/cartel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/18/nuclearpower.energy
“I’m not sure we can make the assumption that tech innovation will arrive in time.”
Why not? It always has in the past. Humanity has invented its way through a couple of ice ages and interglacials. Why should 1c a century prove an insurmountable challenge, especially at this stage in our evolution?
Historically, prophecies of apocalypse are as common as priesthoods charge by oligarchies to instil fear and order in the hoi polloi.
Yet, we’re still here, because apocalypse is a mythological construction, like the Garden of Eden or Noah’s Ark and The Flood or the Dreamtime. The coming AGW apocalypse is simply an Old Testament night terror, which, like Proteus, has successfully cloaked itself in science as a disguise for an agenda of a quite specific political elite.
We believe we are superior to religious superstition because we are a thoroughly secular society; on the contrary, our modern secularism has rendered us blind to the mythopoeic rhythms of the reoccurring ancient motifs to which we dance.
Look at eco-warrior’s words: “without the health and well-being of the Planetary host there will be no life as we know it and if industrial man continues to multiply his numbers and expand his operations he will succeed in his apparent intention, to seal himself off from the natural and isolate himself within an imminent, synthetic prison of his own making.”
These are the primordial grunts of a mushroom drunk shaman invoking the ancestors’ wrath before the cave fire. Yet Eco-warrior imagines himself as a rational “environmental toxicologist.” He seems entirely unaware of that he’s mouthing sentiments as old as speech itself…. We’re all gonna die unless we return to the ways of the ancestors… Uh huh. The only difference between the La Tene shaman and Eco-warrior is that Eco couches his appeal for Luddite regression in terms appropriated from rational secular science. Yet his not-so-well hidden intent is anti-science, anti-Enlightenment, and ultimately anti-humanist.
. In fact if I finessed my numbers even more the differential would be even bigger.
it s not “finess”. you are inventing those numbers.
let us assume you send me all your money. let us assume i invest it and triple it. let us assume, i ll send you back double of what you sent me.
when can i expect the cheque?
I note the ad hominem from those who walk on their knuckles. Tsk tsk. Perhaps you’re savage from observing Tony on Lateline, wiping the floor with the rock ape, who, bewitched by his own hubris, blundered on with his treacherous incubator of errors.
And “Oh what a tangled web he weaves, when first he practised to deceive!” Has the rock ape retreated to his cave to lick his wounds after the dust up? And I guess the simians here will need to climb the trees, hide out for a while, then regroup and rearrange the stupefying round of swill they’ve been peddling.
Grunts for now.
“I don’t believe it is I who is missing the point at all . You see I care not whether CO2 warms or chills the planet for my interests lay in environmental toxicology, a subject which is suppressed by the pseudo scientists on this forum who continue to bang on about global warming.”
CO2 is not toxic Eco-Warrior so you can stop lying about it right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look Bjorn. Why hasn’t the Copenhagen Consensus moved on? You cannot just lock in the first position you come to (which one has to admit appeared reasonable at first.) You know now that this CO2 is underwhelming as to its effects if indeed it does warm anything. Yet your organisation is still running the turn of the century triangulation as if the CO2 could hurt our remote descendants. Where is the evidence for this?
There is no excuse for your position now Bjorn. Or the position of your organisation. Now do you want to be a Professor or not. Because if you are not serious about it there is still time to pack away your books and make good in some sort of less serious undertaking. Since no-one is going to take a think-tank, or a Professor who triangulates with these goons seriously any more.
I’ve watched all your stuff on video thats available. And what used to seem like commonsense now seems like a betrayal. Its like a comment that Sugar Ray made about his memories of Michael Spinx when they were on the team training for the Olympics. He said he was a bit strange because he would set you up for the the big punch but then he wouldn’t throw it.
You whip these guys on every constituent part of their argument but then you sign onto their goals? Thats alright for you in academia if you want to be a smarty-pants about it. Supposing you kept your job, (and if it was up to me the triangulaters would get sacked in the first wave) you will be able to look after yourself and your family no matter what. But thats not the case for billions of people.
We have global food shortages out there. And it looks like fresh water will be a problem in a lot of places. You know full well the science says that, in economic terms, that industrial-CO2-release is a POSITIVE EXTERNALITY.
So what is going on here?
I expect you to set things right in your next meeting. Don’t take no for an answer from the neoclassical economist lunatics. These guys are all Sado-Pigouvian. And the new idea you have of sponsoring solar research stinks of neoclassical economics modelling quackery.
Don’t go to Copenhagen pretending that the alarmists aren’t frauds and incompetents. Or that industrial-CO2 isn’t the best dumb luck the human race ever had. The nightmare of sending faux-scientists to Copenhagen still reverberates around the world. The last time a bunch of bonehead science-workers showed up in Copenhagen we wound up stuck with the idea that a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Everyone can change their mind. Your institution has to change its mind. It has to admit that it was wrong.
The reasons we cannot assume that technical innovation can arrive in time are the following.
1. Technical innovation is just the visible part of the ice-berg. Or just the icing on the cake. That technical innovation we see as members of the public is what I’m talking about here.
In reality TECHNICAL INNOVATION IS IMBEDDED IN CAPITAL UPDATE. And it implies not just the design of the plasma screen. But for that updated plasma screen to be economic the suppliers of the manufacturer would also need capital update, their suppliers and the foreigners they outsource to. And their suppliers too. Which is why the Concord was pulled from service as miraculous as it was. Because it was the icing on the cake without the cake.
2. So we have said that profitable technological update is and must be imbedded in capital update. But you see capital investment is ENERGY EXPENSIVE. Or more commonly ENERGY INTENSIVE….. Capital update needs energy.
And to run that new capital requires energy also, with puny energy-efficiencies as a secondary concern. Furthermore capital update doesn’t just mean better machines at every stage of the process. Boehm Bawerk tells us that capital update means A LENGTHENING OF THE STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION.
So what we are saying here is that though energy efficiencies may be going on in the background all the time BE THAT AS IT MAY…. in the first instance a progressing economy means an increase in per capita energy usage because of the lengthening of the structure of production.
3. Since technological development is imbedded in capital update. And since capital update means greater energy usage………. But there is a third factor to consider.
You need capital goods to gather energy. You can gather as much energy as you want but its capital goods that gather that energy.
4. Putting it altogether we see that energy is essential for capital update. Which is essential for technological development.
All the way down the line.
So Cambria is quite right but he understates his case. If we put everything on a throw of the dice on some energy system that the socialists choose we will lose that bet. The entire bet is going forward on the basis of ignorance of economic science.
I know that Bjorns outfit might say otherwise. But they ought to ring up Reisman and Jackson and be prepared to lay out some consultancy fees.
The simple answer is that as long as there is not a floor under the price of fossil fuels, no one is going to invest serious capital in non carbon energy sources. In the 1970s the Saudi’s could have wiped out any such investment by opening the taps. Today it is a bit more complicated but the principle remains. A carbon tax attacks this problem much more directly than cap and trade which is why Eli favors it (the tax would be compensated by lowering other taxes such as retirement taxes).
Since new sources ALWAYS have higher initial costs than old established ones where the infrastructure has already been capitalized calling simply for more research is not a serious answer. Moreover, most people believe that simply wishing for a pony doesn’t leave one under the tree. Evidently the news has not made its way to Denmark
A simple tax on gasoline ought to be enough to the extent that you are right.
Supposing Eli that you got an inheritance of 100 million dollars USD. Do you accept the premise?
Well so you and me go to put a business plan together to set up a nuclear fission plant and a synthetic diesel plant next to it. Supposing thats the case?
As simple as that? I don’t thinkso. Zoning, protests, laws, lies you name it. Its not happening and if it is happening its not free enterprise.
Eli my fellow right-wingers have no idea of the seriousness of the situation. Thats why I always hold out hope that people such as yourself, who have a few clues, will come over to the bright side of the road.
Committed Philosopher?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfKofuYl-z8
Or just singing for the little girls?
Everyone needs to update their act. Even the evergreen Lomborg.
Sod:
What an idiotic reply. If you can’t argue the numbers, don’t post here and and simply stay at Lambert’s blog with all the other deadenders.
Show me where those calcs are wrong or simply buzz off. If you find it too mentally exhausting to scroll up the page, let me know and I’ll copy/paste it for you further down.
Eli:
What’s you point? If we had the technology available that was superior in energy output we wouldn’t need a tax as the tech would have been advanced a lot earlier which proves the point. Ghe point being that at the present time oil and coal are superior forms of energy output and only nuke is competative.
Why are you even suggesting the tax be towards savings? That shouldn’t be your/the governments’ decision to to make. If there is a transfer from income taxes to carbon based taxes the difference ought to simply be remitted to the taxpayer without the command and control you’re suggesting.
Wes:
Yes, we know that at some stage we’ll figure things out, however the issue is the timing.Other than nuke nothing looks remotely good at the moment.
Sod says:
In fact if I finessed my numbers even more the differential would be even bigger.
it s not “finess”. you are inventing those numbers.
let us assume you send me all your money. let us assume i invest it and triple it. let us assume, i ll send you back double of what you sent me.
when can i expect the cheque?
Well no, Sod, you can’t expect any cheque from me. The reason is that you’re being intellectually dishonest so it would obviously mean you’re a junk credit risk.
So my assumptions are pretty good.
the growth rate of 3.5% is actually going to turn out to be on the low side. Economic growth is accelerating over the long term. We saw wrold growth hover around 5% of the past 15 years and once we get out of this recession it will head to that level and even higher. So my assumption is conservative.
My estimate of 20% of the damage to GDP was taken right out of Stern’s assumptions, dopey. Same with the cost of 1%. Stern says we need to spend 1% of GDP to mitigate effectively.
So if you ant to argue the numbers, go right ahead, otherwise head back to the Deltoid dwarf’s sight where dishonesty and delusional nonsense goes at a discount.
I thought Jones showed himself up to be am incompetent twit as always. Always playing the attack dog, no matter how thing his knowledge of the subject. This seems to be a common trait among those who have an extremely inflated opinion of their own ability.
Is he a journalist? This is one of a few areas where our ABC has deteriorated even more than the comercials. We get more of those pretty little girls, who’s knowledge of the world runs out at the exit of the coffee or cosmetics shop, & the pretty boys are even worse.
A prime example of this was that boat accident on Sydney harbour, involving a large tinny, a year os so back. The media were calling the thing a “repair” boat for 3 days, because it had repair painted on the side of it.
Not too surprising really, the first reporter was a graduate journalist. One of those who would not know which way was up, even when sitting on the bottom of a swimming pool, watching the bubbles rise.
Eli the Economist sez:
“The simple answer is that as long as there is not a floor under the price of fossil fuels, no one is going to invest serious capital in non carbon energy sources.”
What Ely really means that as long as non-carbon energy costs far more than fossil fuels it won’t be adopted as we operate in an open free market that maximizes cost efficiency. So we have to cripple the free market.
Ely’s solution is to create an artificial inefficiency in the market so that the currently inefficient state of the non-carbon energy technology is cheaper than fossil fuels. Revealingly, Ely doesn’t take in consideration the human cost, the massive economic dislocation or any of the many unintended consequences of authoritarian central command of energy markets.
Secondly, if one taxes fossil fuels to an extent that today’s primitive alternatives become competitive, but then simply refund those taxes back to who ever the government deems is most worthy you are not only stealing one group of citizens’ wealth and redistributing it to another group, but you are simply creating inflation because since the second group will have more money it can afford to pay the higher fossil fuel prices the punitive taxation created.
We can guess that an Obama or Rudd government would redistribute the taxed wealth only to lower half income brackets, who are unlikely to run out and buy $30,000 solar systems to take advantage of its newly forced price competitiveness.
Therefore only the wealthy will have the incentive and the capital to invest in the alternatives energy sources. Yet they will HAVE NO incentive to invest capital in technological innovation because the current primitive alternative energy technology is artificially made quite competitive thanks to an economically idiotic tax.
When El Rabit said you can’t just wish for a pony under the tree, apparently he meant it’s best to steal one from your neighbour.
It’s creative invention that Bjorn Lomborg is seeking to stimulate, not creative socialism inventing new ways to oppress humanity.
Graeme Bird
If you are the best deputy the collective ignorance of the Coalition of the Silly can dredge up, then perhaps we can hope that global sanity will prevail.
I note that posters here are constantly bombarded with your jabber wonky and clearly you are incapable of rationally addressing the issues posed for your response. “Liar, liar!” Don’t you have anything better to do?
“CO2 is not toxic Eco-Warrior so you can stop lying about it right now.”
Ah yes – lying. Did you earn your Five Star Hoppy Badge under Mr Plimer’s tutelage who, on Lateline, outrageously threw faeces at his climate science superiors and fallaciously used regional temperatures in the US to manipulate global temperatures to his liking?
He then proceeded to advise Tony Jones, “that one swallow does not make a summer” and you know that scurrilous Mr Jones, quoting from Plimer’s book, was apparently peddling “erraneous” information. Looking rather battered and bruised, Plimer then accused scientists of not measuring the temperatures of deserts – which would, I believe, actually elevate global temperatures. Huh?
Foot in mouth, his ambiguous protestations became more hilarious by the minute. Fantastic vaudeville and it was free too but do you think he “will respect himself this morning?”
“In a major shift on global warming, the US Environmental Protection Authority has deemed carbon dioxide a health risk.
“EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the finding confirmed greenhouse gas pollution was a serious problem.”
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25350443-661,00.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/0ef7df675805295d8525759b00566924!OpenDocument
“This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation,” said Jacobson (Stanford scientist) of his study, which on Dec. 24 was accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters.
“The study is the first specifically to isolate carbon dioxide’s effect from that of other global-warming agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and meteorological changes due to carbon dioxide itself increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103135757.htm
Of course the science of all this wlll go over your head Graeme Bird though fortunately I see there are several more on this forum who are capable of accepting scientific evidence in preference to the swill that “empire builders,” gold diggers, parasites and eco vandals perpetuate and I sincerely thank the Gods for that!
“I see there are several more on this forum who are capable of accepting scientific evidence in preference to the swill that “empire builders,” gold diggers, parasites and eco vandals perpetuate and I sincerely thank the Gods for that!”
Maybe there is a rational reason that Eco-warrior is so very afraid. He hears the sounds of the world differently than most of us.
http://labspaces.net/97188/Wimps_hear_dangerous_noises_differently
Hey, Eco, CO2… BOOO!…Pollution…BOO!
LOL
I thought Jones showed himself up to be am incompetent twit as always
No, I didn’t. I thought he was very well versed in a way trying and trap Plimer to make him look bad. Jones of course is an advocate rather than a journalist: a taxpayer supported advocate. My hunch is that “Where’s” Waldo Karoly or dishonest Tim Lambert helped Tony Jones with the questions as Jones showed all the subtlety of a cow getting sucked into a jet engine. It looked like is was probably Karoly that fed him the questions as the cross examination was a little more coherent than what I would expect from Lambert.
Waldo Karoly can’t help himself. He was on lateline loudly pronouncing his geeky ideas again last night. It’s a wonder Waldo gets any work done.
My estimate of 20% of the damage to GDP was taken right out of Stern’s assumptions, dopey. Same with the cost of 1%. Stern says we need to spend 1% of GDP to mitigate effectively.
here is Stern:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=clash-sir-nicholas-stern
losses, averaged over space, over time and uncertain outcomes, of around 5 percent of global gross domestic product and upwards, probably substantially more than 5 percent of GDP.
the 1% is to compensate a loss of 5%.
omg, i am simply unable to keep watching that Plimer interview.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
its just horrible.
he didn t really say, that Casablanca is NOT about love?
can denialists get anything right?
“I see there are several more on this forum who are capable of accepting scientific evidence in preference to the swill that “empire builders,” gold diggers, parasites and eco vandals…”
Alas Wes George, you were not on my list for I also included moral pygmies, drivelling windbags, cowpunchers whores and corporate pimps. Congratulations, you fit all four categories so why not take your hand off it Wesley honey? Lol!
Yeah I busted you lying you jerk. So come good or kill yourself right here right now.
Where is your evidence? You won’t show with any and its not through the gift of prophecy that I know this already.
Sod:
You innumerate fool, the cost is i% annualized. If Stern is saying we need to spend 1% if annual GDP to save 5% then your case is even worse, you moron.
As John Lennon said, the more you hate the more you love.
Let’s list Eco-Luke’s boyfriends:
cowpuncher whores
corporate pimps
moral pygmies
drivelling windbags
eco-parasites
empire builders
gold diggers
eco-vandals
global warming agents
Senator Joe McCarthy
And little ol’ Wesley Honey.
whoo hoo!
What a party! Let’s dance!
Village People, anyone?
You innumerate fool, the cost is i% annualized. If Stern is saying we need to spend 1% if annual GDP to save 5% then your case is even worse, you moron.
now either he is the most stupid economics professor on earth, or your assumptions about what he is saying is wrong….
Well actually he is pretty fucking stupid, Sod. After all he was a signatory demanding Thatcher stop the reforms.
However, you’re just a moron because he doesn’t assert what you are saying he does. In other words you’re too stupid to understand his comments.
Now back to Deltoid and don’t hurry back.
Eco-Warrior I just call you a liar because you keep lying. Now you’ve claimed that Lomborg has some evidence that would support CO2 mitigation. He does not and neither do you. You have said that CO2 is toxic. Thats a lie. And you come here and tell me a string of lies. You have said that CO2 warms things. GREAT!!!! Lets throw a street party. But you are lying because you don’t have the evidence as much as I’d wish to believe this story. You have said that measuring deserts would increase the average temperature “looking rather battered and bruised, Plimer then accused scientists of not measuring the temperatures of deserts – which would, I believe, actually elevate global temperatures. Huh?” But this is just you being foolish. There is nothing colder than a desert night. Desert nights are three dog nights. The air lacks the moisture to hold the temperature in and the heat so powerful in the afternoon proves ephemeral whereas Singapore night-times seldom fall below high-twenties low-thirties temperatures.
In fact that story was just a gloating story. Gloating at the usual ABC setup. The sort of thing they used to do to Keith Windschuttle to stress him and make him sound too harsh and very shrill. Its an ABC ambush and you seem to take great stock in successful humiliation rather than the sicence. Clearly Plimer is right.
Now you are talking about greenhouse gas pollution. But some gasses are pollutants and some gases have characteristics that get them branded as greenhouse gases and these two factors are more or less independent one to the other. So here you are being dishonest again. Because there is no such thing as greenhouse-gas-pollution. This does not exist. Pollutants pollute. Pollutants pollute if they are pollutants and they are let loose. But only some greenhouse gases are pollutants and only some pollutants are greenhouse gases. Your claim to being an environmental toxicologist sounds itself to be a flagrant lie. What you are is a Nazi.
“EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the finding confirmed greenhouse gas pollution was a serious problem.”
No she didn’t. You are lying. Only pollutants pollute.
Science-daily has always announced the first time this has been acheived or that has been achieved and it pulls that stunt all the time. If 2009 is the first time this has been done then thats twenty years of lying and science fraud right there. But its just more nonsense. If it were true it would be proof of fraud. Science-daily is the Pravda of climate science. Actually Pravda is not a bad rag these days.
“This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation,” said Jacobson (Stanford scientist) of his study, which on Dec. 24 was accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters.” He’s wrong, he’s dishonest, he’s a dummy, and he’s no scientist. On the other hand if he’s right we ought to just throw a party. Fantastic. I look forward to getting my hopes smashed once more.
“In a major shift on global warming, the US Environmental Protection Authority has deemed carbon dioxide a health risk.”
Well this is pretty simple. Its not a health. They are lying. As are you. Nothing could be clearer than that.
OK so I go to the science daily Pravda link:
“ScienceDaily (Jan. 4, 2008) — A Stanford scientist has spelled out for the first time the direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in human mortality, using a state-of-the-art computer model …….”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You IDIOT Eco-Warrior. You Blockhead. You dummy.
“Yeah I busted you lying you jerk. So come good or kill yourself right here right now”
If it struts like Adolf, squarks like Adolf and looks like Adolf (minus the moustache) then it must be Adolf in the poxy arms of the bitch of Buchenwald .
Fascists are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them – but that’s not the case. And of course they have a physical allergy to truth which has brought Adolf and the bitch out in hives.
Adolf and his die Achse des Bösen will need to provide evidence to support the claim that CO2 does not impact on temperatures. Put up or shut up Adolf or do you wish to mimic the Godbotherers who don’t feel the need either to prove that only their supernatural deity’s in charge of climate change?
Of course it is basic laboratory physics that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere produces warming. Invariably this statement evokes loud screeching noises from the goose-stepping Fuhrer and the mish-mash of riffraff, the sprinkling of amateurs, dilettantes, cranks, pimps, fanatics and gold diggers.
And of course the Australian fascist would prefer not to use outright physical violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
And the more they squark, the more discredited they become.
Ignorant dullards!
Sieg Heil!
You’ve got nothing eugenicist. You’ve been made an utter fool of. Where did all your evidence go? It just all disappeared. This is the sort of blockhead we are dealing with.
janama April 27th, 2009 at 9:20 am
“so what – it isn’t base load power.
It’s just like the “lets put solar panels on everyone’s roof” idea – sounds good but is practically useless.”
In contrast to wind power which is unpredictable, the main advantage of solar is that it is at maximum when power use is at maximum. Of course there are huge yield differences between sunny and cloudy days and winter/summer, but a change in production is somewhat more predictable and far less abrupt than for wind.
The main disadvantage still is that one need a huge (fossil/nuclear) backup, at least for peak demand at minimum yield. Thus research in high yield, high capacity power storage should have the highest priority, but progress there still is slow…
Why prioritise anything? Why not just make energy production tax exempt royalties alone excepted, and then get all of the red tape for nuclear and synthetic diesel out of the way? People will go for nuclear under the right conditions. They will make the right choice. And we can take up the solar idea when matters are less dire.