| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"abelard" |
| Date: |
11 Apr 2007 04:39:34 PM |
| Object: |
what the ipcc did not say.....bush, as the crazy corporate socialist..... |
"..at current subsidy rates Americans are paying between $2,890 and
$3,325 for each tonne of reduction in emissions"
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=df4d03aa-6754-4529-80a9-73aa9e98c087&p=1
As the IPCC might have said: "As a result of misguided attempts to
mitigate the global climate-change scare we've created, it is
extremely likely (with a 99% degree of certainty) that governments
will introduce energy-control programs and subsidy regimes for
biofuels and other products that have a 70% chance of bringing chaos
to other markets, such as food supply. It is very likely such
policies, including massive subsidies for corn and mandated ethanol
use, will cause prices to rise by as much as 50% and disrupt basic
distribution networks, triggering a chain reaction of inflationary
forces that would be felt most by vulnerable populations in low-lying
urban areas not on the receiving line of massive farm handouts."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=df4d03aa-6754-4529-80a9-73aa9e98c087&p=2
"Major corporations are cashing in on the subsidies. A recent U.S.
government program to promote development of cellulosic ethanol will
see funds go to Cargill Inc, E.I. Dupont de Nemours, and Mascoma Corp.
In Canada, several companies -- Iogen of Ottawa and Green Field
Ethanol -- are among companies set to benefit from the new federal
budget. It offered $2-billion in new incentives to ethanol producers.
All gasoline must contain 5% "renewable" fuel by 2011. Provincial
governments are also goosing the ethanol industry, creating demand for
a product that has no economic reason to exist. The U.S. subsidy and
regulatory regime is even more outrageous, amounting to US51? a gallon
for a product that is now federally mandated."
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: what the ipcc did not say.....bush, as the crazy corporate socialist..... |
12 Apr 2007 12:23:08 AM |
|
|
"abelard" <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:4kkq13do2gnosvv01m7djq7rpbp0rcepuo@4ax.com...
"..at current subsidy rates Americans are paying between $2,890 and
$3,325 for each tonne of reduction in emissions"
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=df4d03aa-6754-4529-80a9-73aa9e98c087&p=1
As the IPCC might have said: "As a result of misguided attempts to
mitigate the global climate-change scare we've created, it is
extremely likely (with a 99% degree of certainty) that governments
will introduce energy-control programs and subsidy regimes for
biofuels and other products that have a 70% chance of bringing chaos
to other markets, such as food supply. It is very likely such
policies, including massive subsidies for corn and mandated ethanol
use, will cause prices to rise by as much as 50% and disrupt basic
distribution networks, triggering a chain reaction of inflationary
forces that would be felt most by vulnerable populations in low-lying
urban areas not on the receiving line of massive farm handouts."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=df4d03aa-6754-4529-80a9-73aa9e98c087&p=2
"Major corporations are cashing in on the subsidies. A recent U.S.
government program to promote development of cellulosic ethanol will
see funds go to Cargill Inc, E.I. Dupont de Nemours, and Mascoma Corp.
In Canada, several companies -- Iogen of Ottawa and Green Field
Ethanol -- are among companies set to benefit from the new federal
budget. It offered $2-billion in new incentives to ethanol producers.
All gasoline must contain 5% "renewable" fuel by 2011. Provincial
governments are also goosing the ethanol industry, creating demand for
a product that has no economic reason to exist. The U.S. subsidy and
regulatory regime is even more outrageous, amounting to US51? a gallon
for a product that is now federally mandated."
Greetings, abelard. I've been away quite a while. Two things... how much
money should a reasonable species spend keeping a planet in a relative ice
age when its ambient temperature is historically generally warmer, and mass
extinctions are more corellated with ice ages than warmer temperatures?
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.... and two: given trust in actions rather than words, whaddaya think about
Al Sharpton getting Don Imus fired from MSNBC?
.
|
|
|
| User: "abelard" |
|
| Title: Re: what the ipcc did not say.....bush, as the crazy corporate socialist..... |
12 Apr 2007 08:05:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:23:08 -0400, "Harvey"
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"abelard" <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:4kkq13do2gnosvv01m7djq7rpbp0rcepuo@4ax.com...
"..at current subsidy rates Americans are paying between $2,890 and
$3,325 for each tonne of reduction in emissions"
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=df4d03aa-6754-4529-80a9-73aa9e98c087&p=1
As the IPCC might have said: "As a result of misguided attempts to
mitigate the global climate-change scare we've created, it is
extremely likely (with a 99% degree of certainty) that governments
will introduce energy-control programs and subsidy regimes for
biofuels and other products that have a 70% chance of bringing chaos
to other markets, such as food supply. It is very likely such
policies, including massive subsidies for corn and mandated ethanol
use, will cause prices to rise by as much as 50% and disrupt basic
distribution networks, triggering a chain reaction of inflationary
forces that would be felt most by vulnerable populations in low-lying
urban areas not on the receiving line of massive farm handouts."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=df4d03aa-6754-4529-80a9-73aa9e98c087&p=2
"Major corporations are cashing in on the subsidies. A recent U.S.
government program to promote development of cellulosic ethanol will
see funds go to Cargill Inc, E.I. Dupont de Nemours, and Mascoma Corp.
In Canada, several companies -- Iogen of Ottawa and Green Field
Ethanol -- are among companies set to benefit from the new federal
budget. It offered $2-billion in new incentives to ethanol producers.
All gasoline must contain 5% "renewable" fuel by 2011. Provincial
governments are also goosing the ethanol industry, creating demand for
a product that has no economic reason to exist. The U.S. subsidy and
regulatory regime is even more outrageous, amounting to US51? a gallon
for a product that is now federally mandated."
Greetings, abelard. I've been away quite a while. Two things... how much
money should a reasonable species spend keeping a planet in a relative ice
age when its ambient temperature is historically generally warmer, and mass
extinctions are more corellated with ice ages than warmer temperatures?
hi...
1)the general assessed price (cost) of carbon (on memory)
runs between about $50 and $300....i was hoping to
include it in the item...but haven't had the 'go' to go
after it yet
2)i'm moving to a view (for the ice age reason) that
the new level of carbon may be on the whole
positive...but i don't think a cavalier approach is
very sane
3a)keep in mind that the current level of carbon is
expected to drive the temperature around twice
that already 'achieved' by 2100....it is not a once off
done deal....
b)the greatest fear is of course feedbacks...not the
'known' forcing of current carbon (etc) anthropogenic
'contributions'...
regards....and good to see you around...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "abelard" |
|
| Title: Re: what the ipcc did not say.....bush, as the crazy corporate socialist..... |
12 Apr 2007 06:20:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:05:08 +0200, abelard <abelard3@abelard.org>
wrote:
hi...
1)the general assessed price (cost) of carbon (on memory)
runs between about $50 and $300....i was hoping to
include it in the item...but haven't had the 'go' to go
after it yet
2)i'm moving to a view (for the ice age reason) that
the new level of carbon may be on the whole
positive...but i don't think a cavalier approach is
very sane
3a)keep in mind that the current level of carbon is
expected to drive the temperature around twice
that already 'achieved' by 2100....it is not a once off
done deal....
b)the greatest fear is of course feedbacks...not the
'known' forcing of current carbon (etc) anthropogenic
'contributions'...
found it
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
p.20
"Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of damages from
climate change across the globe (i.e., the social cost of carbon
(SCC), expressed in terms of future net benefits and costs that are
discounted to the present) are now available. Peer-reviewed estimates
of the social cost of carbon for 2005 have an average value of US$43
per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide) but
the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100
estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per
tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$130 per tonne of carbon
dioxide)"
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: what the ipcc did not say.....bush, as the crazy corporate socialist..... |
13 Apr 2007 05:13:59 PM |
|
|
"abelard" <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:8ift13tveauu61d1sn1rqbb2sqgb5b9gh0@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:05:08 +0200, abelard <abelard3@abelard.org>
wrote:
hi...
1)the general assessed price (cost) of carbon (on memory)
runs between about $50 and $300....i was hoping to
include it in the item...but haven't had the 'go' to go
after it yet
2)i'm moving to a view (for the ice age reason) that
the new level of carbon may be on the whole
positive...but i don't think a cavalier approach is
very sane
3a)keep in mind that the current level of carbon is
expected to drive the temperature around twice
that already 'achieved' by 2100....it is not a once off
done deal....
b)the greatest fear is of course feedbacks...not the
'known' forcing of current carbon (etc) anthropogenic
'contributions'...
found it
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
p.20
"Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of damages from
climate change across the globe (i.e., the social cost of carbon
(SCC), expressed in terms of future net benefits and costs that are
discounted to the present) are now available. Peer-reviewed estimates
of the social cost of carbon for 2005 have an average value of US$43
per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide) but
the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100
estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per
tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$130 per tonne of carbon
dioxide)"
Okay, I think I'm following. Is the independent variable with the largest
coefficient (or effect, however you want to term it) water levels in these
calculations they're doing? It seems to me that's the primary one they could
have any reasonable handle on. Everything else... changing geographic
distribution of arable land, ocean currents, die offs of species, whatever
else they're trying to include... seems way to difficult to quantify in a
chaotic system without some rather large assumptions, and quite a bit of
faith in the reliability of computer models.
No offense intended, btw.
Also, I can see how the ethanol from sugar bit is pretty stupid, but I was a
little surprised to see the ethanol from cellulose research bit on your hit
list in the original post. You doubt it'll work?
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "abelard" |
|
| Title: Re: what the ipcc did not say.....bush, as the crazy corporate socialist..... |
14 Apr 2007 08:07:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:13:59 -0400, "Harvey"
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"abelard" <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:8ift13tveauu61d1sn1rqbb2sqgb5b9gh0@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:05:08 +0200, abelard <abelard3@abelard.org>
wrote:
hi...
1)the general assessed price (cost) of carbon (on memory)
runs between about $50 and $300....i was hoping to
include it in the item...but haven't had the 'go' to go
after it yet
2)i'm moving to a view (for the ice age reason) that
the new level of carbon may be on the whole
positive...but i don't think a cavalier approach is
very sane
3a)keep in mind that the current level of carbon is
expected to drive the temperature around twice
that already 'achieved' by 2100....it is not a once off
done deal....
b)the greatest fear is of course feedbacks...not the
'known' forcing of current carbon (etc) anthropogenic
'contributions'...
found it
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
p.20
"Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of damages from
climate change across the globe (i.e., the social cost of carbon
(SCC), expressed in terms of future net benefits and costs that are
discounted to the present) are now available. Peer-reviewed estimates
of the social cost of carbon for 2005 have an average value of US$43
per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide) but
the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100
estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per
tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$130 per tonne of carbon
dioxide)"
Okay, I think I'm following. Is the independent variable with the largest
coefficient (or effect, however you want to term it) water levels in these
calculations they're doing? It seems to me that's the primary one they could
have any reasonable handle on. Everything else... changing geographic
distribution of arable land, ocean currents, die offs of species, whatever
else they're trying to include... seems way to difficult to quantify in a
chaotic system without some rather large assumptions, and quite a bit of
faith in the reliability of computer models.
not a question i've asked.....but interesting....
if i were doing it...this is where i'd *start*....
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_disasters.php
sea level problems are *expected* to be forward a few decades and
would therefore be somewhat (judgement of course) discounted
then there will be increased variation/increase of 'weather events'
(eg new orleans)
if i were doing such a costing i'd also include the m.e. costs and the
steadily increasing fossil fuel pricing.
No offense intended, btw.
worry not...i'm not the offended sort
you're a poster in good standing....it's fools i do not suffer :-)
the more people probe my posts, the more i can improve
my understanding and my site.....intelligent probing is good!
Also, I can see how the ethanol from sugar bit is pretty stupid, but I was a
little surprised to see the ethanol from cellulose research bit on your hit
list in the original post.
not in the initial bit....or maybe i've missed sommat....
the original post was from a source claiming bush's subsidies would
work out around $3000 a ton of 'emissions'...feels a reasonable
guesstimate to me....but it's a sloppy stt which could mean co2 or
carbon
see the words highlighted in pink in my original link
You doubt it'll work?
no, i expect that to work...though it's still on the edge in dev't
terms...
i'm not yet optimistic it will make a very serious dent in the
problems...here's my summary page on biofuels
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/biofuels.php
biofuels have knock on effects in possible land degradation etc...
farming at this level is ever increasingly a high tech issue....
it's not just dig and reap....
i have a bit here
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/land-and-food.asp
the sheer size of the energy problem/s is not understood by most
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/replacing_fossil_fuels.htm
imv there won't be just one 'solution'
i think the main contributors will be waste control, nuclear power
and then after that, pvs and wind power....
i think methanol/ethanol will become major products...as 'batteries'/
transportable fuel....
regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
