So how does that compare to other energy sources? Coal, solar, nuclear, wind, hydro(I understand that hydro has caused the most death) petroleum. Remember people die making and installing solar and wind and mining the materials for all the above. I had heard that NG had the lowest death toll per KWH and nuclear 2nd. Is that wrong?
"Of equal interest is the recent trend in the IPCC predictions of temperature increases per decade relative to the 1980-1999 and 1986-2005 periods, respectively. In the fourth assessment report (The Physical Science Basis, 2007, Table SPM.3), the range of predicted temperature increases is 0.11 to 0.64 degrees Celsius per decade; in the fifth assessment report (2013, p. 11-52), the range is 0.10 to 0.23 degrees C per decade."
"It estimates that $100 billion invested in either wind energy or solar energy – and deployed as energy for light and commercial vehicles – will produce significantly more energy than that same $100 billion invested in oil."
What a stupid analysis. We buy mile of transportation at a given level of safety, comfort and prestige. we do not care how much energy that is not what we are buying.
Think about this, if we all were happy with a 30 mile range point a to point b transportation we could drive lead acid BEVs with very low energy use and cost. But since we want more range the battery cost per mile is high dwarfing he energy costs. On the other hand the ICE is cheap per mile and so the toatl cost is better even if the energy costs are higher.
"Even in the face of new scientific reports on the escalating dangers from global warming, the “deniers” continue to pick at the now overwhelming data and pick up their checks from oil and other industry groups, write Bill Moyers and Michael Winship."
1. Do you think that CEO's of petroleum companies will be better off keeping the petroleum sales up and destroying the environment that they will be living in, or seeing petroleum sales fall the environment being saved?
2. Do you think those Oil execs are secretly buying up coastal land in Maine 25 feet above sea level?
3. What about coal companies and electric power companies? Why do you and your like always attack the only the petroleum companies?
4. Do non-oil company execs and workers (like drivers and electricity consumers) resist co2 taxes?
5. Do you think In the long run consumers will pay more the tax than will oil execs?
6 Do you think oil company execs are stupid? (I do think they are biased as we all are but that neither malicious or stupid.)
At some point you would think those wealthy oil execs would spend a little income taking care of their own future and that of their children. So maybe they really do not think AGW will be a big impossible to fix problem.
Bill Moyers is a populist Democrat who likes to make villains out of, and impute bad motives to those who disagree with him.
AND just for you redshoe77 Bill Moyers is no scientist!
What exactly does this: "and deployed as energy for light and commercial vehicles" mean?
Money invested in natural gas and coal and deployed as energy for light and commercial vehicles probably produces much more energy than does money invested in oil, solar or wind, which is why most petroleum is used for transportation and not for generating electricity. Petroleum is used in transport because ICE vehicles have good range and cost per mile can be refueled easily. And yes if someone discovers a cheaper way to make a good batteries with the properties of current lithium batteries the BEVs will take over. And yes if someone discovers a cheaper way to make a good FCV with good costs per mile and per year FCV's will take over but they still behind the BEV which are behind the ICEV. The race is still running.
"What's more, while the world has experienced greater economic losses as a result of extreme weather, that's due primarily to the fact that the world has gotten richer and more populous: There are more people with more stuff of more value to destroy. A 2011 review of 22 weather damage studies in The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reported, "The studies show no trends in the losses, corrected for change (increases) in population and capital at risk that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.""
"Yes, those details are still being debated among climate scientists. The United Nations' Special Report for Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (2012) projects that global warming will generate more heat waves, coastal floods, and droughts as the century unfolds. The researchers, however, could not draw firm conclusions about its effects on current trends in hurricanes, typhoons, hailstorms, or tornadoes. Given projected carbon dioxide emissions, the report notes that weather extremes will likely remain within the normal range of nature's own inherent variation during the next several decades."
2014-1881 is 133 years, so without AGW one would expect to get a record warm month once every 133 months, but since everyone even the skeptics agrees that some AGW is likely, you expect to get record warmth much more often. It is the magnitude of the warming that is in questing and so quoting such records adds little to the debate.
Anthony Adragna in Bloomberg writes:
"In stark contrast to their party's public stance on Capitol Hill, many Republicans privately acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is at least partially responsible for climate change and recognize the need to address the problem.
However, they see little political benefit to speaking out on the issue, since congressional action is probably years away, according to former congressmen, former congressional aides and other sources.
In Bloomberg BNA interviews with several dozen former senior congressional aides, nongovernmental organizations, lobbyists and others conducted over a period of several months, the sources cited fears of attracting an electoral primary challenger as one of the main reasons many Republicans choose not to speak out.
Most say the reluctance to publicly support efforts to address climate change has grown discernibly since the 2010 congressional elections, when Tea Party-backed candidates helped the Republican Party win control of the House, in part by targeting vulnerable Democrats for their support of legislation establishing a national emissions cap-and-trade system."
Here is a comment on the above by Scott Sumner:
"Here's my suggestion for the GOP. Say you'll support a carbon tax if it's used to do an equal reduction in taxes on capital. Even if there were no global warming, a carbon tax would be ten times more efficient than taxing capital income. Of course the Dems would say no. And then the GOP could taunt the Dems as follows:
"So Al Gore has convinced you guys that climate change will produce a catastrophe, and yet you'd rather engage in class warfare than solving the problem, Thanks for clarifying your priorities."
If the GOP weren't so timid on climate change they'd split the Dems right down the middle---class warriors vs. eco-freaks."
Your parties politicians are not really on your side, they are only on their own side.
I wonder what he means by:
"We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme".
Higher highs and higher lows or what????
I am using he numbers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You seem to be missing the fact that you can get out of the main stream science by predicting less warming that the science supports AND by predicting MORE warming science supports, the latter of which you seem to always do.
"The future has arrived in style in the new Kia Soul EV, the first all-electric, zero-emissions Kia car sold worldwide - with a practical driving range and a bold look that builds on the unique dimensions and design of the Kia Soul. The Soul EV takes things further with exclusive, vibrant two-tone styling, LED daytime running lamps and eye-catching headlamps and taillamps."
The AGW hawks should demand a CO2 tax or nothing. The rest is to easy for our corrupt politicians to use for personal gain. BTW aren't subsidies like that interfering with interstate commerce?
OUR POLITICIANS ARE SO CORRUPT! We should all learn to despise our politicians. No violence of course as they are only human and it is difficult to not get swept in the corruption that they all do. It is easy to rationalize. There but for the grace of God goes I. We should just look down on them the poor b&%&ds caught up in the corruption that so easily besets us.
Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal writes:
"The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3)."
Looks like modern man is getting lucky again.
Scott Sumner writes:
"2. I recall that when liberals favored lots of "command and control" regulation to address global warming, and conservatives favored a carbon tax. That was the "market solution" comparable to the market-based approach to reducing sulfur emissions from coal-fired power plants. Some conservatives now latch on to "contrarians" in the scientific community. OK, but how come when the shoe was on the other foot conservatives would talk about "scientific consensus." For instance, conservatives used to criticize a lot of the excessive regulation of chemicals in the environment, by pointing to scientific studies that showed many of the pollutants that environmentalists were obsessing about did not have a statistically significant impact on health. When I read the Wall Street Journal in the 1970s it seemed like it was the clear thinking conservatives relying on science vs. the muddy-headed romantic environmentalists."
Yes to me h2 only seems a better solution if either the cost of vehicle get much lower that the BEV/PHV or energy gets much cheaper.
Without something as straight forward as a carbon tax it is impossible for voters to know what reduces co2 going into the air (let alone the costs for the reduction) and what is politicians scamming voters for fun and profit.
Below is Matt Ridley (the new Julian Simon? ...maybe) on his rational optimist blog:
"A year ago I wrote in these pages that it made no sense for the consumer to subsidise the burning of American wood in place of coal, since wood produces more carbon dioxide for each kilowatt-hour of electricity. The forests being harvested would take four to ten decades to regrow, and this is the precise period over which we are supposed to expect dangerous global warming to emerge. It makes no sense to steal beetles’ lunch, transport it halfway round the world, burning diesel as you do so, and charge hard-pressed consumers double the price for the power it generates."
"There was a howl of protest on the letters page from the chief executive of Drax power station, which burns a million tonnes of imported North American wood a year and plans to increase that to 7 million tonnes by 2016. But last week, Dr David MacKay’s report vindicated me. If the wood comes from whole trees, as much of it does, then the effect could be to increase carbon dioxide emissions, he finds, even compared with coal. And that’s allowing for the regrowth of forests."
Environmentally concerned democrats should insist on a carbon tax or nothing. Your politicians are scamming you, not because you are stupid but because they are professionals who work on this stuff all day everyday and you are amateurs, as you should be but you can win on this issue. If they vote for stuff like ethanol or biomass throw the bums out. Even cap and trade is complicated enough that they will eat voters lunch is it is passed.
"2. At one point in time, cocaine was an ingredient in Coca Cola, cigarettes didn't cause cancer, and marijuana was believed to cause madness--pretty sure it wasn't the "left" that got these all wrong. "
That looks like an anti science anti-progress attitude to me. Ban all the new stuff that has not proven harmless to some absurd degree.
From Matt Ridley's Blog:
"The weather is not getting worse. Despite what you may have read, there is no global increase in floods, cyclones, tornadoes, blizzards and wild fires — and there has been a decline in the severity of droughts. If you got the opposite impression, it’s purely because of the reporting of natural disasters, which has become a lot more hysterical. Besides, thanks to better infrastructure, communications and technology, there has been a steep decline in deaths due to extreme weather.
Globally, your probability of dying as a result of a drought, flood or storm is 98 per cent lower than it was in the 1920s. As Steven Pinker documented in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, the number of deaths in warfare is also falling, though far more erratically. The ten years 2000-10 was the decade with the smallest number of deaths in warfare since records began in the 1940s. That may not last — indeed, it is looking like this decade may be worse. But it may be better."