[helene_t]

Tax rebates for <whatever we want to encourage> amounts to the same as taxes on <whatever we want to discourage>.

But I think that other things being equal, instruments related to the ultimate goal (reduced emisions) are better than instruments related to some proxy goal, such as the production of more energy-efficient engines. The point is that how the lower emision are acchieved (less transportation, less engine-power use per unit of transporation, less energy use per unit of engine power, or less emision per unit of energy) does not matter.

FWIW, I don't believe in the hydrogen economy. It seems to be more popular among certain politicians than among scientist. In the short term, at least, hybrid engines offer more perspectives. Besides, hydrogen requires electricity to produce. In the U.S., and china, electricity is for a big part produced from coal which causes more CO2 emisions than gasoline. So even if hydrogen fuel one day becomes realistic,it only makes sense if we switch to nuclear power or some durable power source.

As for the huge carbon taxes, they may have to be very very huge if they are to acomplish anything significant. In most of Europe we pay more than one Euro per liter of gasoline (some six dolars per gallon) which is insuficient to keep people out of their cars. Yes, we do use less energy than North Americans, but that has other reasons as well.

[pbleighton]

"As for the huge carbon taxes, they may have to be very very huge if they are to acomplish anything significant. In most of Europe we pay more than one Euro per liter of gasoline (some six dolars per gallon) which is insuficient to keep people out of their cars."

I don't think that keeping people out of their cars is a realistic goal. More efficient cars, eventually hydrogen fuel cells, and more mass transit is much more realistic.

Peter

[Gerben42]

Quote

As for the huge carbon taxes, they may have to be very very huge if they are to acomplish anything significant.

Imagine what you could do with that amount of money!

[DrTodd13]

helene_t, on Apr 28 2006, 01:35 AM, said:

FWIW, I don't believe in the hydrogen economy. It seems to be more popular among certain politicians than among scientist. In the short term, at least, hybrid engines offer more perspectives. Besides, hydrogen requires electricity to produce. In the U.S., and china, electricity is for a big part produced from coal which causes more CO2 emisions than gasoline. So even if hydrogen fuel one day becomes realistic,it only makes sense if we switch to nuclear power or some durable power source.

You are right, a hydrogen/fossil fuel economy makes no sense where you just shift around polution rather than reducing it. A hydrogen/fusion economy is the only thing that makes sense. There is at least one commercial-sized test fusion power plant being constructed now. If this is successful, there is no reason why we can't have all of earth's power demands produced by clean fusion power in the next few decades.

[mike777]

Here is a "liberal" idea that bears more discussion, why cannot the Democrats come up with these ideas and push for them?


Raise the Gas tax 50-60 cents and lower the income tax rates 10% or lower the payroll (social security) tax to zero on the first 5,000$ bucks of wages?

A 70$ per ton Carbon tax coupled with a payroll tax reduction?

At least lets have an open discussion on some of these ideas, why can't we drill in Alaska or offshore in some places?

[Rain]

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Apr 28 2006, 08:55 PM, said:

You are right, a hydrogen/fossil fuel economy makes no sense where you just shift around polution rather than reducing it.  A hydrogen/fusion economy is the only thing that makes sense.  There is at least one commercial-sized test fusion power plant being constructed now.  If this is successful, there is no reason why we can't have all of earth's power demands produced by clean fusion power in the next few decades.

Lets be clear about Fusion:

The test fusion reactor under construction won't be completed until 2020 at the earlier. Even if this reactor does succeed in breaking even on power production, it won't be commercially viable (the amount energy created will never compensate for the enormous fixed cost of this design).

Furthermore, fusion reactors suffer from a couple big problems. First and foremost, fusion reactors still generate large quantities of radioactive waste. I readily admit the fusion reactors have a much cleaner fuel cycle than fission reactors, however, they product enormous amounts of radiation and contaminate everything arround. The reactor, the containment system, the cooling system: You name it. All of this will get terrible contaminated. The debris will have a relatively short half live (centuries rather than millenia) however, there is still a massive containment problem.

The second big problem (and it may very well be a show stopper) has to do with the impact of neutron emissions on the structural integrity of the reactor itself. In additional to making materials radioaction, neutron emissions make most materials very brittle. These big expensive reactors are going to wear out enormously quickly. This will have amajor impact on the cost efficiency of the system.

I'll be very happy to be proven wrong, however, I don't see good ways to sidestep these issues. In the short term, I like old fashioned fission reactors. I dislike the radioactive waste, however, the environment impact is much less than that associated with hydrocarbons. Long term, I like solar thermal systems like

http://www.volker-quaschning.de/articles/f...s2/index_e.html or
http://www.enviromis.../technology.htm

The Environmission is (attempting) to build a solar tower in Australia. The technology looks interesting, however, I couldn't make sense of the balance seat. Equally significant, the share price is falling at a time that fuel prices are spiking (this suggests that there are some underlying management issues)

[hotShot]

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report states human activity is responsible for a large amount of the global warming.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

[mike777]

Where I see no such conclusion or proof in that report?

This report does not say that, these conclusions seem to come out of thin air.
What is large 5%? Again misleading claims based on misleading facts.
You can take this report and say most of global warming is not based on Mankind.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 22 2006, 11:08 PM, said:

Where I see no such conclusion or proof in that report?

This report does not say that, these conclusions seem to come out of thin air.
What is large 5%? Again misleading claims based on misleading facts.

wow!

You read fast.
142 page report in under 10 minutes.

I am REALLY impressed

[mike777]

It is amazing to watch the media report on this study. You wonder if they even know how to read.
This report does not prove mankind is the main cause of warming the earth.
This report does not even seem to have a definition of global warming beyond it is warmer today than yesterday or warmer this decade than 400 years ago.
This report does not say if Global warming is a net plus or minus.
This report does not suggest what we should do to stop global warming, if we should.

I remain convinced if Mankind is causing harm to itself, someone will come along to make a buck in saving us.

Would not be surprised if polluted China finds a way to minaturize scrubbers in a cost effective way to rid us of greenhouse gases and make billions at the same time.

Of course I am old enough to remember the scare stories just a few decades ago of Global Winters/Ice Ages./

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 23 2006, 01:53 AM, said:

It is amazing to watch the media report on this study. You wonder if they even know how to read.
This report does not prove mankind is the main cause of warming the earth.
This report does not even seem to have a definition of global warming beyond it is warmer today than yesterday or warmer this decade than 400 years ago.
This report does not say if Global warming is a net plus or minus.
This report does not suggest what we should do to stop global warming, if we should.

The fact that you are incapable of understanding a report doesn't necessarily invalidate it.
In a similar vein, the limited scope of the paper doesn't mean that its methodology was wrong.

I might even go so far as to suggest that the main problem is not that the media can't read, but rather that ...
(obligatory rude continuation deleted since it would never get by the moderators)

Personally, I think that paper is fairly simple to follow

First, the authors attempt to define the temperature ranges for the Earth over the last 2,000 years. The authors describe their methodology and attempt to demonstrate that their results are robust

The author's next define a series of "climate forcings" that impact the global temperature. The paper focuses on three main climate forcings: Volcanic eruptions, solar fluctuations, and anthropogenic forcings (primarily greenhouse gases and tropospheric aerosols). The author's go on to create a climate model defining a relationship between the different forcings and the global temperature.

Finally, the author's provide the following money quote: "Simulation with energy balance and intermeidate complexity models indicate that a combination of solar and volcanic forcings can explain periods of relative warmth and cold between AD 1000 and 1900, however, but that anthropogenic forcing, and particularly increases in greenhouse gases are needed to explain the late 20th century warmings... Although the different model simulations use different specifications of the various nature and anthropogenic forcings and different parameterizations, the simulations are all in agreement that anthropogenic forcing is the largest contributor to the late 20th century warming"

As to why this report is interesting... Remember a month or so ago when Dr Todd stated that everyone knows that its getting warming, but no one's been able to demonstrate that this was being caused by human activity? The paper strongly suggests that the increase in temperature is not related to natural forces...

[mike777]

Well we seem to be in agreement that the paper is easy and fast to read. But thanks for self editing all the same and keeping the discussion civil without personal attacks. .
It is the conclusions that are drawn from it that seem to be nonsense.

Again the definition of Global warming seems to be it is warmer today than 400 years. Even your quote is right on....largest contributor..not the main cause or problem, yes there is a difference in the meaning.

Here is a simple example, I do not know the exact numbers....

Largest contributor mankind 1%
all other contributors 99%

My point is the media reports make it sound : "World in great danger, Bush says I do not care, mankind 99% the reason earth is getting so hot we are all going to die.." Ok I used some hubris there to make my point.

In any event my main questions are there for all to see. What is the definition of Global Warming, whatever it means is there more minus than plus, if so what are our options? Is a market based solution the best or topdown mandates from governments?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 23 2006, 02:46 AM, said:

If so what are our options? Is a market based solution the best or topdown mandates from governments?

Pollution is one of the classic examples of market failure.

Pollution (in this case greenhouse gas emissions) is an example of an externality. The majority of the cost of pollution is born by society, not the individuals who are making a cost / benefit analysis about what quantity of widgets to produce.

Accordingly, the quantity of widgets that producers decide to build is greater than society would chose...

[mike777]

1) A lot of this seems to be in the lack of transparency of costs. When I buy an apple at the store what is my pollution cost? When I type at the computer how much pollution am I causing at what cost to me. I think a solution can be found to this economic pricing issue.

2) It seems I saw some program the other night, an inventor had a small scrubber that he claimed could eliminate all the greenhouse gases on Earth. Just need to build millions and cost billions but not that many billions. In any event maybe some other inventor will come up with something. My bet is on China, they have a huge problem but great opportunity.

[pbleighton]

"When I type at the computer how much pollution am I causing at what cost to me. I think a solution can be found to this economic pricing issue."

Pollution taxes, carbon taxes...

Mike, are you seeing the light?

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Jun 22 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

"When I type at the computer how much pollution am I causing at what cost to me. I think a solution can be found to this economic pricing issue."

Pollution taxes, carbon taxes...

Mike, are you seeing the light? 

Peter

Lets please keep taxes out of the discussion. Taxes carry much more than the pollution cost we all know. collection and enforcement and then the money is wasted. Sort of like gasoline taxes not spent on roads but on any funny project.

I did post a possible liberal tax solution for discussion, see earlier.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 23 2006, 04:11 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Jun 22 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

"When I type at the computer how much pollution am I causing at what cost to me. I think a solution can be found to this economic pricing issue."

Pollution taxes, carbon taxes...

Mike, are you seeing the light? 

Peter

Lets please keep taxes out of the discussion. Taxes carry much more than the pollution cost we all know. collection and enforcement and then the money is wasted. Sort of like gasoline taxes not spent on roads but on any funny project.

This has to be one of the stupidest comments that I've ever seen on this news group

In one post you state

>1) A lot of this seems to be in the lack of transparency of costs. When I buy an
>apple at the store what is my pollution cost? When I type at the computer how
>much pollution am I causing at what cost to me. I think a solution can be found
>to this economic pricing issue.

Now you're complaining about any kind of tax

these two issues are one and the same

the decision to refer to this as a "tax" as opposed to an "economic pricing issue" is completely semantic.

[pbleighton]

"Lets please keep taxes out of the discussion."

Why on this planet should we keep a well-proven method of affecting behavior out of the discussion?

Had we implemented a gradual gas tax after the oil spikes of the 70's, so that the price was $3.00 per gallon more than present from 1995 (say) on, what do you think that would have done to our oil consumption?

Peter

[mike777]

Yes semantics..and semantics are important. The meaning of words. I admit I make my own semantic errors but let's try and keep them to a minimum.


In any event I was a bit too strong on my tax rant..but just a little.
Taxes can come in the form of regulations also and other indirect taxes. As I said I posted one possible tax to discuss, it may be close to Peter's carbon tax, but at least we trade off other taxes for it. Another way may be tradeable pollution credits that are market based. In other words, let try for a market based solution before using the tax word The middle class will demand green products and be willing to pay a higher cost for Green over time. A short time I bet. Even in China and India.

If a company told us a car cost 20,000 of which 2000 was in pollution controls and a another car cost 19,000 but had less pollution controls of only 1000 we could decide what we wanted. That is not a tax, but market based. OF course this simple example has the free rider problem so not perfect.