Conservatives and climate change

[mhaze]

....Which do you think is bigger worldwide mhaze, the renewables industry or the oil and gas industry? (And don't reply with some sarcastic comment about me being a loony lefty thinking everything is a Big Oil conspiracy - i'm just posing the counter point.)

You mean: Which ACTUALLY DELIVERS energy that the public wants, in the quantities and at the times the public wants it, at low prices?



Note: That has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.

 

[mhaze]

Perhaps you should be more selective in your friends.....

Hey, Trakar, get real for a second. The argument was made that "No climate science forecasts have been wrong" or something like that. It's indefensible, of course, because all we have to do is go find ONE.

Also if you will kindly note, I've already handled your comment.

The fact that you can easily find crazy things that have been said doesn't have any true utility. The Believers will turn around and say "Oh, but not by Scientists". Sure, we can find crazy things said by their Sciencyists. But then they will say "Oh, but that's not the CONSENSUS".

Let's say on the contrary, that a substantive lie was used to help pass "climate legislation" in a given country. That certainly is interesting and certainly is occurring. But likely the scientists, with a few exceptions, will be standing back and staying quite while media people try to whip up the fear and guilt bongos.

Anyway....

​

The really wild and unsubstantiated statements have been made by you.

Wasn't it you that shortly ago said:

And one of the big problems with global warming is that, though the costs are going to be a bit further down the road, unchecked global warming is going to cost a lot more money and result in the loss of a lot more choices and freedoms, than dealing with the issues and making the transitions to alternatives while we can still afford to do so. It isn't a matter of paying the costs or not paying the costs, its a matter of how much we pay now, versus how much we pay later

​

I've asked for economic forecasts made 50 years ago which turned out to be correct. And I figured that since guys like you blithely request that we agree and don't dispute your forecast, that you could provide past forecasts that show the validity of this. If you can't do this, then there is a serious disconnect between your babble about scientific papers and your opinions about public policy.

Briefly, your opinions about public policy are then nothing more than faith based and irrational belief.

 

[BenBurch]

OK, Mhaze, find one. ONE significant prediction of mainstream science in the last decade about AGW that was wrong in some way other than not predicting how quickly things have gone bad. I am quite certain that my position is defensible and that you will be unable to back up your bloviations.

(And of course, we will want to know about all of the other predictions you could not find fault with even if you find one that was wrong; The fact that we have to argue about ONE when there are dozens shows your position is corrupt.)

 

[Francesca R]

The analysis of "who has most to gain/lose" from climate-change-policy is different for each proposed policy. It is not normally "renewables versus fossil fuels" businesses. But if it was, then comparing the relative revenue/market cap of those subsectors would not necessarily inform the answer anyway. Since several renewable energy firms (don't know how many) already owe their profitability to public subsidies (I am thinking solar panel electricity generation in countries like Germany, which has a few weeks of sunshine in a good year not unlike the UK), the situation in some cases is that survival depends on it.

Oil and gas firms are often state owned as well (not just in Venezuela), meaning there can be not much difference between earnings and tax receipts from the point of view of state coffers, and little or no influence from private shareholders.

Even when energy firms are private, they are a sitting duck for tax hikes in an era of a high crude price and indebted governments, regardless of carbon tax--as the UK Tory/Libdem government showed last year.

 

[stokes234]

You mean: Which ACTUALLY DELIVERS energy that the public wants, in the quantities and at the times the public wants it, at low prices?



Note: That has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.

You just claimed that there was alot of money in the climate change business, and in doing so you implied that the scientific consensus was somehow skewed by the influence of money. I'm simply pointing out that there's a hell of alot more money to be made by skewing it the other way. Your inability to actually follow your own points is of no interest to me.

 

[mhaze]

The analysis of "who has most to gain/lose" from climate-change-policy is different for each proposed policy. It is not normally "renewables versus fossil fuels" businesses. But if it was, then comparing the relative revenue/market cap of those subsectors would not necessarily inform the answer anyway. Since several renewable energy firms (don't know how many) already owe their profitability to public subsidies (I am thinking solar panel electricity generation in countries like Germany, which has a few weeks of sunshine in a good year not unlike the UK), the situation in some cases is that survival depends on it.

Oil and gas firms are often state owned as well (not just in Venezuela), meaning there can be not much difference between earnings and tax receipts from the point of view of state coffers, and little or no influence from private shareholders.

Even when energy firms are private, they are a sitting duck for tax hikes in an era of a high crude price and indebted governments, regardless of carbon tax--as the UK Tory/Libdem government showed last year.

I can't think of any "renewables" operations in the US that would not bankrupt within months if the tax dollars and tax credits went away. They are subsidized losing ventures. Oh, and it's a curiosity, but it is ALWAYS the privately owned oil companies that are "evil".

OK, Mhaze, find one. ONE significant prediction of mainstream science in the last decade about AGW that was wrong in some way other than not predicting how quickly things have gone bad. I am quite certain that my position is defensible and that you will be unable to back up your bloviations.

(And of course, we will want to know about all of the other predictions you could not find fault with even if you find one that was wrong; The fact that we have to argue about ONE when there are dozens shows your position is corrupt.)

Stretchable qualifications noted in attempt to derail from question of whether you are simply a politically motivated ideologue driven by faith and belief, or whether you are pragmatic, self assured progressive elite with superior knowledge and expertise.

I am quite certain that any position based on rubber bandable qualifications is defensible insofar as it is built so as to allow debate around the loosely formed parameters.

As trite as it is trivial. Derail not taken.

 

[bit_pattern]

I can't think of any "renewables" operations in the US that would not bankrupt within months if the tax dollars and tax credits went away. They are subsidized losing ventures. Oh, and it's a curiosity, but it is ALWAYS the privately owned oil companies that are "evil".

/yawn

Fossil fuel subsidies are 10 times those of renewables, figures show

New analysis shows that government support for fossil fuel industry is about 10 times that offered to renewable energy firms

From BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 August 2010 17.00 BST

Despite repeated pledges to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and criticism from some quarters that government support for renewable energy technologies is too generous, global subsidies provided to renewable energy and biofuels are dwarfed by those enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

That is the conclusion of a major report released late last week by analyst Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which analyses subsidies and incentive schemes offered globally to developers of renewable energy and biofuel technologies and projects.

The report concludes that in 2009 governments provided subsidies worth between $43bn (£27bn) and $46bn to renewable energy and biofuel industries, including support provided through feed-in tariffs, renewable energy credits, tax credits, cash grants and other direct subsidies.

In contrast, estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) released in June showed that $557bn was spent by governments during 2008 to subsidise the fossil fuel industry.

Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said the study revealed that investors reluctant to finance renewable energy industries because they believe them to be heavily subsidised were operating under a misapprehension.

"One of the reasons the clean energy sector is starved of funding is because mainstream investors worry that renewable energy only works with direct government support," he said. "Setting aside the fact that in many cases clean energy competes on its own merits – for instance in the case of well-situated wind farms and Brazilian sugarcane ethanol – this analysis shows that the global direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around 10 times the subsidy for renewables."

 

[bit_pattern]

The current energy and climate debate would benefit from a broader understanding of the explicit and hidden government subsidies that affect energy use throughout the economy. In an effort to examine this issue, ELI conducted a review of fossil fuel and renewable energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008. Our findings are presented in the graphic “Energy Subsidies Black, Not Green.” The accompanying paper, Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008, describes the approach used to identify and quantify the subsidies presented in the graphic. ELI researchers used a standardized methodology to calculate government expenditures. Where this methodology was lacking or did not apply, ELI researchers calculated subsidy values on a case-by-case basis.

Applying a conservative approach, explained in further detail in the paper, ELI found that

• The vast majority of federal subsidies for fossil fuels and renewable energy supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel.
  
• The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.
  
• Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29 billion over the same period.
  
• Subsidies to fossil fuels generally increased over the study period (though they decreased in 2008), while funding for renewables increased but saw a precipitous drop in 2006-07 (though they increased in 2008). The largest subsidies to fossil fuels were written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions. By comparison, many subsidies for renewables are time-limited initiatives implemented through energy bills, with expiration dates that limit their usefulness to the renewables industry.
  
• The vast majority of subsidy dollars to fossil fuels can be attributed to just a handful of tax breaks, such as the Foreign Tax Credit ($15.3 billion) and the Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels ($14.1 billion, though this credit has since been phased out). The largest of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, applies to the overseas production of oil through an obscure provision of the Tax Code, which allows energy companies to claim a tax credit for payments that would normally receive less-beneficial tax treatment.
  
• Almost half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, raises considerable questions about effects on climate.

The project also included an examination of energy flows in 2007.

http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_energy.cfm

 

[mhaze]

http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_energy.cfm

Oh, come now. So this exercise in lying with statistics REALLY shows what?

That the subsidy of renewables per kw hour is >25x that of oil?

Have you thought of seeking employment making your opponents' cases?

 

[bit_pattern]

So this exercise in lying with statistics

As opposed to lying without statistics?

 

[Francesca R]

Is anyone trying to argue that unfettered market forces would result in renewable energy production competing with (or displacing) traditional now?

If not, the revelation that traditional energy gets state support (which is obvious when you consider how much of it is state owned in the world) is not very relevant.

ETA: there also would not be any need for a non-market climate change policy; merely strip traditional energy of support (which would be a good thing IMO, state interference in oil and gas globally is a huge net hindrance to investment in the sector)

 

[mhaze]

You just claimed that there was alot of money in the climate change business, and in doing so you implied that the scientific consensus was somehow skewed by the influence of money. I'm simply pointing out that there's a hell of alot more money to be made by skewing it the other way. Your inability to actually follow your own points is of no interest to me.

I agree that you would not be interested in my inability to follow your made up presumptions as to what you impute that I imply.

Anyway, it's rather laughable that you'd even make a statement that a comment about there being a lot of money in a carbon tax (etc).

A tax is NOTHING BUT MONEY. When it is apply to a large number of people, it is NOTHING BUT A LOT OF MONEY.

As opposed to lying without statistics?

An honest answer would have been:

"Gosh. Yes that's right. The petro industry is much, much large, and generates far more electric power or other units of industry. So yes, renewables get orders of magnitude more subsidies per power unit than fossil fuels."

 

[mhaze]

Is anyone trying to argue that unfettered market forces would result in renewable energy production competing with (or displacing) traditional now?....

I think they are all just trying to throw up unrelated issues.

They don't have any validated forecasts of future scenarios of mitigation vs adaptation or "do nothing" which justify their current political agendas of spending and taxing.

They want to avoid a discussion of faith driven behavior.

Looking through a juicy few cgate emails, I find this comment by a noted and prominent climate scientist:

...the good old precautionary principle must be guiding our effort. During the cold war, enormous resources were put into missiles, airplanes, and other military equipment to check Soviet expansion and make containment policy credible - in the firm hope that all this equipment would never have to be used. And it wasn't, and nobody complained about the costs. Now, in the face of a different, but clearly distinguishable global threat "more dangerous than terrorism" the cost issue surfaces all the time. Somehow we all need to help in creating an understanding that the threat of global change is real and that we need to develop a new paradigm of looking at the world and the future: this is not just a scientific or technological issue. It involves important philosophical and ethical considerations where some fundamental value systems have to be challenged.

​

It's both smarter and healthier to be like this, to accept that your behavior and actions are based on belief systems and faith...instead of denying it.

Don't be a Denier.

More faith based beliefs...oh, these are scary weird...

...By 2050, annual losses could theoretically amount to anywhere between 12 per cent and 130 per cent of the gross world product. In other words, more than the total amount the world produces that year could be destroyed and life as we know it could collapse.
...
George Monbiot - Journalist UK
...
Mark Lynas - Co-ordinator, Corporate Watch, UK
...
Ross Gelbspan - Author 'The Heat Is On' and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist


​

 

[L.Y.S.]

Well I still say we all do nothing and die. That'll be a good lesson either way the coin flips.

 

[citizenzen]

Well I still say we all do nothing and die.

I'm 51 and have no children.

It's the rest of you and your off-spring that will have to deal with the consequences. So while I'm doing my part to effect change, if humans are too short-sighted to deal with this issue then ... whatever.

Ten to twenty years ago I'd have said that while humans are pretty stubborn, they'll manage to pull the airplane out of the dive before it augers into the ground.

Now, I'm pretty sure that airplane is going to leave a nice, big crater.

 

[Mikemcc]

Oh, come now. So this exercise in lying with statistics REALLY shows what?

That the subsidy of renewables per kw hour is >25x that of oil?

Have you thought of seeking employment making your opponents' cases?

And none of those include the externalised costs of coal, oil, etc, all of which are are an effective subsidy for the fossil fuel users.

 

[Trakar]

And none of those include the externalised costs of coal, oil, etc, all of which are are an effective subsidy for the fossil fuel users.

Mostly for fossil fuel producers, the benefits and harms to end users is generally minimal.

 

[johnny karate]

Well I still say we all do nothing and die. That'll be a good lesson either way the coin flips.

Ten to twenty years ago I'd have said that while humans are pretty stubborn, they'll manage to pull the airplane out of the dive before it augers into the ground.

Now, I'm pretty sure that airplane is going to leave a nice, big crater.

Also known to science-deniers as "The Rapture".

 

[AlBell]

Mostly for fossil fuel producers, the benefits and harms to end users is generally minimal.

Ya think? The end user benefits are gas at the pump without waiting in line for a day or two, power in the electric grid 24/7, and food on the shelves. I find that of great benefit.

 

[Brainster]

One of the things that bugs me most about the climate change alarmists is that they talk as if the threat is imminent and world-destroying, while they act as if it's no big deal. Obviously Al Gore has been beat to death over his personal carbon hypocrisy, but consider these two stories:

Climate change castaways consider move to Australia :

THE President of what could be the first country in the world lost to climate change has urged Australia to prepare for a mass wave of climate refugees seeking a new place to live.

The Maldivian President, Mohamed Nasheed, said his government was considering Australia as a possible new home if the tiny archipelago disappears beneath rising seas.

Sounds like pretty imminent disaster, right? Then why was President Nasheed breaking ground on a new airport terminal last month?

Presidential ground-breaking ceremony for the new terminal. Since 2010, the Maldives’ Ibrahim Nasir International Airport has been run in joint venture between GMR Infrastructure of India (77%) and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (23%). In the centre behind the blue plaque stands Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, flanked by Chairman of the GMR Group, GM Rao, and Malaysia Airports’ Managing Director, Tan Sri Bashir Ahmad.

That latter article notes the global warming concerns complete with a terrific photo of the president holding a cabinet meeting underwater. This guy may be a hypocrite, but he sure knows how to create a photo op.