World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[lynnvinc]

Oil companies do not get subsidies.

My Republican congressman’s aid told me coal and oil get hefty tax-breaks, subsidies, and other gov help.

I believe him over you, esp since that congressman was pretty much “anti-environment” with more reason to withhold telling me that.

Furthermore, no one is willing to look at ALL the external costs of fossil fuel extraction, processing, storage (like leaks causing leukemia as in McAllen, TX and elsewhere), use and disposal (coal ash). The costs are enormous re human health and environmental degradation.

Of course someone here is going to trot out harms to birds from wind farms, but there orders of magnitude more bird kills by cats, and then AGW is predicted within a century or two to make over half the bird species go extinct.

And when you add AGW harms from fossil fuel burning, there is absolutely no comparison. Alt energy wins hands down and is far far cheaper, all costs accounted for on into the future of great harms, and including military expenses and wars and conflicts over oil.

 

[Erich]

My Republican congressman’s aid told me coal and oil get hefty tax-breaks, subsidies, and other gov help.

From this link:

… [Y]ou’d think that Big Oil was sucking the Treasury dry with huge subsidies. … Here, more exactly, are those subsidies, in the CBO’s words.

• “Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas.” ($0.8B)
• “Option to expense 50% of qualified property used to refine liquid fuels.” ($0.8B)
• “Option to expense investment costs on the basis of gross income rather than on production.” ($0.9B)

I can’t say I understand those “subsidies.” Is exploration not supposed to be a cost of doing business for an oil company? Who is to say these expenses are not legitimate costs? But let’s take the CBO’s word for it that these are, for some reason, “subsidies.”

Let’s compare those subsidies to other energy subsidies. The CBO has a chart.



Well look at that: tax subsidies for all fossil fuels were only 15% of all federal subsidies for energy. The Green alternatives of renewables and “efficiency” took 78% of all tax subsidies for energy. Big Oil has so much influence on Capitol Hill that our government subsidizes its competitors five times more. Fossil fuels provide 77% of our nation’s energy yet receive just 15% of the federal government’s tax subsidies. …

 

[Erich]

From the same article:

You know who else likes subsidizing alternative energy? . He wrote this in January 2009: The American consumer can no longer act as the motor of the global economy. Alternative energy and developments that produce energy savings could serve as a new motor, but only if the price of conventional fuels is kept high enough to justify investing in those activities. That would involve putting a floor under the price of fossil fuels by imposing a price on carbon emissions and import duties on oil to keep the domestic price above, say, $70 per barrel.
Somehow, George got his wish for high fuel prices even without a Copenhagen-like global Cap & Trade system. When he wrote that, oil was only about . Just one year later, it was consistently over $70 per barrel, George’s magic threshold – as if delivered as a Christmas gift. And this year it’s been about $100 per barrel. Good times: a 150% increase in crude oil prices in the three years since George Soros called for higher fuel prices, perfectly coinciding with the three years of Obama’s presidency.

You know who else pushes alternative energy sources really hard? The : We could begin with an immediate carbon tax that would penalize those with the largest carbon footprint - big corporations - while also making a case for the elimination of coal production and expansion of alternative energy sources.
And who else? Presidential candidate Barack Obama said this in 2008 (via at ABC): So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.
Pretty wild coincidence, huh? Barack Obama, George Soros, and the Communist Party all pushing the same energy policies.

 

[Erich]

Here, more exactly, are those subsidies, in the CBO’s words.

• “Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas.” ($0.8B)
• “Option to expense 50% of qualified property used to refine liquid fuels.” ($0.8B)
• “Option to expense investment costs on the basis of gross income rather than on production.” ($0.9B)

$2.5B – about 0.19% of that year’s deficit. Enough to fund six hours of U.S. government spending.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My Republican congressman’s aid told me coal and oil get hefty tax-breaks, subsidies, and other gov help.

I said nothing about coal. I mentioned oil only. Oil companies do not get subsidies. What they do get are deductions for expenses and capital improvements, like any other business does. In the case of small oil companies, they get a faster write-off of costs than do other businesses including big oil companies. Some argue that oil producers get to lease government-owned lands at less than market value. Maybe, but considering the risks involved, maybe not.

Regardless, oil companies pay a lot in taxes. Then the refiners do. Then the wholesalers do. Then the retailers do. The oil industry is very profitable to the government. It’s not a net cost to the government by any means.

I will agree that there is an indirect subsidy to railroads that transport oil, but not for that reason. Allowing, e.g., the Keystone Pipeline (all privately financed) could reduce that, but this administration won’t allow that because important Democrat supporters like Warren Buffett are heavily invested in railroads.

 

[lynnvinc]

From this link:

… [Y]ou’d think that Big Oil was sucking the Treasury dry with huge subsidies. … Here, more exactly, are those subsidies, in the CBO’s words.

• “Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas.” ($0.8B)
• “Option to expense 50% of qualified property used to refine liquid fuels.” ($0.8B)
• “Option to expense investment costs on the basis of gross income rather than on production.” ($0.9B)

I can’t say I understand those “subsidies.” Is exploration not supposed to be a cost of doing business for an oil company? Who is to say these expenses are not legitimate costs? But let’s take the CBO’s word for it that these are, for some reason, “subsidies.”

Let’s compare those subsidies to other energy subsidies. The CBO has a chart.

http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/Energy Subsidies Pie.jpg

Well look at that: tax subsidies for all fossil fuels were only 15% of all federal subsidies for energy. The Green alternatives of renewables and “efficiency” took 78% of all tax subsidies for energy. Big Oil has so much influence on Capitol Hill that our government subsidizes its competitors five times more. Fossil fuels provide 77% of our nation’s energy yet receive just 15% of the federal government’s tax subsidies. …

Don’t know if your figures are correct, but you did not add in ALL the costs of fossil fuels, including all the deaths they cause, as in my town where people are dying of leukemia from oil and gas leaks from a huge 33 acre underground plume, under a residential area…and of course they refuse to clean it up (which would cost many $millions.

What about all the harms and deaths from extraction, processing, burning it in ICE vehicles and coal-powered plants, and disposal of waste (coal ash spills, etc). None of those costs, including health costs and grave stone/caskets (even if you put zero price on human lives) are included. The company and we the consumers don’t pay those costs, but others do, and pay very heavily.

What about all the harms from AGW – enhanced droughts, floods, storms, heat deaths, disease spread, wildfires, crop failures, etc. Again the companies and consumers don’t bear those costs, but others do. Considering that CO2 can stay in the atmosphere decades, centuries, and millennia and continue to harm well into the future, the cost will surely turn out to be extremely enormous.

Then add military support, wars, and conflicts over oil. It would be interesting to see the indirect costs we all pay thru our taxes each year. Someone needs to do a calc of that.

There’s no comparison at all. Alt energy is by far much cheaper than fossil fuels, if one uses a holistic approach and factors in all the costs.

 

[sps49]

Don’t know if your figures are correct, but you did not add in ALL the costs of fossil fuels, including all the deaths they cause, as in my town where people are dying of leukemia from oil and gas leaks from a huge 33 acre underground plume, under a residential area…and of course they refuse to clean it up (which would cost many $millions.

What about all the harms and deaths from extraction, processing, burning it in ICE vehicles and coal-powered plants, and disposal of waste (coal ash spills, etc). None of those costs, including health costs and grave stone/caskets (even if you put zero price on human lives) are included. The company and we the consumers don’t pay those costs, but others do, and pay very heavily.

What about all the harms from AGW – enhanced droughts, floods, storms, heat deaths, disease spread, wildfires, crop failures, etc. Again the companies and consumers don’t bear those costs, but others do. Considering that CO2 can stay in the atmosphere decades, centuries, and millennia and continue to harm well into the future, the cost will surely turn out to be extremely enormous.

Then add military support, wars, and conflicts over oil. It would be interesting to see the indirect costs we all pay thru our taxes each year. Someone needs to do a calc of that.

There’s no comparison at all. Alt energy is by far much cheaper than fossil fuels, if one uses a holistic approach and factors in all the costs.

Sorry, but you’ll have to do better than that. If I were to use the entire planet as an analysis boundary as you just did, then I could link air, rocks, sunlight or anything else to “harm” or whatever your concept of harm is. You must mean “projected harms” from AGW, since your claims rest on the model projections themselves. Tighten up your comparison, try to get off the imaginary axis and back to the real axis and you’ll find that alt energy, whatever you can define that to be at this moment (meaning what exists and can be fielded today), is much more expensive.

 

[estesbob]

More problems sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft21.htm

 

[DoGodsBidding]

From the same article:

You know who else likes subsidizing alternative energy? . He wrote this in January 2009: The American consumer can no longer act as the motor of the global economy. Alternative energy and developments that produce energy savings could serve as a new motor, but only if the price of conventional fuels is kept high enough to justify investing in those activities. That would involve putting a floor under the price of fossil fuels by imposing a price on carbon emissions and import duties on oil to keep the domestic price above, say, $70 per barrel.
Somehow, George got his wish for high fuel prices even without a Copenhagen-like global Cap & Trade system. When he wrote that, oil was only about . Just one year later, it was consistently over $70 per barrel, George’s magic threshold – as if delivered as a Christmas gift. And this year it’s been about $100 per barrel. Good times: a 150% increase in crude oil prices in the three years since George Soros called for higher fuel prices, perfectly coinciding with the three years of Obama’s presidency.

You know who else pushes alternative energy sources really hard? The : We could begin with an immediate carbon tax that would penalize those with the largest carbon footprint - big corporations - while also making a case for the elimination of coal production and expansion of alternative energy sources.
And who else? Presidential candidate Barack Obama said this in 2008 (via at ABC): So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.
Pretty wild coincidence, huh? Barack Obama, George Soros, and the Communist Party all pushing the same energy policies.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sorry, but you’ll have to do better than that. If I were to use the entire planet as an analysis boundary as you just did, then I could link air, rocks, sunlight or anything else to “harm” or whatever your concept of harm is. You must mean “projected harms” from AGW, since your claims rest on the model projections themselves. Tighten up your comparison, try to get off the imaginary axis and back to the real axis and you’ll find that alt energy, whatever you can define that to be at this moment (meaning what exists and can be fielded today), is much more expensive.

I’m only talking about harms to humans (trees don’t have standing in most courts, unless it is someone’s orchard ), and harms right now, as well as on into the future from today’s emissions, not emissions 10, 20, or 30 yrs from now. Sometimes it takes 20 years for a person to get cancer from exposures today. And those harms would include some % of compensation for funeral expenses, health harms, and property damage, including crop losses and seafood harvesting losses.

Fossil fuel companies could, for instance, pay some “harms tax” on each barrel of oil, ton of coal, and unit of gas that comes from the ground or into port, or across the border thru a pipe, including fuels from fracking and tar sands.

The funds from that tax could be put in a kitty to be doled out to folks who get cancer, leukemia, birth defects, emphysema, miscarriages, etc linked to fossil fuel extraction, piping/shipping (which sometimes gets spilled or leaked), processing (there are cancer alleys in the processing areas), burning/consumption, and disposal (e.g. from coal ash spills, and fracking fluid disposal, etc.). They’re planning a big pipe for gas thru the RGV, so I’d like this in place before that happens, bec surely there will be spills, accidents, and leakages.

That would include giving some compensation for people around the world, such as in Nigeria or the Amazon where oil production is gravely harming tribal peoples and their subsistence bases (which then may not provide them the same livelihood for decades or more), as long as some of the exports from there came into the US.

A small “Harms Tax” paid by all companies, of course, will be passed on to consumers. This tax would be in addition to any lawsuit payments they are made to pay for harms and damages. It would be important to do this, even tho some companies are dirtier and more renegade in their harms than others (BP has been called a “serial polluter”; Shell has a nasty record in Nigeria, and Chevron has severely polluted tribal land in the Amazon), because the victims usually lose those suits and the vast majority of victims (most of whom do not file suits) generally get nothing by way of compensation – they’ve just been lumping it, suffering from the harms. The “Harms Tax” would be a way for victims to get at least something.

Then there could be another climate change tax, a “Climate Harms Tax,” put on fossil fuel burning that could go to compensate people – at least a fraction of their harms costs related to climate change harms. Payments could be calculated based on the fraction attributed to AGW for those harmed by storms, heat deaths, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc. For instance, it was calculated that about half of the 60,000 heat-related deaths in Europe in 2003 were attributed to AGW, so I imagine that is the on-going calc (about half of deaths for now), which will be increasing as time goes on and the effect of our accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to an ever greater percentages of heat deaths.

For the time being, however, each family with a member who died of a heat-related death could get about half of their funeral expenses compensated. Something like that.

It would only be fair, as in “you break it, you buy it.”

This is amazing! I think I’ve just come up with a better policy idea than Cap&Trade or Fee&Dividend. We could have a Climate HarmsTax put on each gallon of gas and BTU of coal-generated electricity that could be used for people who have been harmed by our consumption of these from here on, but it would have to be high enough to create a kitty for the future (for those harmed in the future by today’s emissions), say, for at least 2 decades out. And if there were money left over after 2 decades (bec we overcalculated the harms), it could be keep for still future harms, since a good portion our CO2 emissions stay up there for decades, centuries, even millennia, compounding harms, even pushing us past tipping points into greatly accelerating harms.

That would be more than reasonable, I think, and with a fairer ring than Cap&Trade or Fee&Dividend, which are only meant to encourage people to reduce their GHG emissions by raising prices, as if those emissions were not causing any harm and no one was in need of compensation for those harms suffered.

 

[sps49]

I’m only talking about harms to humans (trees don’t have standing in most courts, unless it is someone’s orchard ), and harms right now, as well as on into the future from today’s emissions, not emissions 10, 20, or 30 yrs from now. Sometimes it takes 20 years for a person to get cancer from exposures today. And those harms would include some % of compensation for funeral expenses, health harms, and property damage, including crop losses and seafood harvesting losses.

Fossil fuel companies could, for instance, pay some “harms tax” on each barrel of oil, ton of coal, and unit of gas that comes from the ground or into port, or across the border thru a pipe, including fuels from fracking and tar sands.

The funds from that tax could be put in a kitty to be doled out to folks who get cancer, leukemia, birth defects, emphysema, miscarriages, etc linked to fossil fuel extraction, piping/shipping (which sometimes gets spilled or leaked), processing (there are cancer alleys in the processing areas), burning/consumption, and disposal (e.g. from coal ash spills, and fracking fluid disposal, etc.). They’re planning a big pipe for gas thru the RGV, so I’d like this in place before that happens, bec surely there will be spills, accidents, and leakages.

That would include giving some compensation for people around the world, such as in Nigeria or the Amazon where oil production is gravely harming tribal peoples and their subsistence bases (which then may not provide them the same livelihood for decades or more), as long as some of the exports from there came into the US.

A small “Harms Tax” paid by all companies, of course, will be passed on to consumers. This tax would be in addition to any lawsuit payments they are made to pay for harms and damages. It would be important to do this, even tho some companies are dirtier and more renegade in their harms than others (BP has been called a “serial polluter”; Shell has a nasty record in Nigeria, and Chevron has severely polluted tribal land in the Amazon), because the victims usually lose those suits and the vast majority of victims (most of whom do not file suits) generally get nothing by way of compensation – they’ve just been lumping it, suffering from the harms. The “Harms Tax” would be a way for victims to get at least something.

Then there could be another climate change tax, a “Climate Harms Tax,” put on fossil fuel burning that could go to compensate people – at least a fraction of their harms costs related to climate change harms. Payments could be calculated based on the fraction attributed to AGW for those harmed by storms, heat deaths, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc. For instance, it was calculated that about half of the 60,000 heat-related deaths in Europe in 2003 were attributed to AGW, so I imagine that is the on-going calc (about half of deaths for now), which will be increasing as time goes on and the effect of our accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to an ever greater percentages of heat deaths.

For the time being, however, each family with a member who died of a heat-related death could get about half of their funeral expenses compensated. Something like that.

It would only be fair, as in “you break it, you buy it.”

This is amazing! I think I’ve just come up with a better policy idea than Cap&Trade or Fee&Dividend. We could have a Climate HarmsTax put on each gallon of gas and BTU of coal-generated electricity that could be used for people who have been harmed by our consumption of these from here on, but it would have to be high enough to create a kitty for the future (for those harmed in the future by today’s emissions), say, for at least 2 decades out. And if there were money left over after 2 decades (bec we overcalculated the harms), it could be keep for still future harms, since a good portion our CO2 emissions stay up there for decades, centuries, even millennia, compounding harms, even pushing us past tipping points into greatly accelerating harms.

That would be more than reasonable, I think, and with a fairer ring than Cap&Trade or Fee&Dividend, which are only meant to encourage people to reduce their GHG emissions by raising prices, as if those emissions were not causing any harm and no one was in need of compensation for those harms suffered.

-Cancer, funeral expenses, health harms, property damage, crop losses, seafood harvesting losses, leukemia, birth defects, emphysema, miscarriages, spills, accidents, and leakages, storms, heat deaths, droughts, floods, wildfires-

Quite a list you have there. Current law addresses property loss and contamination due to the extraction and end use of oil and gas. Good luck in getting “climate” related reparations, though. The current state of the climate models doesn’t support a compensation scheme as you describe. Unfortunately, law and science do not always intersect due to issues of perception, so while you are calculating, include harm done to society by unjust reparations.

 

[estesbob]

-Cancer, funeral expenses, health harms, property damage, crop losses, seafood harvesting losses, leukemia, birth defects, emphysema, miscarriages, spills, accidents, and leakages, storms, heat deaths, droughts, floods, wildfires-

Quite a list you have there. Current law addresses property loss and contamination due to the extraction and end use of oil and gas. Good luck in getting “climate” related reparations, though. The current state of the climate models doesn’t support a compensation scheme as you describe. Unfortunately, law and science do not always intersect due to issues of perception, so while you are calculating, include harm done to society by unjust reparations.

I suggest tax on those individuals and companies that have rceived tax credits for electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines etc. This would help us recoup the billons we have spent trying to mitigate a problem that doesnt exist. The proceeds from the tax should be used to lower the price of gasoline-which will lower the price of everything we use and eat

 

[lynnvinc]

I suggest tax on those individuals and companies that have rceived tax credits for electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines etc. This would help us recoup the billons we have spent trying to mitigate a problem that doesnt exist. The proceeds from the tax should be used to lower the price of gasoline-which will lower the price of everything we use and eat

I suggest increasing subsidies on all of these, even giving and installing solar panels for free for poor people

Then taxing the devil out of oil and coal.

However, it would also be good to use that tax money to compensate environmental victims.

 

[sps49]

I suggest tax on those individuals and companies that have rceived tax credits for electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines etc. This would help us recoup the billons we have spent trying to mitigate a problem that doesnt exist. The proceeds from the tax should be used to lower the price of gasoline-which will lower the price of everything we use and eat

I have an idea, lets reward what works, not what we want to work.

 

[vz71]

I have an idea, lets reward what works, not what we want to work.

Sound reasoning.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I suggest increasing subsidies on all of these, even giving and installing solar panels for free for poor people

Then taxing the devil out of oil and coal.

However, it would also be good to use that tax money to compensate environmental victims.

And when it turns out that solar panels are not adequate heat sources in most parts of the country, and aren’t all that long-lived, then what? The poor wouldn’t be able to turn back to fossil fuels, then, would they?

And I assume most jurisdictions would have to give up on road-building because the cost of asphalt would be hugely taxed.

And, of course, no fresh fruits or vegetables in winter for most folks because the cost of transportation would be prohibitive. But then, decades ago, only the wealthy could afford them anyway and everybody was okay with that, weren’t they?

Wonder who, if anyone, still makes those big crocks in which people put shredded cabbage so they could at least have sauerkraut in the wintertime.

 

[styrgwillidar]

hotair.com/archives/2014/08/17/video-is-the-post-epa-regs-power-grid-ready-for-a-truly-hard-winter/

Given that the major power supplier in the northeast has to shut down 1/4 of their coal fired plants due to EPA regulations, it’s going to be very tough on the elderly and the poor if this winter is anything like the last one here in the US. Making energy costs sky-rocket is done by reducing the supply, there just may not be enough to around.

Of course, a lot of folks are going to be blaming the power companies, ignoring the fact that a lot of folks have been warning this is going to happen based on the governments actions.

 

[estesbob]

hotair.com/archives/2014/08/17/video-is-the-post-epa-regs-power-grid-ready-for-a-truly-hard-winter/

Given that the major power supplier in the northeast has to shut down 1/4 of their coal fired plants due to EPA regulations, it’s going to be very tough on the elderly and the poor if this winter is anything like the last one here in the US. Making energy costs sky-rocket is done by reducing the supply, there just may not be enough to around.

Of course, a lot of folks are going to be blaming the power companies, ignoring the fact that a lot of folks have been warning this is going to happen based on the governments actions.

The poor are always hurt the most when the elite forces steps for “the good of all”

 

[Erich]

And if there were money left over after 2 decades (bec we overcalculated the harms), it could be keep for still future harms,

As if (a) the federal government’s “harms estimate bar” would ever be set too high, (b) the federal government would actually let such a pile of money accumulate for 20 years and (c) continue to let it accumulate even after it became clear that it was there to begin with because of an overestimate. Not in my lifetime, and not on this planet.

Has any government cost estimate ever been right? Have the feds, at any time since 1968 (when Social Security and all other trust funds were included in a “unified budget”) ever let a pile of money accumulate? Have the feds ever stopped doing anything when the original need for it went away? (The National Helium Reserve was established in 1925 as a strategic supply of gas for airships; Congress voted in 1996 to phase out the reserve, but the Amarillo Helium Plant is still in government hands. And in 1960, wool disappeared from the Pentagon’s list of strategically critical materials; immediately thereafter, in 1993, Congress abolished the wool and mohair subsidies – but they were reinstated, in a somewhat different form, in subsequent farm bills.)

 

[Bill1940]

Earth to All Ye who float above us in a Utopian Dream Cloud: Stop thinking the government can tax us into a perfect world. Tax a company and it passes the tax on to the consumer. We just read a report on the TV crawl which claims it now costs $285,000 to raise a child to adulthood. In my humble opinion, Western Civilization is going insane. Population decline is so prevalent in the West that we stand to be overwhelmed by others whose worldview is substantially stuck in the Bronze Age. Priorities are crucial and this thread is not focused on one.