World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[Ridgerunner]

Climate scientists have been claiming for quite some time that “land usage” change (which would include desertification) it a factor in global warming; they would claim, however, that it is not the only factor. So there is nothing wrong with what you found, unless they insist desertification is the only factor contributing to climate change.

I don’t accept that GW has permanently stalled, if at all it has stalled, but goes up and down like a saw blade, with the saw blade angled upward. I guess we’ll see who’s right in 10 or 20 years. Considering that there may be more “pauses” (or increased deep ocean uptake of some of the warming) in the future as there has been in the past, I think it would take some 10 to 20 years for reasonable skeptics to be convinced AGW is happening.

However, you may be right that without desertification (and urban sprawl, which is sort of like desertification if people are replacing trees and plants with concrete) there may have been less warming, since desertification is a known factor.

However, since there are other warming factors, the warming probably would have still continued, only at a lesser amount.

That would be an interesting Q to put to climate scientists who are experts in that area – How much less would the warming have been without desertification? Or, what % of the warming can be attributed to desertification?

Many people do suggest that we do just what you suggested, plant more plants and trees to fight against AGW. In fact I have that in a pamphlet on GW I made some 20 years ago that includes planting trees, in addition to becoming energy/resource efficient/conservative and going on alt energy when feasible. We get a bunch of saplings and other plants from the local arboretum and nature parks and hand them out during Earth Day.

Trees are not a complete answer. First of all, a lot of land is not suitable for trees. Second, trees can create their own “deserts” if they’re too close together. That condition can then create large, sudden die-offs and increased atmospheric CO2 due to rotting of massive amounts of trunks and limbs. And then, there’s the danger of huge fires when that fallen wood dries out.

Apparently Alan Savory, at least, has abandoned CO2 as the cause of MMGW in favor of desertification. His situation is somewhat unique, though, because few really have the opportunity to experiment with it over significant tracts. It’s not enough to just say “I think it’s desertification because of my calculations of this and that”. To prove it out, one has to experiment. One can do that with desertification in a way one cannot with any other MMGW theory. But one’s access to land resources and the (name removed by moderator)uts has to be pretty significant.

Again, the lack of atmospheric warming in the last 17 or so years, combined with any MMGW theory one wants to choose, suggests that we may actually be in a cyclical cooling period which is slightly modified by MMGW.

Again, though, on the one hand we have MMGW theories based on scatterings of findings; some real and some flawed, and a lot of calculations and computer projections. Against that we have two things. First that the political methods of “mitigation” will absolutely cause known hardships in terms of job loss, unnecessary additions to the cost of living, and all the problems that come with reduced transportation. Second, nothing we do in the U.S. will significantly change CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

So, knowing it will be of no value to an outcome that’s really just theoretical, can we justify causing human hardship that we know for sure will happen?

It doesn’t seem so to me.

 

[lynnvinc]

Trees are not a complete answer. First of all, a lot of land is not suitable for trees. Second, trees can create their own “deserts” if they’re too close together. That condition can then create large, sudden die-offs and increased atmospheric CO2 due to rotting of massive amounts of trunks and limbs. And then, there’s the danger of huge fires when that fallen wood dries out.

I was referring to planting trees and plants in one’s yard, or in various projects like the ones around the RGV to “reforest” various areas. The idea here is to make sure they are not water-intensive types of trees and plants, since we are in drought conditions. This is done for reasons in addition to mitigating AGW. And this also includes planting esp native plants that are well adapted here. We have turned our mostly bare yard into one with lots of trees and plants – many producing things we eat.

There is also the possibility that some species would be more ideal for mitigating GW. Some have written about Jatropha trees, that can also be used for biofuel. But I think Moringa might be good (with cautions, since it can turn into an invasive species), since people can eat the fruits (drumsticks), leaves, and flowers, which are extremely nutritious. They are doing experiments in Africa with it, so as to increase iron and calcium in undernourished people. Also it could be used for biofuel, and it grows like weeds in all kinds of bad soil, drought, and flood conditions, shooting up 30+ feet in a few years (it is very soft “wood”). Even when a killing frost killed our mango and papaya trees, it only killed back our moringa trees, which then sprung back 30+ feet in a few years. Also it can be grown in very small spaces (it grows up, not out) on the edges bordering croplands.

Apparently Alan Savory, at least, has abandoned CO2 as the cause of MMGW in favor of desertification. His situation is somewhat unique, though, because few really have the opportunity to experiment with it over significant tracts. It’s not enough to just say “I think it’s desertification because of my calculations of this and that”. To prove it out, one has to experiment. One can do that with desertification in a way one cannot with any other MMGW theory. But one’s access to land resources and the (name removed by moderator)uts has to be pretty significant.

I don’t get that at all from Savory’s works and studies. He is not claiming that desertification alone has led to CC, but rather that reversing desertification can have a big impact in sequestering CO2. He understands well that CO2 is a big factor in GW.

Some dispute his claims, but I’m thinking that they are not considering that if nearly everyone around the world with a bit of land or yard were to do work along the lines he is suggesting that could have a big impact on sequestering CO2.

In my thinking, we might as well give it the old heave-ho, since doing such things in many cases improves the land and the property value, and in many cases there would be not much net cost, perhaps even gain, when one considers improved land value.

Again, the lack of atmospheric warming in the last 17 or so years, combined with any MMGW theory one wants to choose, suggests that we may actually be in a cyclical cooling period which is slightly modified by MMGW.

While there may have been a plateau in the warming (which is even disputed, as pointed out again and again), there has been NO significant cooling over the past 18 years, while there has been insignificant warming.

I’m not going to wait around for a few years or decades to see who is right on this – I’m continuing to mitigate AGW. Others can do what they please.

Again, though, on the one hand we have MMGW theories based on scatterings of findings; some real and some flawed, and a lot of calculations and computer projections.

You sell the 1000s of climate scientists doing hard work very short. They use observations, paleoclimatological knowledge, and computers and models. Like who isn’t using computers in this day and age?? The warming to date is based on observations; the future projections are based on computer models that are run backwards over the observed data to check for accuracy, then run forward into the future. Since they’ve been doing this for 30+ years and they projections back then (even with less computer power and consideration of less factors, which are now better known) have very well panned out, one can honestly say they have been doing remarkably good work.

The other side’s projection that we would have absolutely no warming over the past 30+ years doesn’t stand up at all – totally and grossly misses the mark.

Against that we have two things. First that the political methods of “mitigation” will absolutely cause known hardships in terms of job loss, unnecessary additions to the cost of living, and all the problems that come with reduced transportation.

I could not disagree more with you. It all depends on whether people want to do this sensibly or in some twisted inefficient and ridiculous way that is ineffective to boot.

If there are any increased “costs of living” that is not because people are mitigating AGW in sensible way, but more than likely because they are NOT reducing their GHGs, but increasing them through inefficiency, lack of conservation, and profligacy.

Confucius say, turning off lights not in use saves money, not wastes money.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I was referring to planting trees and plants in one’s yard, or in various projects like the ones around the RGV to “reforest” various areas. The idea here is to make sure they are not water-intensive types of trees and plants, since we are in drought conditions. This is done for reasons in addition to mitigating AGW. And this also includes planting esp native plants that are well adapted here. We have turned our mostly bare yard into one with lots of trees and plants – many producing things we eat.

There is also the possibility that some species would be more ideal for mitigating GW. Some have written about Jatropha trees, that can also be used for biofuel. But I think Moringa might be good (with cautions, since it can turn into an invasive species), since people can eat the fruits (drumsticks), leaves, and flowers, which are extremely nutritious. They are doing experiments in Africa with it, so as to increase iron and calcium in undernourished people. Also it could be used for biofuel, and it grows like weeds in all kinds of bad soil, drought, and flood conditions, shooting up 30+ feet in a few years (it is very soft “wood”). Even when a killing frost killed our mango and papaya trees, it only killed back our moringa trees, which then sprung back 30+ feet in a few years. Also it can be grown in very small spaces (it grows up, not out) on the edges bordering croplands.

I don’t get that at all from Savory’s works and studies. He is not claiming that desertification alone has led to CC, but rather that reversing desertification can have a big impact in sequestering CO2. He understands well that CO2 is a big factor in GW.

Some dispute his claims, but I’m thinking that they are not considering that if nearly everyone around the world with a bit of land or yard were to do work along the lines he is suggesting that could have a big impact on sequestering CO2.

In my thinking, we might as well give it the old heave-ho, since doing such things in many cases improves the land and the property value, and in many cases there would be not much net cost, perhaps even gain, when one considers improved land value.

While there may have been a plateau in the warming (which is even disputed, as pointed out again and again), there has been NO significant cooling over the past 18 years, while there has been insignificant warming.

I’m not going to wait around for a few years or decades to see who is right on this – I’m continuing to mitigate AGW. Others can do what they please.

You sell the 1000s of climate scientists doing hard work very short. They use observations, paleoclimatological knowledge, and computers and models. Like who isn’t using computers in this day and age?? The warming to date is based on observations; the future projections are based on computer models that are run backwards over the observed data to check for accuracy, then run forward into the future. Since they’ve been doing this for 30+ years and they projections back then (even with less computer power and consideration of less factors, which are now better known) have very well panned out, one can honestly say they have been doing remarkably good work.

The other side’s projection that we would have absolutely no warming over the past 30+ years doesn’t stand up at all – totally and grossly misses the mark.

I could not disagree more with you. It all depends on whether people want to do this sensibly or in some twisted inefficient and ridiculous way that is ineffective to boot.

If there are any increased “costs of living” that is not because people are mitigating AGW in sensible way, but more than likely because they are NOT reducing their GHGs, but increasing them through inefficiency, lack of conservation, and profligacy.

Confucius say, turning off lights not in use saves money, not wastes money.

One always needs to be careful about introducing non-native species into an environment, whether its mussls, game species or vegetation. Sometimes good intentions have bad results, e.g., the State introduction of multiflora rose and seresia lespedeza here and, of course, kudzu.

I understand what you’re saying about individual measures that also reduce energy use. That’s fine. But that’s not what’s going on in our country. We have “political MMGW” calling for drastic measures that are absolutely, positively, going to cause hardship. In my state, it’s already estimated that the EPA suppression of coal-fired electrical plants will cost each resident $1400/year. I can afford that, but there are a lot of people for whom that will be a hardship. Personally, I think it will be a lot more than that, considering that 80% of the energy here is from coal-fired plants. Now, when one is looking at industries that are heavy users of electricity, that’s a very big deal. I am put to mind of an Owens-Corning plant in KC that uses massive amounts of electricity to melt glass for fiberglass insulation. The EPA is shooting “mitigation” in the foot with that one, as well as putting people in a bind. Your electric bill goes up, so you want to insulate, but guess what? The insulation is more expensive too. And of course, there’s production and refrigeration of food, all of which uses electricity, and a lot of it.

 

[GEddie]

I see that you’re in SE Texas. That covers a lot of varied territory. But I’ll share with you an observation I made some years ago. I took two of my kids to St. John Paul II’s visit to San Antonio. It was beyond hot. So, after the Pope left, we decided to take a side trip to Corpus Christi (south of it a little, actually) to go to the Gulf.

I’m sure you are aware how desolate a lot of that country is. Bare earth interspersed with mesquite and prickly pear thickets here and there. Just devastated country. All of a sudden, on one side of the highway, someone had managed to convert it to a sea of beautiful green grass. Some tolerant species, I imagine; possibly what had been there originally. I wondered what all it took to get that done; root plowing at a minimum, no doubt. Likely years of work. No irrigation. That went on for maybe a mile or so, on one side of the highway only, and abruptly ended.

I was put to wonder then if some of the things one reads about in old books about all of that being grass prairie once upon a time was literally true. Can you imagine Comanche forays through those mesquite/cactus thickets? They wouldn’t have gotten a mile, let alone hundreds of miles. And cattle or the buffalo the Comanches hunted? Nothing to eat in most of that country except maybe for feral hogs. But then there was that expanse of green, billowing grass, and I could picture what it was surely like 150 years ago or so.

Why was the rest of that country so devastated? Overgrazing, undoubtedly. Maybe some cotton planting here and there. Maybe attempts at other row crops. All in country that couldn’t take that kind of treatment, but could flourish under other circumstances.

According to the National Park Service’s film shown at the San Antonio Missions NP, cattle overgrazing was indeed the culprit, mostly during the “Old West” period after 1865. In Indian and Spanish/Mexican times, the region was grassland and maybe 10[sup]o[/sup]F cooler, the rivers ran year round, etc.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ridgerunner]

According to the National Park Service’s film shown at the San Antonio Missions NP, cattle overgrazing was indeed the culprit, mostly during the “Old West” period after 1865. In Indian and Spanish/Mexican times, the region was grassland and maybe 10[sup]o[/sup]F cooler, the rivers ran year round, etc.

ICXC NIKA

In no way is this surprising to me.

Interesting how important it is to keep a proper balance. Without sufficient herd animals, a lot of land that’s subject to periodic aridity will desertify. With too many, it will do the same.

Interesting too, that the “national cattle herd” is at its lowest point in 60 years; part of the reason why beef is so expensive right now. One would think that would be the impetus for ranchers to build up their herds. But so far, they haven’t been doing it. Quite possibly, they have come to realize that fewer animals, rotated properly to mimic “wild herd” movement, is the proper course. And certainly, the universities have been promoting that idea in the last few years. About time.

Indians, long ago, were “ranchers” of a sort. They didn’t domesticate the wild ruminants, but they maximized the conditions of their survival by various methods. Eurasian nomads of old did as well. We might be coming back around to old practices that worked well.

 

[Bill1940]

Perhaps the former occupation of the plains by great herds of bison was a perfect natural land use model. Government policy seems to have had a hand in the destruction of these herds, as an anti-Indian strategy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps the former occupation of the plains by great herds of bison was a perfect natural land use model. Government policy seems to have had a hand in the destruction of these herds, as an anti-Indian strategy.

I expect it was precisely the proper natural land use. Government policy at least did not discourage destruction of the buffalo herds.

Probably the buffalo herds did destroy some grasslands, at least for awhile. But I think the big difference between buffalo grazing and cattle grazing was not in numbers (they were about the same) but in the nature of the grazing. Buffalo would mob closely together and travel huge distances, basically from south to north and back over a year’s time. So, while some area would be very closely grazed for a time, the buffalo would move on fairly rapidly and leave it to grow back.

Cattle ranching “interrupted the flow” after the earliest days. Cattle would be kept on fenced-in ranches and oftentimes stayed on the same pasture for long periods of time, never giving the grass sufficient time or length for sufficient photosynthesis.

That’s slowly beginning to change as ranchers are turning to “rapid rotation” grazing; sometimes called “mob grazing”. The ranch is divided into fairly small tracts and the cattle are concentrated in a smallish area, then moved to another, and another and another. In other words, mimicking the way the buffalo (and indeed Eurasian nomads’ herd animals) did. But it’s expensive to set up initially.

 

[lynnvinc]

Just started a new thread, since it seemed to branch out from this OP…more about what’s happening now re extreme weather events:

"Trapped Giant Waves in the Atmosphere Trigger More Extreme Weather" at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=902937

“Weather extremes in the summer – such as the record heat wave in the United States that hit corn farmers and worsened wildfires in 2012 – have reached an exceptional number in the last ten years. Man-made global warming can explain a gradual increase in periods of severe heat, but the observed change in the magnitude and duration of some events is not so easily explained. It has been linked to a recently discovered mechanism: the trapping of giant [Rossby] waves in the atmosphere. A new data analysis now shows that such wave-trapping events are indeed on the rise…” at redorbit.com/news/science/1113212045/trapped-waves-in-atmosphere-trigger-extreme-weather-081314/

From the study referenced - “Quasi-resonant circulation regimes and hemispheric synchronization of extreme weather in boreal summer” at pnas.org/content/early/2014/08/06/1412797111.full.pdf+html :

"Climatic warming over the 20th century has increased the frequency of extreme heat and heavy rainfall events. On a global scale, the magnitude of this gradual increase can largely be explained by a slowly warming atmosphere, i.e., by thermodynamic arguments only…Likewise, upward trends in annual maximum daily rainfall are consistent with the increase in atmospheric moisture associated with warmer air. Global warming is also likely to affect large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns, which potentially could alter the frequency of heat and precipitation extremes on seasonal to subseasonal timescales. In principle, changes in atmospheric dynamics could cause a disproportionate change in the number and/or intensity of extreme weather events, beyond what is expected from thermodynamics. Moreover, the magnitude of several recent summer extreme weather events in the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes cannot be explained by a simple shift in the mean. These events, which include high-impact extremes like the European heat wave of 2003, the Russian heat wave and the Pakistan flooding in 2010, and heat waves in the United States in recent years, were associated with anomalous circulation patterns characterized by persistent, blocking weather conditions…

 

[lynnvinc]

One always needs to be careful about introducing non-native species into an environment, whether its mussls, game species or vegetation. Sometimes good intentions have bad results, e.g., the State introduction of multiflora rose and seresia lespedeza here and, of course, kudzu.t

It was only after we got our moringa cuttings from a Filippino in our town and planted them that I read about it being an invasive species. However, it does not have vectors, and only spreads by dropping heavy seed pods (which animals do not like or carry around). So it is more a matters of pulling up the occasional seedlings around the base of the trees.

We have another invasive species – Carrizo Cane – here in the Valley that grows along the RG River and is used by drug smugglers and undocumented as cover when entering the US. Homeland security stated to aerial spray it with an herbicide, starting in Laredo – reminiscent of Agent Orange in Viet Nam…the factory that made that is in a nearby town and the residents in that neighborhood are still suffering, dying, and having miscarriages and babies with birth defects from that. Altho the herbicide was not as deadly as Agent Orange it did have health impacts and Laredo residents got the project halted before it could come to us and put my husband in the hospital.

Now they are working on some alt methods of Carrizo control. But I’m thinking why not take some mobile pyrolysis units and turn the Carrizo into bio-char, which could be sold to farmers (to recoup the expense) as a very effective and productive soil amendment. See terra preta at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta and biochar at biochar-international.org/biochar (however there are some precautions re it).

 

[lynnvinc]

I understand what you’re saying about individual measures that also reduce energy use. That’s fine. But that’s not what’s going on in our country. We have “political MMGW” calling for drastic measures that are absolutely, positively, going to cause hardship. In my state, it’s already estimated that the EPA suppression of coal-fired electrical plants will cost each resident $1400/year. I can afford that, but there are a lot of people for whom that will be a hardship. Personally, I think it will be a lot more than that, considering that 80% of the energy here is from coal-fired plants. Now, when one is looking at industries that are heavy users of electricity, that’s a very big deal. I am put to mind of an Owens-Corning plant in KC that uses massive amounts of electricity to melt glass for fiberglass insulation. The EPA is shooting “mitigation” in the foot with that one, as well as putting people in a bind. Your electric bill goes up, so you want to insulate, but guess what? The insulation is more expensive too. And of course, there’s production and refrigeration of food, all of which uses electricity, and a lot of it.

It’s really a shame that we weren’t on this shift to energy/resource conservation/efficiency and alt energy a lot sooner as, say, Germany was. It would have been much better to slowly and steadily make the shift with minimum disruption to the economy and with $$ savings for people and businesses.

Suddenly putting such high energy costs onto people, without having guided and incentivized them into energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy does seem really cruel. It’s like putting the cart before the horse.

But I can only blame our gov (esp Congress) – and since we are a democracy that blame falls pretty much back on the people. This is how we wanted to do it – live it up in a profligate no-nothing stupor, and pay the much higher price later. Sounds typical.

Why don’t we put people in Congress who will be brave enough to get us on the more sensible, less painful (more healthy and less life-harming) path to shifting away from a carbon/pollution-intensive economy, instead of working to block everything sensible and helpful. Then there would be no need for the executive branch to go it all alone with whatever tools it has, which are admittedly not the best for addressing GW and other pollution problems.

Making energy more expensive will NOT help mitigate GW if people just go on emitting the same amount of GHGs and pollution they always have, without a thought to energy/resource efficiency/conservation or getting on alt energy when feasible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s really a shame that we weren’t on this shift to energy/resource conservation/efficiency and alt energy a lot sooner as, say, Germany was. It would have been much better to slowly and steadily make the shift with minimum disruption to the economy and with $$ savings for people and businesses.

Suddenly putting such high energy costs onto people, without having guided and incentivized them into energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy does seem really cruel. It’s like putting the cart before the horse.

But I can only blame our gov (esp Congress) – and since we are a democracy that blame falls pretty much back on the people. This is how we wanted to do it – live it up in a profligate no-nothing stupor, and pay the much higher price later. Sounds typical.

Why don’t we put people in Congress who will be brave enough to get us on the more sensible, less painful (more healthy and less life-harming) path to shifting away from a carbon/pollution-intensive economy, instead of working to block everything sensible and helpful. Then there would be no need for the executive branch to go it all alone with whatever tools it has, which are admittedly not the best for addressing GW and other pollution problems.

Making energy more expensive will NOT help mitigate GW if people just go on emitting the same amount of GHGs and pollution they always have, without a thought to energy/resource efficiency/conservation or getting on alt energy when feasible.

Germany is backing away from non fossil fuel sources because the government finds the necessary subsidies too expensive. Germany cannot be cited for a country “moving toward renewables”. Quite the opposite. It is increasingly relying on coal…and it’s brown coal, the most polluting coal of all.

So what do you want congress to do, take measures to make energy more expensive than it has to be by increments that are slower than the ones Obama espouses? How much slower, and why, exactly, should we make life more expensive for people at all when there’s no compelling reason to do it?

Again, nothing we do in the U.S. will significantly affect CO2 in the atmosphere because no significant nation on earth will harm its economy and citizenry in that way. MMGW proponents dont’ even deny that. So why do it? Just to feel puritanically pure about it while people suffer?

 

[lynnvinc]

Germany is backing away from non fossil fuel sources because the government finds the necessary subsidies too expensive. Germany cannot be cited for a country “moving toward renewables”. Quite the opposite. It is increasingly relying on coal…and it’s brown coal, the most polluting coal of all.

That’s not at all what I’ve read (or heard from our German friends).

“…renewable generation [in Germany]…set a new record, reaching an average of 27% of domestic use in the first quarter of 2014 and a brief peak of 74% on 11 May…” at blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_07_08_opposite_energy_policies_turned_fukushima_disaster_into_a_loss_for_japan_and_a_win_for_germany

The article goes on to explain that even tho Germany has been backing out of nuke energy, it has not had to increase its fossil fuel use.

So what do you want congress to do, take measures to make energy more expensive than it has to be by increments that are slower than the ones Obama espouses? How much slower, and why, exactly, should we make life more expensive for people at all when there’s no compelling reason to do it?

No. I favor a “Fee & Dividend” strategy (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend ), and better programs to help people shift from a carbon/pollution intensive economy to greater energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy.

This would make fossil fuel energy more costly, but the money raised from that would be given back to the people equally (like how they returned tax money back to us some years ago, except in monthly “dividends”). Then people could use that money either to pay the difference in their higher energy bills, or invest in efficiency/conservation and/or alt energy and really be on the road to prosperity (or a little of both).

It should also be noted that poor people are generally not the highest GHG/pollution emitters, so most poor may end up getting back more money than the extra amount they pay in energy bills.

None of this would be necessary if people themselves had already been doing this. It’s because they have not been doing this very much (tho there are some who have, and our GHG emissions and other pollutants could decrease by 50%+ cost-effectively, so no excuse not to be plucking those low-hanging fruits), that other measures need to be taken to encourage this shift. And if one doesn’t accept AGW is happening, then for the sake of reducing other harmful pollution and saving finite resources for future generations.

 

[Erich]

I favor a “Fee & Dividend” strategy (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend ), and better programs to help people shift from a carbon/pollution intensive economy to greater energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy.

I suspect the devil is in the details. From the referenced link: “Fee and dividend is a revenue-neutral mechanism designed to impose a progressive fee on carbon emissions and return the fee to the public, which has been proposed as an alternative method of reduction in fossil fuel use to cap and trade or carbon tax mechanisms.”

This would make fossil fuel energy more costly, but the money raised from that would be given back to the people equally

Of course* businesses will pass on the higher cost of doing business to their customers; at some point they have to if they want to stay in business. Taxes and “fees” levied on businesses are taxes levied on everyone. Passing on the higher cost of business means prices will rise; any businessperson will tell you raising prices is not the best way to attract or keep customers.

So follow the money trail. If you raise taxes and “fees” on business, you raise prices. If you raise prices, the poor and middle classes will be forced to do less with their money, so they buy less. When customers buy less, business suffers. So who is the winner if everyone suffers? (Hint: it is headquartered in Washington DC and has three branches).

And “revenue-neutral”? A good bit of those taxes and “fees” will pass through government fingers before being given back to the people, and will “stick” to those fingers. The people will be better off if the money isn’t taken from them in the first place.

(like how they returned tax money back to us some years ago, except in monthly “dividends”)

Will these “dividends” be given back to everyone, without regard to whether or not they are paying taxes currently? Or will they be given back just to registered tax payers? Some of those “income tax refunds” some years ago were refunded to people who didn’t even pay income taxes!

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s not at all what I’ve read (or heard from our German friends).

“…renewable generation [in Germany]…set a new record, reaching an average of 27% of domestic use in the first quarter of 2014 and a brief peak of 74% on 11 May…” at blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_07_08_opposite_energy_policies_turned_fukushima_disaster_into_a_loss_for_japan_and_a_win_for_germany

The article goes on to explain that even tho Germany has been backing out of nuke energy, it has not had to increase its fossil fuel use.

No. I favor a “Fee & Dividend” strategy (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend ), and better programs to help people shift from a carbon/pollution intensive economy to greater energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy.

This would make fossil fuel energy more costly, but the money raised from that would be given back to the people equally (like how they returned tax money back to us some years ago, except in monthly “dividends”). Then people could use that money either to pay the difference in their higher energy bills, or invest in efficiency/conservation and/or alt energy and really be on the road to prosperity (or a little of both).

It should also be noted that poor people are generally not the highest GHG/pollution emitters, so most poor may end up getting back more money than the extra amount they pay in energy bills.

None of this would be necessary if people themselves had already been doing this. It’s because they have not been doing this very much (tho there are some who have, and our GHG emissions and other pollutants could decrease by 50%+ cost-effectively, so no excuse not to be plucking those low-hanging fruits), that other measures need to be taken to encourage this shift. And if one doesn’t accept AGW is happening, then for the sake of reducing other harmful pollution and saving finite resources for future generations.

Gee, I thought everybody knew Germany’s coal-burning was increasing. Here’s Bloomberg (as MMGW promoting as you can get) saying it. bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-19/rising-german-coal-use-imperils-european-emissions-deal.html#2

And “fee and dividend” is just silliness. Why charge people more for something than it needs to cost, then subsidize them so it will cost what it should have cost to begin with?

Regardless, “fee and dividend” will never happen politically. What this administration is doing is shutting down less expensive ways of producing electricity in order to make utility bills “skyrocket” as Obama has promised to do. It’s “equal opportunity pneumonia” for all.

 

[Bill1940]

Fees and Dividends, promised all back to the “poor” among whose number I, my wife and the many shall surely be counted. And who promises this? Obama, the “One” who promised to save us $2,500 a year on health insurance? Forget about it.

 

[sps49]

Germany is backing away from non fossil fuel sources because the government finds the necessary subsidies too expensive. Germany cannot be cited for a country “moving toward renewables”. Quite the opposite. It is increasingly relying on coal…and it’s brown coal, the most polluting coal of all.

So what do you want congress to do, take measures to make energy more expensive than it has to be by increments that are slower than the ones Obama espouses? How much slower, and why, exactly, should we make life more expensive for people at all when there’s no compelling reason to do it?

Again, nothing we do in the U.S. will significantly affect CO2 in the atmosphere because no significant nation on earth will harm its economy and citizenry in that way. MMGW proponents dont’ even deny that. So why do it? Just to feel puritanically pure about it while people suffer?

wpui.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/German-Experience-with-Promotion-of-Renewable-Energy.pdf

“GERMAN EXPERIENCE WITH PROMOTION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY” P20:

“In Germany, more electricity was produced from brown coal (i.e., lignite) in 2013 than at any point since German unification in 1990.” The data reference to this statement may be found at:

ag-energiebilanzen.de/

Look at the spreadsheet titled “Generation 1990 - 2013.” It would appear that our renewable energy friends have neglected to mention this…

 

[lynnvinc]

And “fee and dividend” is just silliness. Why charge people more for something than it needs to cost, then subsidize them so it will cost what it should have cost to begin with?

That’s to wean them off of dirty, polluting, and harmful fossil fuel energy and into energy/resources efficiency/conservation and alt energy when feasible.

Also to compensate for the very high subsidies, taxes breaks, and indirect benefits (such as military support) the fossil fuel industry gets, leading to artificially very low prices for oil and coal-powered electricity and to profligacy, waste, and harms to human health.

How would you propose decreasing GHG emissions? I think we need all possible and sensible solutions on the table.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s to wean them off of dirty, polluting, and harmful fossil fuel energy and into energy/resources efficiency/conservation and alt energy when feasible.

Also to compensate for the very high subsidies, taxes breaks, and indirect benefits (such as military support) the fossil fuel industry gets, leading to artificially very low prices for oil and coal-powered electricity and to profligacy, waste, and harms to human health.

How would you propose decreasing GHG emissions? I think we need all possible and sensible solutions on the table.

Oil companies do not get subsidies. On the contrary, they pay very high taxes. Nuclear power producers do get subsidies of a sort, in the form of what really amounts to loans and tax breaks during the very lengthy period it takes to get one online.

“Alternative energy sources” like wind and solar do get very hefty subsidies, but they still don’t beat fossil fuel energy in price. It is exactly the high cost of those subsidies that is causing Germany and others to back away from “alternative energy” toward fossil fuels again.

I do not propose decreasing CO2 emissions. But quite possibly getting vegetation to grow on the vast tracts of desertified land could help.

Interesting that the lowest-cost countries in the word for electricity are Finland, the U.S., Canada and Australia. The first is due to abundant hydropower and low population. The other three are due to their having fossil fuel resources. Subsidies have nothing to do with it.

 

[Erich]

That’s to wean them off of dirty, polluting, and harmful fossil fuel energy and into energy/resources efficiency/conservation and alt energy when feasible.

Alternative energies are not the answer to all our power problems. The truth is, most (if not all) alternative energy sources are unsustainable.

Wind turbines, for example, rarely produce their advertised full power; on average, they only produce about 20% of their nameplate rating – and they have an embarrassingly low Energy Returned On Energy Invested value of 0.29 (meaning, the manufacture, installation and operation of wind power facilities consumes more than 3 times the energy they will produce). Wind power is also unreliable and undispatchable; when it is needed most, it will likely be unavailable to provide any power. Wind power is certainly not clean; it takes a lot of dirty energy to make the materials, manufacture and install a wind turbine facility. Nor are wind turbines environmentally friendly; they are noisy, unsightly, kill bats and birds, interfere with radars, and have been shown to be responsible for a slew of health problems. Wind turbines consume electricity whether operating or not; often this power is not even metered. Care to guess who is paying the bill for this power? I’ve seen reports claiming that if 20% of US electric generation was replaced by wind power, the decrease in CO2 emissions would be an unnoticeable 0.00948% – and the resulting decrease in oil imports would be a measly 0.292%! In reality, wind power doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions at all, because backup fossil power plants will have to cycle wildly and inefficiently trying to keep up with erratic wind power output.

Solar? When will solar be feasible, given that the power used to manufacture solar panels still comes mainly from electricity generated by fossil fuels? The energy used to produce solar panels is intense: the initial step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity commonly from coal-fired power plants. To be considered a success – or simply a positive energy technology – PV panels must ultimately pay back all the energy that went into them. But, the PV industry’s energetic costs can differ significantly from its financial costs. For example, installation and the components outside the solar cells, like wiring and inverters, as well as soft costs like permitting, account for a third of the financial cost of a system, but only 13 percent of the energy (name removed by moderator)uts. The industry is focused primarily on reducing financial costs.

Fusion? Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers announced earlier this year that they have reached a long-sought milestone: the fuel used to create fusion in their reactor is capable of producing more energy than required to initiate fusion. That said, researchers still have a long road ahead of them before the technology comes anywhere near to commercial viability… and that’s after spending 60 years pouring billions of dollars into developing the technology.

Ethanol? Years ago I saw something about a (then-new) requirement to use 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline by 2012… at an average of 328 gallons of ethanol per acre of corn (and completely ignoring the fuel costs of planting, growing, and harvesting that much corn) that would require almost 22.9 million acres of corn just for ethanol. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, 80 million acres of land in the U.S. are planted to corn (and 20% of that corn is exported to other countries). What’s wrong with this picture… major amounts of the world’s food supply are shifted to fuel use when significant elements of the human population remains ill-fed! Talk about subsidized food burning!

 

[sps49]

Oil companies do not get subsidies. On the contrary, they pay very high taxes. Nuclear power producers do get subsidies of a sort, in the form of what really amounts to loans and tax breaks during the very lengthy period it takes to get one online.

“Alternative energy sources” like wind and solar do get very hefty subsidies, but they still don’t beat fossil fuel energy in price. It is exactly the high cost of those subsidies that is causing Germany and others to back away from “alternative energy” toward fossil fuels again.

I do not propose decreasing CO2 emissions. But quite possibly getting vegetation to grow on the vast tracts of desertified land could help.

Interesting that the lowest-cost countries in the word for electricity are Finland, the U.S., Canada and Australia. The first is due to abundant hydropower and low population. The other three are due to their having fossil fuel resources. Subsidies have nothing to do with it.

What the alt energy proponents don’t tell you when they whine about subsidies- Federal Taxpayer subsidies as a percent of total spending:

window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/

Oil and gas get 0.5% compared to 11.6% and 12.3% for solar and wind. This is an excellent way to look at the issue, since it links consumer spending on a particular energy source to its subsidy. It also hints at the scale of energy use.