- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
Really ?
Sounds more to me like the capital from an ETS would largely line the pockets of investment bankers and speculators.
Smurf you have just brilliantly laid out why we must have an ETS, without it there's no capital flow to pay for it, without an ETS, Renewable's are too expensive....and that's exactly why its inevitable.
Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.
Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...
Really ?
Sounds more to me like the capital from an ETS would largely line the pockets of investment bankers and speculators.
So you consider speculation a better use of capital than production ?Care to show me a market where investment bankers and speculators don't line there pockets?
In my opinion, the only real hope is to change the focus from capital, which is created out of thin air by central banks, to labour which is real and tangible. The old capital versus labour argument.
If capital is valued most highly, then fossil fuels have an advantage since much of the total cost is deferred. If labour is valued most highly, then renewables have the advantage since over the life of a plant, constantly mining coal requires more labour than the one-off construction of solar, hydro etc.
It is no coincidence that the economics of hydro, other renewables and nuclear fell in a hole shortly after the financial events of the early 1970's. That is the real problem - the financial system. To their credit, the Greens worked all this out well before their opponents - the nuclear and in particular hydro schemes they so strongly opposed, and which others fought so hard to build, would not have been profitable anyway and the same applies to other renewable technologies today.
ALL power pollutesHit the nail on the head smurf. Would disagree on the put down of nuclear. Though there are still some problems with radiation escape they are now minimal compared to the source of real grunt for alternative power till better methods of solar, wind etc can be developed. Denmark for example are doing a great job in this area but that sort of change is also a change in our way of life and will take a generation or two to take hold in my view.
You are totally misrepresenting the science and the scientific consensus.
Climate scientists are very much of the view that CO2 is the principal ingredient of concern and postulated a theory which was presented in great detail in the last IPCC Report.
Rather than present views which are mischievous and baseless, you might like to try and come to grips with some realities. Or you might try to learn more of the science.
....people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, not what the evidence actually points to...
As I said, there is not enough evidence to base a scientific conclusion on the for or against side. PERIOD. There you have thousands of reports and essays summed up in one sentence.
There are compelling arguments for, and just as compelling arguments against. There are also way too many variables in the equation to be considered. To base an opinion (because that's all it is at this stage) on either side is ridiculous and proves that one doesn't know the true meaning of science.
Not even the IPCC has stated the climate case is conclusive, so please do not invent an outcome that achieves your objective.As I said, there is not enough evidence to base a scientific conclusion on the for or against side. PERIOD. There you have thousands of reports and essays summed up in one sentence.
I am keen for you to elaborate the case which you suggest is "compelling" against the IPCC Report.There are compelling arguments for, and just as compelling arguments against.
As a science student you should respect the basis for hypothesis, and the case that underpins the IPCC's theory. To place "variables" into an equation where in fact we are looking at empirical evidence is not a reasonable practice.There are also way too many variables in the equation to be considered. To base an opinion (because that's all it is at this stage) on either side is ridiculous and proves that one doesn't know the true meaning of science.
The evidence suggests we have a better than even chance of pinning present warming trends to increased greenhouse gas emissions that are not part of the natural cycle. What evidence are you using?The evidence suggests that we have no idea if it's man-induced or a natural cycle that's going happen regardless of our CO2 omissions.
I enjoyed browsing this:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
Including: decline in circumcisions, vampire moths (watch out Goldmans), the Earth will explode ....
Humorous, but of course with serious intent.
Check out the homepage:
Number Watch
(Apologies if this has been linked to before)
I enjoyed browsing this:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
Including: decline in circumcisions, vampire moths (watch out Goldmans), the Earth will explode ....
Building a Green Economy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 5, 2010
If you listen to climate scientists — and despite the relentless campaign to discredit their work, you should — it is long past time to do something about emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. If we continue with business as usual, they say, we are facing a rise in global temperatures that will be little short of apocalyptic. And to avoid that apocalypse, we have to wean our economy from the use of fossil fuels, coal above all.
But is it possible to make drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions without destroying our economy?
Like the debate over climate change itself, the debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change — one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them — can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost. There is, however, much less agreement on how fast we should move, whether major conservation efforts should start almost immediately or be gradually increased over the course of many decades.
......
Climate of Doubt?
This is an article on climate economics, not climate science. But before we get to the economics, it’s worth establishing three things about the state of the scientific debate.
The first is that the planet is indeed warming. Weather fluctuates, and as a consequence it’s easy enough to point to an unusually warm year in the recent past, note that it’s cooler now and claim, “See, the planet is getting cooler, not warmer!” But if you look at the evidence the right way *— taking averages over periods long enough to smooth out the fluctuations — the upward trend is unmistakable: each successive decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the one before.
Second, climate models predicted this well in advance, even getting the magnitude of the temperature rise roughly right. While it’s relatively easy to cook up an analysis that matches known data, it is much harder to create a model that accurately forecasts the future. So the fact that climate modelers more than 20 years ago successfully predicted the subsequent global warming gives them enormous credibility.
Yet that’s not the conclusion you might draw from the many media reports that have focused on matters like hacked e-mail and climate scientists’ talking about a “trick” to “hide” an anomalous decline in one data series or expressing their wish to see papers by climate skeptics kept out of research reviews. The truth, however, is that the supposed scandals evaporate on closer examination, revealing only that climate researchers are human beings, too. Yes, scientists try to make their results stand out, but no data were suppressed. Yes, scientists dislike it when work that they think deliberately obfuscates the issues gets published. What else is new? Nothing suggests that there should not continue to be strong support for climate research.
And this brings me to my third point: models based on this research indicate that if we continue adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we have, we will eventually face drastic changes in the climate. Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we’re talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades.
Costs of action
.......Clearly, conservatives abandon all faith in the ability of markets to cope with climate-change policy because they don’t want government intervention. Their stated pessimism about the cost of climate policy is essentially a political ploy rather than a reasoned economic judgment. The giveaway is the strong tendency of conservative opponents of cap and trade to argue in bad faith. That Heritage Foundation broadside accuses the Congressional Budget Office of making elementary logical errors, but if you actually read the office’s report, it’s clear that the foundation is willfully misreading it.
Conservative politicians have been even more shameless. The National Republican Congressional Committee, for example, issued multiple press releases specifically citing a study from M.I.T. as the basis for a claim that cap and trade would cost $3,100 per household, despite repeated attempts by the study’s authors to get out the word that the actual number was only about a quarter as much. [/B]
***Spits on ground in disgust.Krugman
Is there a reason you cannot substantiate the point you make?***Spits on ground in disgust.
Apart from being a far more scarlet shade of pink than most of the Champagne Socialists around, he assumes a biased view of the science.
Some good points, but most is bin-worthy.
Is there a reason you cannot substantiate the point you make?
How about you present your case, rather than another dummy spit.
By the way, the link to the alternative climate model you posted was very amusing, so thank you. The science he got right was about the manner in which our earth dissipates heat into space. There may have been a few other points, but I was probably laughing too much to notice.
Please provide examples where I have not substantiated a statement or claim I have made. I will gladly rectify any reasonable omission that is about the science.Probably pretty much the same reason that you can't substantiate yours rederob.
Ummm... your previous post?Please provide examples where I have not substantiated a statement or claim I have made. I will gladly rectify any reasonable omission that is about the science.
Perhaps they thought it a bit tiresome to continuously refer to published science which disputes the IPCC. Dunno, just guessing.Wavesurfer and drsmith were the last two I recall responding to, and neither has been back to justify or elaborate further on their statements.
It is your turn to be amusingly hypocritical for the umpteenth time... ROTFLMAOYou, on the other hand, have been absolutely true to form (as I noted when first joining ASF). Attack the man (and claim the shoe on the other foot),
I must point out that it is not my place to back claims. I can never do so as successfully as the scientists involved. That is their job.post linkages without explanation/interpretation, and then legitimise your stance with an obligatory reference to Pielke Snr's site; all without ever backing your claims.
Rubbish.I welcome discussion or debate that contexts the supposed "hysteria" attached to this topic.
I don't understand what you mean. But I can only point to the plethora of links I have posted over the timeline of this and other climate threads that refer to climate science.I would prefer not to make responses to posts of yours that continue to refuse to bring in scientific debate, while subtly suggesting I might hold positions you ascribe.
For example, why refer to a "kindergarten" tactic when you had an opportunity to support the model you linked to? Wilde's model had no temporal base, and did not discuss the role of greenhouse gases in any meaningful way. His model did nothing but suggest his preferred slant on many known events.
As detailed above, it is Wilde's role to support his model. I merely present it as an alternative for interest. Whether it is valid or not is subjective, as are the various IPCC models
You responded (immaturely) by detailing your purported amusement without actually debating on any scientific level.
This is a monumental hypocrisy which sadly drags the argument into the gutter level so typical of Mann, Monbiot et al and ignores the true scientific method. This is why I can only ever regard you as a zealot, unable to discern bona fide challenges to your faith of your version of The Apocalypse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?