Conflicts between climate and energy priorities

by Judith Curry

The world’s poor need more than a token supply of electricity.  The goal should be to provide the power necessary to boost productivity and raise living standards.  – Morgan Brazilian and Roger Pielke Jr.

Issues in Science and Technology has published a new paper entitled ‘Making Energy Access Meaningful’, by Morgan Brazilian and Roger Pielke Jr [link].  Excerpts:

Our distinctly uncomfortable starting place is that the poorest three-quarters of the global population still only use about ten percent of global energy – a clear indicator of deep and persistent global inequity. Because modern energy supply is foundational for economic development, the international development and diplomatic community has rightly placed the provision of modern energy services at the center of international attention focused on a combined agenda of poverty eradication and sustainable development.

Compounding the difficulty of decision-making in such a complex space is that the concept of “energy access” is often defined in terms that are unacceptably modest. Discussions about energy and poverty commonly assume that the roughly two to three billion people who presently lack modern energy services will only demand or consume them in small amounts over the next several decades. This assumption leads to projections of future energy consumption that are not only potentially far too low, but therefore imply, even if unintentionally, that those billions will remain deeply impoverished. Such limited ambition risks becoming self-fulfilling, because the way we view the scale of the challenge will strongly influence the types of policies, technologies, levels of investment and investment vehicles that analysts and policy makers consider

As Wolfram and colleagues observe in a recent study, “The current forecasts for energy demand in the developing world may be understated because they do not accurately capture the dramatic increase in demand associated with poverty reduction.” The point is that energy access is not an end per se; rather it is a necessity for moving to vibrant and sustainable social and economic growth. The lower the assumed scale of the challenge, the more likely the focus will turn to incremental change that amounts to “poverty management,” rather than the transformational changes that will be necessary if we are to help billions climb out of poverty.

Most readers will have already recognized that our discussion has significant implications for the question of climate change. Former NASA scientist James Hansen expressed his view of the issue with typical candor, when he said, “if you let these other countries come up to the level of the developed world then the planet is done for.” For the most part, however, the ambition gap has kept this uncomfortable dilemma off the table. If one assumes that billions will remain with levels of energy consumption an order of magnitude less than even the most modest definition of modern access, then one can understand the oft-repeated claim that universal energy access can be achieved with essentially no increase in the global emissions of carbon dioxide.

Conflicts between climate and energy priorities deserve a deeper and more open airing in order to help better frame policy options, including the difficult question of trade-offs among competing valued outcomes. The issues are playing out right now, but remain largely unacknowledged. For instance, under US Senate Bill S.329 (2013) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation – a federal agency responsible for backstopping U.S. companies which invest in developing countries – is essentially prohibited from investing in energy projects that involve fossil fuels, a policy that may have profound consequences in places like sub-Saharan Africa that are seeking to develop oil and gas resources to help alleviate widespread energy poverty. At the same time, a different US federal agency – the U.S. Export-Import Bank – helped fund a 4.9 GW coal plant (Kusile) in the Republic of South Africa. The coal plant will help serve both industry and households that currently lack access. These simultaneous interventions appear incoherent. Making such issues more transparent, and opening them up to debates with multiple stakeholders with multiple values and success criteria offers the promise of enriching the array of policy options on the table.

The United Nations has attempted to square this circle of climate and energy through the phrase “Sustainable Energy for All”. Still, since value-judgments must be made and priorities established, the UN initiative has explicitly stated a “technology neutral” principle and given primacy to national decision-making, and implicitly has made the goal of universal energy access a “first among equals” of the three sustainable energy goals (the other two relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency). In practice however, as we have emphasized, the trade-offs involved in policies related to climate and energy have often received less than a full airing in policy debate.

The course of development followed by virtually all nations demonstrates that people around the world desire a high-energy future. Our plea is that we begin to recognize that fact, and focus more attention and resources on positively planning for, and indeed bringing about, that future. Achieving universal modern energy access will require transformations – in aspirations, but also, for example, in technological systems, institutions, development theory and practice, and in new ways to conceptualize and finance energy system design. Being clear about what modern energy access means can create a foundation for making huge strides in bridging the global equity gap not just in energy but in the new wealth, rising standard of living, and improved quality of life that modern energy access can help to bring.

Ultimately, a focus on energy access at a low threshold limits our thinking, and thus our options. Adopting a more ambitious conception of energy access brings conflicting priorities, as well as the scale of the challenge, more clearly into focus and makes hidden assumptions more difficult to avoid. Now more than ever the world needs to ensure that the benefits of modern energy are available to all and that energy is provided as cleanly and efficiently as possible. This is a matter of equity, first and foremost, but it is also an issue of urgent practical importance. 

JC comments:  For the sake of argument, lets assume that the IPCC consensus is roughly correct regarding dangerous anthropogenic climate change, with the dangers becoming apparent in the latter half of the 21st century, and mitigation of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels  is necessary, urgent, imperative (or whatever the latest word being used in professional society advocacy statements).

How do you square this climate policy ‘imperative’ with the real need right now of the majority of the people on the planet for greater access to energy?  Further, the potential development associated with increased energy could make these societies far more resilient to natural disasters (whatever the cause) than they currently are now. Not to mention that developed countries have lower population growth rates and pay more attention to their environment.

Which imperative is more ‘moral’ – to insist on reduced fossil fuel emissions over concern about what might happen > 50 years hence, in a future world that we can hardly imagine, or to support energy equity in the developing world and concretely improve lives in the here and now?  How would cost/benefit analysis of this tradeoff even be conducted?  What is the ‘morality’ here?

To those scientists that are advocating for a global emissions reduction policy, have you thought this one through (Jim Hansen seems to have)?  This is one of the issues that makes the climate change problem so wicked.

757 responses to “Conflicts between climate and energy priorities

  1. Careful Dr. Curry, or you are going to become a full fledged skeptic! ;-)

    All heated rhetoric aside, the question really comes down to do you help the people alive now? or do you reserve your magnanimity for a select few in the future? In time, Solar and wind may become viable alternatives for fossil fuel. That time has not yet come, and we have immediate needs now in 75% of the world.

    • philjourdan said in his post on August 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm

      “All heated rhetoric aside, the question really comes down to do you help the people alive now? or do you reserve your magnanimity for a select few in the future? …

      and we have immediate needs now in 75% of the world.”
      ______

      What 75% of the world needs is Phil telling them what they need?

      Yes, Phil, tell ’em their ways of life suck and they should be like you because your way of life is the best way.

      HA HA !

      • Max,

        You are the guy telling us you like your climate (and hence your lifestyle) just fine the way it is. So now you are fine with telling that 75% to piss off?

        phil isn’t telling anybody what they need. But you misrepresenting what he said is par for the course.

      • Phil is ethnocentric. I ain’t.

        I wouldn’t tell a Pygmy he should be like me.

      • Please explain how I am being ethnocentric? Again, I have not set any bars, established any standards, or demanded any styles.

        Perhaps it is you just projecting your own inadequacies onto others to soothe your own guilt?

        Read what is written, not what you want to be written.

      • If you will reflect on the fact that you wrote that comment on a device powered by reliable, comparatively inexpensive energy and that device cost more than the annual income of a not-insignificant portion of H. sapiens you might develop a sense of the bald-faced hypocrisy I am witnessing.

      • Max_OK doesn’t need to be corrected, he needs to be franchised.
        ==============

      • I offered no subjective judgements. I commented on the needs of the underdeveloped nations to gain access to cheap and reliable energy.

        If you would like to make a subjective judgement, be my guest. But do not put words in my mouth for your own agenda.

        ha….ha.

      • philjourdan said on August 8, 2013 at 9:43 am

        “Please explain how I am being ethnocentric?
        _____

        OK

        Definition of ethnocentric from the Oxford Dictionary online: “evaluating other peoples and cultures according to the standards of one’s own culture. ”

        In a previous post you said ” we have immediate needs now in 75% of the world.”

        Presumably you were referring to affordable energy, and you believe 75% of the world needs what the other 25% have because the latter group knows what’s best for all the rest. This is an ethnocentric point of view.

        In other words, you are saying we have affordable energy, and our standards are better than theirs, so to be up to our standards, they need it. If you don’t presume our standards are better than theirs, how can you argue they need to be like us?

        Rather than you deciding what 75% of the world needs, wouldn’t it be better to let them decide. Then if it’s what you think they should have, you can help. On the other hand, if it’s not what you think they should have, you got a problem.

      • Your mis-assumptions are rampant. The “We”, us, should be helping the 3rd world rise out of poverty. However, I set no standards. Or are you saying that their poverty is just ethnocentric? I will readily admit that my judgement on their poverty is based upon the UN statistics. But I do not see them as being “ethnocentric” since they represent all ethnicities.

        So perhaps you want to back off the assumptions and reply to what I said, and not what you wanted me to say?

        Again, injecting your own bias into my statement is not my problem.

      • Are you switching horses Phil? First, your 75% referred to energy but now it seems it refers to poverty. I’ll quote what you said from posts in this thread.

        “In time, Solar and wind may become viable alternatives for fossil fuel. That time has not yet come, and we have immediate needs now in 75% of the world.”

        “The “We”, us, should be helping the 3rd world rise out of poverty.”

        I think we would find universal agreement that poverty (lack of food, shelter, medicine) is a good thing to rise out of, but I don’t equate poverty with high-priced energy.

      • I did not specify what the 75% referred to (if you care to read my post again). But I was referring to energy poverty which (here comes an opinion for the master of assumptions) is directly related to quality of living. Which is how poverty is defined. Yes, i do believe that cheap energy is the great equalizer among societies (the ability to use machines instead of brawn frees up people for higher brain function tasks).

        So no switch. Just a simple statement which you then piled assumptions upon. I will readily admit I am not using my own studies which prove the percentage. I am using the UN studies to do that. I rely on the integrity of others. And that is the only thing you can get me on.

        But you will have to do more than mis-assume about what I say to be believable.

        And you will have to do a lot better than that to show anyone where I was being ethnocentric. Again, I said nothing about what energy level they should be at. Perhaps again you were merely injecting your own ethnocentric bias.

      • philjourdan said in his post on August 8, 2013 at 4:32 pm

        “I did not specify what the 75% referred to (if you care to read my post again). But I was referring to energy poverty which (here comes an opinion for the master of assumptions) is directly related to quality of living.”
        ______

        Then we should expect the quality of living to be best in countries with the lowest gasoline prices. However, we will not find that to be the case.

        According to a Bloomberg survey of gasoline prices in 60 nations, the following nine nations had lower gasoline prices than the U.S. average of $3.52 per gallon: Venezuela $.04 (yes, 4 cents), Saudi Arabia $.45, Kuwait $.80, Egypt $1.03, UAR $1.00, Iran $2.16, Nigeria $2.31, Malaysia $2.31, Mexico $3.40.

        Phil, do you believe low-priced gasoline makes these nine countries better places to live than the U.S.? Do you believe these nine are better places to live than the countries (shown below) which had the highest gasoline prices?

        The ten countries with the highest prices per gallon were: Turkey $9.98, Norway $9.97, Netherlands $8.95, Italy $8.92, France $8.52, Sweden $8.40, Greece $8.39, Portugal $8.38, Hong Kong $8.21, and Belgium $8.19

        http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/gas-
        prices/20132:United%20States:USD:g

      • You can expect all you want. I will not be so foolish as to make such stupid assumptions.

        As someone else already pointed out, Venezuela has the lowest gas prices (which is but one part of cheap energy, but I guess greens love to villainize it to the exclusion of all others). Yet they have a poverty rate that exceeds 60%. So the availability of cheap energy is not the ONLY factor – especially when you have tin plated dictators who have destroyed the economy with socialistic policies. Chavez did very well, and Maduro is following closely in his foot steps.

        For even though gas is pennies a gallon in Venezuela, there is none to be had! Why? The government sells it all (actually the crude since all the refineries closed up shop or are falling apart since the nationalization of the industry) in order to support the billions Chavez squirreled away and that Maduro is now doing. Electricity is also rationed (you think California was bad under brown, try Venezuela where EVERYTHING is rationed, including TP) as is water (shock shock!).

        So your point is wrong. While those countries produce cheap energy, it is not available to the populace and hence why they remain in poverty. And before you get on your horse about Chavez/Maduro and their magnificence, I will put my bona-fidies on the table. My daughter is a refugee who grew up in Venezuela,. I am more familiar with the internal workings of that socialistic quagmire than Sean Penn. So please do not insult my intelligence, or the indulgence of this forum by spouting things you have no clue about.

        My point stands. But yes, you can PRODUCE cheap energy without it benefiting the populace. Especially when it is not AVAILABLE to them. I never said anything about PRODUCING it, my point was to making IT AVAILABLE.

        Not stop being an ethnocentric and applying your biases to other countries. If you do not understand the internal workings of them, do not use them in your examples.

      • Your figures say nothing about the relative affordability – not to mention massive political factors

      • For the 60 countries, Bloomberg shows the following: daily per capita income, daily per capita gasoline consumption, average price of gasoline per gallon, day’s wages needed to buy a gallon of gasoline, and percent of annual income spent on gasoline.

        I noticed the link I gave to Bloomberg didn’t work, so I hope the following one does.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/gas-prices/20132:United%20States:USD:g

      • Non Sequitur. If the government artificially sets the price on a commodity, you will have overages or shortages. In this case, since it is artificially set low, there are shortages. Which means that is the posted price, but none (or very little) is available at that price.

        Again, the issue is AVAILABILITY. Not some arbitrary government standard. And that goes to the law of supply and demand. Economics 101. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/law-of-demand-and-supply.html

    • philjourdan – you ask “do you help the people alive now”. James Hansen’s answer is given in Judith’s post: “if you let these other countries come up to the level of the developed world then the planet is done for.”. ie, his jawdroppingly arrogant answer is No, we mustn’t LET them have more energy. Surely, a better way of thinking is this: Energy has been so incredibly beneficial to so much of the world that we need to work on increasing the supply and reducing the cost so that energy becomes available to everyone. One hard part is that the cost includes indirect costs, eg. environmental, and another is political barriers to energy distribution (think food, where the world produces enough but some still go without).

      • “No, we mustn’t LET them have more energy”

        Hansen didn’t say that.

      • Once you stop ceding the IPCC nonsense as the basis for discussion, all the problem’s “wickedness” vanishes.

      • @Mike Jonas – I know what Hansen said. Fortunately we do not have many megalomaniacs like him who want play God with the lives of others. So for the normal among us, we have a serious question to address.

      • lolwot – Hansen clearly did say that. His exact words were “if you LET these other countries come up to the level of the developed world then the planet is done for.”.

      • Here’s the end of the full interview:

        Our stories often receive comments from climatesceptics, who say that such statements are just based on unreliable computer models and climate science is not robust enough to compensate for the economic cost of decarbonisation…

        In fact, we base our understanding more on observations of how the Earth has responded in the past to changes in the boundary conditions, including the atmospheric composition. I’m using models less and less – although they are very helpful in confirming our understanding – but it is not correct to say that these assessments are based on models.

        Who is most responsible for climate change – all of us equally or are some people more responsible than others?

        For fossil fuels use we have very good statistics. The US is responsible for 26% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and china for 10%. The parts of the world that industrialised first are most responsible. The UK is number one, the US is number two and Germany is third.

        So should the UN negotiations try to work out how to distribute the emissions which are left…

        You will never solve the problem that way because if you let these other countries come up to the level of the developed world then the planet is done for. It’s also in developing countries’ interests to move to a clean energy future. They’ll be better off if they avoid a pollution phase of economic development. There will need to be – for fairness – economic assistance to developing countries and that’s well agreed.

        You mentioned shale gas earlier, how far that can contribute to re-industrialisation on the one hand and a low carbon future on the other?

        We need a rising price on carbon and in the short run, gas would probably expand and that would not [necessarily] be a bad thing. If it is replacing coal, you’ve made some [emissions] reductions. But you can’t just allow all these different carbon sources to increase. In the long run, gas is also going to be phased out, unless you capture the CO2.

        Do you think that is likely in the next few years?

        You can’t make that an excuse for continuing to burn, as it will be costly to capture CO2. Let that compete with alternative clean energies. It probably won’t be the wining technology but it should be allowed to compete.

        http://www.euractiv.com/fr/science-policymaking/james-hansen-nous-sommes-sur-le-interview-519800

      • So here’s the relevant paragraph:

        > You will never solve the problem that way because if you let these other countries come up to the level of the developed world then the planet is done for. It’s also in developing countries’ interests to move to a clean energy future. They’ll be better off if they avoid a pollution phase of economic development. There will need to be – for fairness – economic assistance to developing countries and that’s well agreed.

        We emphasize what has been chopped from the paragraph.

      • Yes thanks that’s what I meant. Hansen had been quotemined such that his referral to “levels” was wrongly linked to energy use rather than carbon emissions.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Energy transitions are not the point – doing it rationally is.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Actually – predicating it on a moral panic as Hansen does is the problem.

      • Willard – Thanks for posting the full text. Would you agree that a fair summary would be “let them eat cake”.

    • “All heated rhetoric aside, the question really comes down to do you help the people alive now? or do you reserve your magnanimity for a select few in the future? In time, Solar and wind may become viable alternatives for fossil fuel. That time has not yet come, and we have immediate needs now in 75% of the world.”

      You help them now. It’s not a question.
      Solar and wind will never be the answer. End of story.
      What would a short term answer is natural gas. Nuclear
      energy is longer term answer.
      Space solar power gives more energy than is needed for 10 billion people.
      It gives more energy than is needed for 50 billion people. It can support
      a solar solar system human population in the trillions.
      And causes zero CO2 or any kind of terrestrial pollution- and moves most industry off the Earth surface. Earth could be mostly park or tourist destination- Earth is lousy place for generating energy and for industry [or commerce in general {or living}].
      The problem is leaving Earth. Leaving other planets is easier.
      The ease of leaving the Moon, was demonstrated in Apollo program- we land a vehicle on the lunar and then left the lunar surface without refueling.
      Utterly impossible to do same thing with Earth.
      So just need a toehold on the Moon, and we can do anything in the space environment- cheaply.
      But it will require decades of effort to accomplish, and requires more than a satellite market in space. We need a rocket fuel market in space.

    • David L. Hagen

      Judith
      The moral standard is well established – first care for the poor as you would care for yourself.

      Matthew 22:37-39 NIV

      Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

      James 1:27

      Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

      We are to steward the earth, not stop the climate from changing (which it has been doing since time immemorial.) See Genesis 1:27-31

      The Cornwall Alliance discusses these priorities in detail in the context of climate change.
      See their Articles.

      • Note David finds a use for Genesis 1 without advocating young earth creationism. If you study the history of ideas since Augustine this is by far the mainstream position within a bible-believing tradition, including the first fundamentalists such as R. A. Torrey a hundred years ago, who accepted an ancient earth on the back of the findings of pioneering geologists like Adam Sedgwick, who was also a Christian minister and theologian. Not that this makes the resultant worldview right but it’s a distinction worth bearing in mind as ‘creationist’ is today mindlessly used as proxy for ‘anti-science’, often in close proximity to ‘denier’.

        Although others would argue that there are other foundations for the concern for the poor that is in the fore in this thread, the stream David cites has provided motive force both for the most and the least intellectually gifted across a wide range of generations and cultures. A phenomenon deserving further study once the parodies are removed?

      • David L. Hagen

        Richard Drake
        Re: “worldview” and “right”
        Thanks for distinguishing the issues.
        “Right” necessitates addressing the foundations of ethics which are in turn wrapped up in “worldview”.
        It can be argued that atheism has no basis for right/wrong except as leveraging the cultural connotations of non-atheistic world view such as the Judeo-Christian Western world view.
        Similarly, what basis is there on which to demand that we control “climate” other than by worshipping “nature” and insisting that we must not change it?
        The West is founded on Judeo-Christian ethical principles.
        Thus to address whether to care for the poor vs the rich, we must address Jesus’ parables of the Rich Man and Lazarus, and of the Dishonest Steward

        For those wishing to delve further into these issues, see:
        Francis Schaeffer‘s books
        Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth
        Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book that Made Your World.

      • David L. Hagen

        Devastation of denying energy
        The consequences of denying electricty to the poor would cause widespread misery such as is currently seen in Pakistan.
        See: Let there be light

        For the fifth year in a row, electricity shortages in Pakistan are hovering at nearly 35% of the installed capacity. While many urban areas have no electricity for 8 to 10 hours, rural areas are experiencing blackouts that last 18-20 hours. The winter of 2010 and 2011 saw rationing of piped gas. . . .
        Conservative estimates by the World Bank suggest that the cost of environmental degradation is approaching 6% of GDP, or about $12.2 billion per year. Premature mortality and illnesses caused by indoor and outdoor air pollution and diarrheal diseases were estimated to be 50% and 30% respectively of the total damage cost. . . .
        According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the proportion of land under forest cover in Pakistan has declined from 3.3% in 1990 to 2.5% in 2005. The issue received considerable attention when public officials suggested that large-scale deforestation had exacerbated the damage caused by recent floods.

      • You are right, David.

        Power and arrogance blinded world leaders to reality.

        Today the combined forces of world governments are losing their battle to hide the “Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of Life”:

        http://theinternetpost.net/2013/08/12/the-creator-destroyer-sustainer-of-life/

        Sent from my iPhone

    • Diogones, you miss my point. I believe the poor in developing countries can decide what’s best for them. If they believe greater consumption of fossil fuel is what’s best, then they should spend more on it and less on food and other things. It’s not up to me to tell the poor how to spend their money.

      If you feel differently, you could become a missionary and tell the poor how you believe they should allocate their resources.

      • “I believe the poor in developing countries can decide what’s best for them. If they believe greater consumption of fossil fuel is what’s best, then they should spend more on it and less on food and other things.”

        Yes, let’s shut down exploration, extraction and distribution in the west with all its wealth and technology; drive the world price of fuel sky high; and let the poor in Africa and Asia go find, extract, refine and transport their own damn fossil fuels.

        Let them eat shale!

        Economic illiteracy combined with callous disregard for real people. The wonders of modern progressivism.

      • Bloomberg has gasoline prices for 60 countries. The ten countries with the highest prices per gallon were: Turkey $9.98, Norway $9.97, Netherlands $8.95, Italy $8.92, France $8.52, Sweden $8.40, Greece $8.39, Portugal $8.38, Hong Kong $8.21, and Belgium $8.19.

        The ten countries with the lowest prices per gallon were: Venezuela $.04 (yes, 4 cents), Saudi Arabia $.45, Kuwait $.80, Egypt $1.03, UAR $1.00, Iran $2.16, Nigeria $2.31, Malaysia $2.31, Mexico $3.40, United states $3.52.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/gas-prices/20132:Netherlands:USD:g

        As might be expected this shows the countries with the lowest gas prices have the most developed economies, the highest standard of living, and the best quality of life.

        Wait … I guess it doesn’t show that. But anyway, most people like cheap gas.

        Bloomberg should do one on beer.

      • GaryM said in his post on August 7, 2013 at 10:40 pm

        “Yes, let’s shut down exploration, extraction and distribution in the west with all its wealth and technology; drive the world price of fuel sky high … ”
        _____

        Excellent idea, excepting Oklahoma. I sure would benefit from the higher prices, and I am a really good judge of what’s best for me.

        GaryM wants to be the judge of what’s best for everyone else. I doubt they will let him.

      • Who are you to decide what they can and cannot decide? Who made you Dictator for life?

      • Max,

        In other words – “Let them eat cake.”

      • David L. Hagen

        Max_OK
        Re: “I believe the poor in developing countries can decide what’s best for them”
        The problem is when US Congress & EPA mandate “burning” corn via ethanol which drives up the price of food for the poorest of the poor in developing countries, not just in the USA. Consequently about 192,000/year die from this enforced “green” mandates which has no “greenhouse” benefit.

    • philjourdan | August 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm |

      What an interesting question, considering late developments in the diverging literature on the topic.

      www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/08/09/000158349_20130809083253/Rendered/PDF/WPS6565.pdf

      Some take the assumption, “new technologies or policies tend to have higher transaction costs compared with those in the business as usual situation“, for granted as applying to alternate energy. However, that baseline assumption of Bazilian’s arguments aren’t necessarily so. Deployment of low-carbon technologies with minimal transaction cost is not just plausible, but fully realized by the Market mechanism: people will self-assess their CO2E, when it hits them in the pocket, and they will do it cheaply.

      The problem comes when, for example, a head of state is forced to procure deployment by command and control regulation, which guarantees the highest possible transaction costs. Good thing no sane legislature would ever put a head of state in such an absurd position. That would be petty, wasteful, and narrow-minded verging on treason.

      As for transaction costs, base cost of new implementation is a similarly diverging discussion. It does no good to compare new solar or new wind to old coal; to bring on new coal costs much more than to hobble along on coal plants decades past their safe running life.. unless you count the hidden costs of running coal plants past their safe running life.

      Comparing new to new, we see alternative energy isn’t being preferred because of subsidy or program, but because it’s the only affordable way to get new, and shut down decrepit old.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Bart, you say:

        Comparing new to new, we see alternative energy isn’t being preferred because of subsidy or program, but because it’s the only affordable way to get new, and shut down decrepit old.

        Cite? Data? Source? Evidence? Facts?

        Or do we just get your unsupported opinion that cheap natural gas is less of an “affordable way to get new” than expensive solar?

        In any case, the reality, to start with, is that alternative energy isn’t being preferred anywhere but remote locations, OR where they are subsidized … period.

        So you’re starting from a false premise.

        w.

      • I’m sorry, Willis. I’m afraid that the evidence is clear that your beliefs are mistaken. You see, the problem is that you’re so good looking, and women have been lying to you, and that is why you are wrong.

        Not even your mad “wordsmith” skillz can improve the situation. Not even intentionally writing posts that are called “creepy” by people who agree with you on the science can improve the situation.

        I would suggest ugli-fying yourself a bit. Maybe a really bad wig or something like that. Then, if you aren’t quite so fetching, women might stop lying to you and then you’ll figure things out better.

        Thanks for the chuckles, Willis.

      • Willis Eschenbach | August 11, 2013 at 1:16 am |

        Mebbe consider that ‘cheap natural gas’ is the alternative to expensive coal and oil?

        That just because people choose coal to build out, doesn’t mean it’s the least expensive option, but that it’s got salesmen who lie bigger?

        You put up a windmill, you don’t need a railroad to ship coal or oil through Lac-Megantic, you just need power lines. You don’t need a place to dump the sludge left behind by refining, or to use hundreds of times as much water in the extraction and refining process.

        You really think water’s going to keep being cheap?

        You think it’s still cheap today, or that maybe people downstream just haven’t fully caught on to what’s going on?

        You really find solar so expensive?

        http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56776.pdf

        So do I. Today. About one half as expensive as it was fifteen years ago. Which in turn was about one half as expensive as fifteen years before that.

        In seven years time?

        One quarter as expensive as now.

        Do you want to commit to 40 years of a coal plant that will be the more expensive option for the last 33 years of its operating life?

  2. It’s not just the “world’s poor” in need of cheap energy supplies. Youth unemployment in Europe is at crisis level in some countries.

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582006-german-led-plans-tackling-youth-unemployment-europe-are-far-too-timid-guaranteed-fail

    • What Detroit needs is cheap energy.

    • Energy is not the problem. The problem in Europe is unskilled jobs being outsourced and also automation of jobs as technology advances.

      Just wait for the google car to become retail reality. A whole load of truckers, haulage drivers and taxi drivers are going to lose their jobs.

      The future is pretty much high unemployment and a required welfare system because there aren’t going to be enough jobs.

      • Well, sometimes there’s just not a good fit between the skills people have and the skills the job market wants.

        And let’s face it, some people don’t and never will be able to earn enough to even support themselves, much less support dependents.

      • “Energy is not the problem. The problem in Europe is unskilled jobs being outsourced and also automation of jobs as technology advances.

        Just wait for the google car to become retail reality. A whole load of truckers, haulage drivers and taxi drivers are going to lose their jobs.

        The future is pretty much high unemployment and a required welfare system because there aren’t going to be enough jobs.”

        Well if elect politicians which only thinks raising taxes is the answer- with more and higher taxes, it makes more difficult to earn a living- requiring people to be unemployed and on welfare.

        See, even beggers pay taxes, because any money they get from begging buys stuff which is more expensive due to taxes. Taxes increase the prices of everything because one need to charge more money to pay for taxes.
        So the idea of taxing a business, means all the customers are paying for the added cost of taxes by charging a higher price. The cost of the tax is passed on.
        Beggers and government are essentially the same thing- except beggers ask for money, and the government forces you to pay them money.
        So if had a law that required you to pay beggars [and it was enforced], then beggers are at equal footing as with government. Beggers are competitive with government, but government has competitive advantage, as they can force people to pay them.
        Government is legal robbery. With this less legal robbery, people would not need to make as much money to live- be more wealthy, and not need to given some the spoils of the legal robbery.
        All lefty policies justify higher taxes, as they claim to will give money to the people most impacted by the taxes. But the damage done to the poor is never made up to the poor, from this legal robbery. And it makes them into government dependents.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        lolwot | August 7, 2013 at 6:20 pm | Reply

        Energy is not the problem.

        I think you mean “Energy is not the only problem” … there’s more than one problem allowed at a time.

        Finally, for the overwhelming majority of the folks on this planet, google cars won’t make a damn bit of difference, because they’re living on $2 per day and they don’t take taxis … so I fear that what you are describing are what are called “First World Problems” …

        w.

      • Max_OK

        If a (non-invalid) person does not have the skills required by the market, there is nothing simpler than to learn new skills.

        Darwinism = survival of the fittest, right?

        Max_CH

  3. It’s really pretty easy. With the minimal warming effect and larger greening effect found with AnthroCO2, fossil fuels will remain the tool of choice for human progress out of poverty, to infinity and beyond, until those hydrocarbon bonds are worth more for structure than merely for the energy within them. That will happen sooner with energy and/or storage breakthroughs, or the easing of anxiety over nuclear energy.
    ===========

    • kim said on August 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm

      ” fossil fuels will remain the tool of choice for human progress out of poverty”
      ______

      HA HA, tell that one to the poor in countries swimming in oil.

      Many of those poor have found the “tool of choice” is transportation to the North.

      Kim, you don’t seem to be getting any smarter.

      .

      Not moving North ?

      • True, even massive wealth in natural resources can’t overcome the economic effects of progressive’s economic stupidity.

      • Kim, please disregard my “Not moving North?, ” unless you feel the need to answer it anyway.

      • Progressives conspired with the Japanese to ruin Detroit?

        Nah, as a progressive it pleases me to see, GaryM types are a shrinking demographic. The world will be a better place when these regressives have shrunk to nothingness.

      • Japan did not ruin Detroit. Progressives did that all by themselves.

      • Max_OK continues to demonstrate why he is such a sucker for the catastrophic narrative. So does David Appell.
        =============

      • kim, you are too chronologically advanced to worry about catastrophic climate change. I doubt it will happen in your time, and you seem too self-centerd to be concerned about the consequences for future generations. Better, you concern yourself with dental implants, Botox, and cosmetic surgery.

      • The problem is not the availability of energy, but the totalitarianism of their leadership.

        It helps if you educate yourself before making foolish statements.

      • Japan did not ruin Detroit. Progressives did that all by themselves.

        Progressives ruined Detroit. I love these guyz.

      • The climate changed in Detroit, and the fleeing refugees have populated the world.
        ===============

      • Max_OK

        The “tool of choice” is relocation to an affluent society, where jobs are relatively easy to find and a social safety net exists.

        We have a lot of these folks in Switzerland – as I’m sure you do in the USA, as well.

        Go where the money is.

        Makes sense.

        Max_CH

  4. Of course, the poor need more energy. That hardly means the rich and affluent can’t afford to pay for its pollution, carbon and otherwise, and for renewable energy that does not alter the climate for millennia. We can, and we should.

    Indeed, we ought to be developing the cleaner energy sources the poor can eventually adopt, via massive R&D, preferably funded by a tax on carbon pollution. Or subsidize them directly.

    • Yes, but have you really thought this through, David Appell?

      • Steven Mosher

        tax the rich and spend massively on R&D and subsidies

        who needs the details when they just get in the way.

        C02 bad, rich Bad, Tax good, subsidy good.

        jeez willard, you dont need to think things through when you have formulaic thinking.

      • tax the rich and spend massively on R&D and subsidies.

        Tax those who use energy in a way that does damage.

        Or are you opposed to holding responsible those whose energy pollutes? Maybe even they should get an award??

      • Steven Mosher

        david

        Tax those who use energy in a way that does damage.

        Yes,

        lets start with something that does clear immediate damage

        diesel and cooking fires in Asia that contribute 1/3 of the black soot problem

        This is a great place to start. Folks can prove their commitment by solving a simple problem first.

        let me know when China and India agree.

        crawl walk run.

      • I understand, David.

        I’m not telling you that you’re advocating, therefore it’s bad.

        Neither am I telling you that it would be OK to advocate, it’s just that you are doing it irresponsibly.

        I am simply asking you to introspect the bottoms of your heart and soul and see if you really you thought it through.

        No need to answer, but please do, if you must.

      • Steven Mosher

        opps I guess david didnt think it through.

        for a taste of davids thinking

        ‘The space elevator is enticing because its scientific
        sweetness allows physicists and engineers to play with
        it, but it is far enough away that pesky details can always
        be put off until later. “If you have built castles in the air,
        your work need not be lost,” wrote the early US environmentalist and dreamer Henry David Thoreau in his
        classic 1854 book Walden. “That is where they should
        be. Now put the foundations under them.” Or, as one
        might say today, a very long tether to the future.”

        quite telling this passage.

      • Steven Mosher

        willard

        “Neither am I telling you that it would be OK to advocate, it’s just that you are doing it irresponsibly.”

        please shut up.

        we want david to advocate irresponsibly
        we want him advocating all sorts of crazy stuff. the crazier the better.

        There is no downside to irresponsible advocating because action is urgent and any action will do just fine as long as we can be seen taking positions and actions.

        His advocating can have no detrimental effects, so leave him alone

      • diesel and cooking fires in Asia that contribute 1/3 of the black soot problem This is a great place to start.

        You prefer to tax the poor. I don’t, especially since the US has emitted about 28% of the CO2 that has caused today’s warming-to-date. China, about 11% — and 1/4th of their current emissions are for products destined for the US or Europe.

      • You advocated taxing the poor more than the wealthy! Or did you forget already?

        preferably funded by a tax on carbon pollution.

        You do a lousy job of arguing against yourself.

      • Steven Mosher

        David Appell | August 7, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
        diesel and cooking fires in Asia that contribute 1/3 of the black soot problem This is a great place to start.

        You prefer to tax the poor. I don’t, especially since the US has emitted about 28% of the CO2 that has caused today’s warming-to-date. China, about 11% — and 1/4th of their current emissions are for products destined for the US or Europe.
        #############

        No david I am doing EXACTLY AS YOU DEMAND.

        Here is what you suggested after thinking it through

        “Tax those who use energy in a way that does damage.”

        I am suggesting that to test whether this is practical we should start with an easy case where a lot of damage is done. Immediate damage.

        Black soot.

        You dont want to prove you are serious about climate change. because you are not.

        What you are now suggesting is that we tax people today for the damage OTHERS DID in the past. So youve changed from
        taxing the rich, to taxing those who do damage, to taxing those who live in a country where damage was done in the past.

        Wait, tax the guys who build cars… no wait, when it comes to GM you support the bailout.

        How does that work.. bail out the guys who built stuff that pollutes?

      • “…diesel and cooking fires in Asia that contribute 1/3 of the black soot problem This is a great place to start.” – Steven Mosher. Right. A rural land dotted with many small diesel generators running for on sight electricity production as people attempt to improve their lives. To me it makes a coal fired power plant the more attractive option, for the environment, with less emissions and the tighter control of them because of having a point source to a greater extent.

      • Black soot, mostly emitted by the poor, should be replaced by cleaner energy sources, subsidized for the poor by those who have gotten wealthy on polluting fossil fuels.

        Yes, past pollution should be paid for.

      • Are you going to exhume the graves to get your pound of flesh?

      • Steven Mosher

        “Yes, past pollution should be paid for.”

        Cool, dont forget the credits for cold spells averted

      • Cool, dont forget the credits for cold spells averted.

        So you think this is a joke — that you should be allowed to pollute for free.

        That is the height of selfishness — the prime factor that makes the world less than it could be, that is responsible for most of this world’s ills.

        W.r.t. carbon, it will end soon. So pollute away as your heart desires — your selfish days are numbered.

      • Steven Mosher

        david

        ‘So you think this is a joke — that you should be allowed to pollute for free.”

        Of course not. But what you are now suggesting after thinking it through more is that past damages have to be paid for.
        I agree. I agree 100%.

        So, lets go about calculating past damages.

        First, we dont want to tax the poor, regardless of the damage they have done, correct?

        Next, we dont want to make people who havent caused damage pay for those who did? thats fair

        Finally, as long as we are being fair we should recognize that there have been benefits from warmer temps up til now, and that going forward the damages will outweigh the benefits.

        So, lets calculate the benefits and damages and then figure out which non poor people will pay.

        We agree 100%. Pay for past damages, do that fairly.

        ##################################

        That is the height of selfishness — the prime factor that makes the world less than it could be, that is responsible for most of this world’s ills.

        Huh, well you said dont tax the poor. and I’m poor, so I cant be selfish.

      • Mosher, these are the most famous quotes of Henry David Thoreau

        “Most of the luxuries and many of the so-called comforts of life are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.”

        “Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.”

        “Chastity is the flowering of man; and what are called Genius, Heroism, Holiness, and the like, are but various fruits which succeed it. Man flows at once to God when the channel of purity is open. . . . He is blessed who is assured that the animal is dying out of him day by day, and the divine being established”

        His writings reveal that when living in the small cabin that he had built near Walden Pond he sent his laundry out, twice a week. for his mother to wash.

      • “David Appell
        Black soot, mostly emitted by the poor, should be replaced by cleaner energy sources, subsidized for the poor by those who have gotten wealthy on polluting fossil fuels.

        Yes, past pollution should be paid for.”

        How are you on repatriations to African-Americans from White Americans, because “past Labour should be paid for”?

      • Finally, as long as we are being fair we should recognize that there have been benefits from warmer temps up til now, and that going forward the damages will outweigh the benefits.

        I’d like to see this calculation, please.
        Thank you.

      • “…and 1/4th of their current emissions are for products destined for the US or Europe.”

        Yes, by all means, let’s deprive the people in China living on $250.00 per year the ability to make goods for export (since their own socialist economy is still by and large a wreck). Billions of people living in poverty in perpetuity is a small price to pay to indulge the messianic fantasies of our beloved, self-styled elitists.

        Beggar the worlds poor so the spoiled, indolent, non-productive progressives in the west can feel better about themselves.

        As long as it’s “for the children.”

      • “Yes, past pollution should be paid for.” David Appell. Yes, without a doubt. It’s the moral thing to do. I am skeptical of what mechanisms will be used for that though. That the admiral goal will be lost in the details. The idea of there being external costs to me is sound. That it is to say, it is not some made up thing. Quantifying the costs is more difficult. I am thinking of air born Mercury pollution and not so much the CO2 issue.

      • quite telling this passage.

        While I am flattered that you read my work, I’ll point out that space elevators have absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

      • David

        I was in Dartmouth yesterday where you can view the worlds first steam engine invented by Newcomen around 1712. It is supposed to have heralded the industrial revolution.

        Since that time the benefits to humanity have been immense bringing us from a poverty stricken unhealthy and poor society to a level that the underdeveloped world want to emulate.

        In that time Britain has given the world it’s language, the rule of law, numerous advances in medicine, numerous inventions, huge contributions to literature, music and the arts.

        In short I think that Britain has spent its total 4% of co2 emissions in making the world a better place. So I claim we are in credit and do not owe anything.

        Anybody else like to justify the past carbon emissions of their own country in terms of overall benefits?
        Tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        david

        yes,space elevators have nothing to do with climate

        at issue is your attitude toward details

        at issue is your attitude toward subsidizing crap like solyndra

        To understand how a man thinks or fails to think things through it is interesting to see what he says on a variety of topics.. and to see who he turns to for authoritative quotes.

        That is why the passage is telling.its because the passage is on a different topic that it is able to tell us something about you

      • Steven Mosher

        david

        “I’d like to see this calculation, please.”

        Since you are the one who has suggested that people should pay for past damage ( the US putting 28% of the c02 in the air ) I would think the burden of calculation is on you. You are the one proposing making people pay for the sins of the past.

        As a part of that calculation you will have to account for the benefits as well as the damages.

        Your mistake here was suggesting that we tax people according to the damage that has been done.

        There was a better choice for you to make in this argument. think it through and advocate that.

      • Anybody else like to justify the past carbon emissions of their own country in terms of overall benefits?

        And now you are rich enough to pay for clean energy, and also to begin paying for the damage of your ancestors.

      • Now you are changing your tune. The rich of today did not pollute before they were born. So you are now not advocating having those responsible pay for their pollution, but merely soaking the rich today, regardless of how they achieved their wealth.

        Perhaps you should start with yourself. How much do you pay in Taxes, and how much more should you pay since there is no upper limit on what you can pay.

      • at issue is your attitude toward subsidizing crap like solyndra

        As long as fossil fuel pollution is paid for by taxpayers — at least $120 B/yr in the US alone — government has every business working to correct this huge market failure.

        You seem to prefer paying for all this pollution yourself. The fossil fuel companies, who keep all the profits and stick you with the bill, thank you enormously.

      • No government does not. And indeed, how much pollution did Solyndra take care of? Not a single molecule! Yet you would waste all the money in the world for no benefit, to either existing people, or our children.

        YOu are very magnanimous with OPM. Yet you accomplish nothing.

      • S. Moser: Again, I’d like to see this calculation, please.
        Because I don’t think you have it.
        You can’t support your claim at all.

      • Stop talking about yourself in the second person and produce what you claim. Your insults and claims are tiresome and patently false since you never support them.

      • Steven Mosher

        ‘And now you are rich enough to pay for clean energy, and also to begin paying for the damage of your ancestors.”

        you said we should not tax the poor. My ancestors were poor. i once calculated the footprint of my parents and grandparents over the course of their lives.

        Obama burned more C02 on his Safari. that my entire family did for the entire time they were on the planet.

        So, dont tax the poor or children of the poor

      • Yes, by all means, let’s deprive the people in China living on $250.00 per year the ability to make goods for export.

        That’s not at all what I said.

        If you want those products, then pay their true cost, which includes pollution, not the cost subsidized by the rest of the world (including the future).

        Didn’t your mother teach you to clean up after yourself?

      • you said we should not tax the poor. My ancestors were poor.

        And you are rich. Pay up, thankfully, and stop being so selfish.

      • And how much have you paid? Seems you are talking about yourself again.

      • willard apparently quit with the thinking things through bit awhile back. The squirrel catch and release hobby must be taking up all of his attention.

      • Yet more accounting.
        A companies balance sheet is supposed to list all material liabilities. Including the one that accurately reflects that ‘getting sued and losing for past pollution done.’ The tobacco companies probably starting showing a similar liability as they got closer to settling in around 1998. Showing them – may have been just in the footnotes.

        Whether this is a good example of an external cost, I don’t know? But this liability that was once uncertain, for instance tobacco companies had lost very few lawsuits, became accounting reality, represented by real money. Billions of dollars.

        It is an very tough area of accounting. The auditor wants to show such liabilities, (and some companies wish to minimize them) as lawsuits have the potential to wreck a company and call into the question the auditor’s signing on a balance sheet that did not reflect those potential liabilities, which of course leads to the auditor being sued. It’s not easy predicting the outcomes of lawsuits. The auditor realizes they are pretty far from home.

        I am just assuming this but, I bet the firms that audited the tobacco companies leading up to 1998, brought their A-teams to look at the lawsuits situation.

      • David

        My British ancestors have put us in substantial credit. How about yours?

        Look forward to you finding evidence of the accuracy of climate models that demonstrate their historic accuracy. None of the commenters seem to believe there are such models.
        Tonyb

      • After reading the exchange between Mosher and Appell it becomes clear that one thing we call all not take seriously is David’s opinion.

        He does get credit for being pretty ballsey though, with his demand for calculations, considering he doesn’t bother with such minute detail.

        BTW – how much are you paying to help the poor of the world David?

      • > The squirrel catch and release hobby must be taking up all of his attention.

        Have you really thought through saying this just before your “and what do you do for the poor”, which was just after waving some pom-poms, timg56?

      • willard,

        when folks like David start moralizing and talking about the poor or how the rich need to pay, asking him what he pays, or contributes to helping those less fortunate than him is a valid question. Had it been Mother Theresa chastizing us, then our response should be to look inside ourselves and see what more we should be doing. When it is David Appell, the response is “Ok, what example are you setting, that we might emulate it.” Keep in mind his “put up or shut up” statement. I give David credit for not shutting up. Persistence is a virtue. But so far he has about zero credit for putting up. A couple of links and his claim of having a lower carbon foot print than me. That last might have been a start, had he bothered to back it up or at least provided the methodology he used. You know, what scientists do when they publish.

        PS – the pom pom thing wasn’t particularly clever the first time around. You’ve squeezed out what little juice it had a long time ago. What hasn’t changed is you getting bested by Mosher on a regular basis.

      • Dear timg56,

        Your “what about you” question is a tu quoque. This tu quoque turns a general question into a personal one. It switches topic and prepares for ad hominems.

        It is utter crap.

        Almost as much as is your fake arbitration of Moshpit’s black hat marketing. I find this commenting habit distasteful, even when commenters are rooting for me. For instance, I’ve asked Steve Bloom to stop his content-free score keeping of my tweets when he started to annoy a philosopher who simply forgot that almost all the nations of the world had laws to protect their cultures.

        Please stop. I won’t ask you twice.

      • He’s makin’ a list and checkin’ it twice.

        Hey, willard, your house elves are plotting clog tossing.
        =========

      • Goblins, kim, Goblins.

        Don’t flatter yourself.

      • Mosh is right

        There is nothing easier than to put a carbon particulate filter on a Diesel engine exhaust.

        Voilà! No more black soot.

        crawl walk run.

        Max

    • Well David, I for one think that people who campaign for fuel taxes can pay for those of us who do not wish to.

      • What makes you think you shouldn’t be held accountable for your pollution — just because you don’t “want to?” Grow up.

      • Good advice. Take it.

      • Steven Mosher

        david, its like Glieck not wanting to be held responsible. Its like GM wanting a bailout, its like Solyndra wanting a loan. He is free to advocate for whatever he likes, he doesnt even have to think it through

      • Its like GM wanting a bailout, its like Solyndra wanting a loan.

        It’s like oil companies shitting down your throat, keeping all the profits while sticking you with the cleanup bill.

        And all you have to say is, Thank you Sir, May I Have Another!

      • BP paid for the clean up.

        Oil companies do not burn the fuel, they sell it.

        Appell = dishonest.
        JC STRIKETRHOUGH

      • Phil, I have had to delete a number of your comments. Don’t call another commenter dishonest, a liar, a fraud or whatever. Refute their argument, or point out the inconsistencies.

      • Understood. My apologies for letting my emotions get the best of me.

      • “David Appell
        What makes you think you shouldn’t be held accountable for your pollution — just because you don’t “want to?” Grow up.”

        Accountable by whom?
        Chairman Mao stated that power comes from the barrel of a smoking gun. Stalin asked, ‘How Many Divisions does the Pope of Rome Have?’.

        You appear to think that you and like minded individuals can hold me to account. I ask you exactly how do you think you can make me, and like minded individuals, give our money to people you think deserve it more?
        Or you and whose army?

      • You appear to think that you and like minded individuals can hold me to account.

        Yes, you should pay for your pollution.

        That is the essence of a free and responsible society.

        You’d prefer, it seems, for others to pay the cost of your waste. Do you allow your neighbor to dump his trash in your yard for free?

      • No, it is the hallmark of a totalitarian state. You are dictating. There is no freedom when one (or a handful) dictate to the population.

        You do not know much do you?

      • Steven Mosher

        “You’d prefer, it seems, for others to pay the cost of your waste. Do you allow your neighbor to dump his trash in your yard for free?”

        If he is poor or from China, david, then you have argued that he should be able to dump his trash in my yard.

        Did you forget your own argument.

        The poor can pollute with impunity.

        If you didnt pollute in the past, you can pollute now.

      • David Appell,

        What are you paying?

        How exactly are you making up for you benefiting from the same “polluting society” the rest of us benefit from?

        Does your spending time here telling the rest of us what we should be doing count as doing your part?

      • If he is poor or from China, david, then you have argued that he should be able to dump his trash in my yard.

        False — I advocated that his energy be subsided, by you, the rich, who have gotten rich by polluting the world. At the least, by you paying for massive R&D that enables price-equivalent, carbon-free energy.

      • “Subsided”? I guess you are now advocating that the rich pay nothing? The end of a “subside” is 0.

      • “Yes, you should pay for your pollution.

        That is the essence of a free and responsible society.”

        Obviously a usage of the word ‘responsible’ that I have not come across before. What you mean is that I am ‘Free’ only as far as fascists like yourself allow me. You get to chose what I can and cannot do, so that you can make sure society is ‘responsible’.
        Now i am sure you don’t think you are a fascist, but you are. A foolish fascist at that.

      • Amen! While there are laws in every country dictating the minimum taxes to be paid, to my knowledge, there is no law in any country prohibiting paying more.

        Hypocrites like David never put their money where their mouth is.

      • Doc,

        It’s hardly fascistic to expect people to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

      • Just remember that’s a two-way street.

      • Well I’m not claiming it applies to some people and not others.

      • David Appell

        I presume that you live in an industrially developed society and enjoy the benefits of electrical power at the flip of a switch and the many other benefits that have come from having an energy infrastructure, which affords you a reliable source of low-cost energy based on fossil fuels.

        Be thankful for what you have. Life wasn’t always this good where you live. Just think about 150 years ago.

        And it still isn’t this good in many places of the world, where there is no such energy infrastructure.

        But, day by day and year by year the unfortunate inhabitants of these parts of the world are beginning to develop their economies, so that some day they also will have this access, which you enjoy and take for granted today.

        Max

    • Mr. Appell please at least be fully honest when you use the term “carbon pollution” you really mean CO2, not diamond rings, or graphite pencils, or coke used in making steel, etc.

      Please define “the rich and affluent”. I know I am not rich or affluent so do I escape your beloved tax?

      And how do you tax the energy you say the poor need more of without driving up the cost of the energy the poor need more of thus causing them more harm?

      • Compared to the rest of the world, you certainly are rich and affluent. Hence you pay.

        If the social cost of carbon is $36/t CO2, it will cost you about $612/yr. You (and I) can certainly afford that.

      • And those on welfare? How do they pay?

      • Steven Mosher

        the social cost is more like 3 dollars a ton.

      • the social cost is more like 3 dollars a ton.

        Yes, because Stephen Mosher is far more knowledgable than all the economists trying to model this number for the EPA.

        = delusional

      • Yes he is. Are you smart enough to understand that?

      • David Appell

        It is not the USA (nor the EU or Japan) that will cause the greatest part of the increase in CO2 emissions (and added atmospheric CO2 concentration) from today to 2100.

        It is the underdeveloped nations, which will develop their own energy infrastructures (and thereby improve the quality of life and average life expectancy of their inhabitants).

        This trend has already started in China, India and Brazil – and it will continue there and in other underdeveloped nations whether you like it or not.

        And, if these nations (the three-fourths mentioned in the lead article) increase their per capita energy consumption 5.5 times by 2100, bringing their portion of the total from 10% to around 50%, this will mean a global increase in per capita CO2 emission of around 30% and an atmospheric CO2 concentration by 2100 of around 640 ppmv, resulting in global warming of around 2C (using IPCC’s 2xCO2 ECS estimate).

        As I pointed out to you with the extreme case of a total USA “shutdown” today, the USA has very little impact on future warming.

        It is the developing world that will do so, whether you like it or not (as the lead article points out)

        Accept it and move on.

        Max

      • It is not the USA (nor the EU or Japan) that will cause the greatest part of the increase in CO2 emissions (and added atmospheric CO2 concentration) from today to 2100.

        False. Americans still emit about 2.5 times that of the Chinese, per capita, and about 11 times that of Indians.

        And the US has created about 28% of carbon emissions to date; China about 11%. That’s huge on a per capita basis. Hence America has a moral obligation to take the lead in solving this problem.

      • I’d wager my 19 year old niece is more capable at coming up with a cost of carbon than anyone involved with the EPA. I’ve seen how they do their accounting.

        I will accept the possibility they are more capable than Bailey, our 4 1/2 year old black lab.

      • This is why progressives shouldn’t do math in public.

        “It is not the USA (nor the EU or Japan) that will cause the greatest part of the increase in CO2 emissions (and added atmospheric CO2 concentration) from today to 2100.”

        “False. Americans still emit about 2.5 times that of the Chinese, per capita, and about 11 times that of Indians.”

        U.S. population: 316,668,567

        China population: 1,349,585,838

        India population: 1,220,800,359

        This while U.S. emissions are falling and emissions in the developing world, like China in particular are, are skyrocketing.

        But shhhh…maybe no one will notice.

        Even taking the made up statistics on emissions totals, Chinese emissions alone “will cause the greatest part of the increase in CO2 emissions (and added atmospheric CO2 concentration) from today to 2100.”

      • I’d wager my 19 year old niece is more capable at coming up with a cost of carbon than anyone involved with the EPA.

        Put up or shut up.

      • yes David, do so. Your shrill ad hominems are getting old fast.

      • David,

        I questioned you on your 2.5 times argument before, and heard silence.

        In order to accept that as a valid metric, one has to be willing to own up to what goes with it. And that is your acceptance of forcing Americans into the lifestyle and existance of the average Chinese citizen. You do know what the lifestyle and existance of the average Chinese citizen is, don’t you David?

        On the remote chance you don’t, repeat after me – subsistance farming.

        So how about a bit of honesty on your part? Do you have the integrity to argue your position honestly and tell people what it will take to do that which you so strongly believe we all should be doing?

      • David,

        You haven’t “put up” anything, other than a moralizing attempt to induce guilt.

        You haven’t “put up” evidence of what you are paying.

        You haven’t “put up” evidence of the cost. (Not that we need one. A look at current carbon credit markets will give us that information. Well at least for some places. Seems the US market collapsed awhile back. Does that make the cost zero dollars per ton?)

        You have “put up” your 2.5 and 11 times figure. Let’s see if you have enough “put up” in you to defend it.

      • And that is your acceptance of forcing Americans into the lifestyle and existance of the average Chinese citizen.

        Liar — I said nothing like that at all.

        I said every person should pay for thier pollution.

        Are you against paying for the mess you have caused?

      • This while U.S. emissions are falling and emissions in the developing world, like China in particular are, are skyrocketing.

        I get it — you think you’re special, and should be given more rights to emit carbon than all those damn Chinese.

        Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Pay for your pollution, on a per capita basis. Man up.

      • Let’s see the receipt where you “manned up”. Put up or shut up.

      • You haven’t “put up” anything, other than a moralizing attempt to induce guilt.

        I could list all that. But you don’t understand. This problem cannot be addressed at the individual level, if only because you and so many others here are too selfish to play along. It requires changes at the institutional level, at the societal level. It is society’s problem, and needs to be solved at that level.

      • We do understand. We understand you have yet to source, link or prove any wild arse assertions you have made.

        So either put up or shut up.

      • Olivier, J. G. J., & Peters, J. A. H. W. (2010). No growth in total global CO2 emissions in 2009. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL).

        Per GDP-PPP CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production in 2009
        Rank Country metric tonne per 2005 1000 USD (PPP)
        1 Poland 1046
        2 China 975
        3 South Africa 826
        4 Russia 819
        5 Iran 749
        6 Saudi Arabia 684
        7 India 520
        8 Australia 509
        9 Indonesia 502
        10 Ukraine 489
        11 Thailand 488
        12 Canada 466
        13 South Korea 449
        14 USA 409
        15 Taiwan 389
        16 Mexico 349
        17 Japan 312
        18 Germany 300
        19 Netherlands 267
        20 Italy 256
        21 Spain 252
        22 UK 249
        23 Brazil 208
        24 France 191

        Nuclear power is so darned good. Look at France vs the rest, even with its electricity exports to Britain and Germany.

      • Olivier, J. G. J., & Peters, J. A. H. W. (2010). No growth in total global CO2 emissions in 2009. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL).

        BIG DEAL! It was the year of a major economic recession.

        It says absolutely nothing about the future (which has seen CO2 increases.)

        = dishonest

      • BINGO, Big Deal! C’mon, give it to him; anybody can see he’s got the whole card filled up. Some spaces have two or three on ’em.
        ===========

      • David,

        You should be a bit more careful in calling anyone here a liar. That is slander without proof.

        And your denying the fact that comparing CO2 emissions on a per capita basis is essentially an argument for reducing one’s lifestyle to the level of the average Chinese or Indian farmer doesn’t mean it is not true. The number is irrelevant without making that connection. Guess you value integrity about the same as you do credibility.

      • david appell

        You are totally confused.

        What has happened to date has happened. The industrially developed world has increased its quality of life and average life expectancy immensely as a result of developing an energy infrastructure affording everyone access to a reliable source of energy based on low-cost fossil fuel.

        In the process, global temperature increased by around 0.7C, in multi-decadal fits and spurts that show no statistical correlation to human CO2 emissions whatsoever.

        The world now enjoys a very nice climate, thank you (arguably better than it was 150 years ago as we were still emerging from the Little Ice Age).

        The major portion of projected future (perhaps harmful, perhaps beneficial?) warming from CO2 emissions will come from the developing nations (the “poorest three-quarters”), as they reverse the current “global inequity” in energy use (as the lead article points out). This could be reduced somewhat by maximizing the use of nuclear power for all new power plants.

        No matter how much the USA reduces its future CO2 emissions, it will have no perceptible impact on global temperature by 2100 (as the numbers showed).

        Those are the facts.

        Everything else is hollow posturing.

        Max

      • And your denying the fact that comparing CO2 emissions on a per capita basis is essentially an argument for reducing one’s lifestyle to the level of the average Chinese or Indian farmer doesn’t mean it is not true.

        My God, you people are dense.

        It is about energy, not how it is produced.

        The world needs energy — it does not need fossil fuel energy, per se.

        By all means, take all the energy you want. Just do it in a sustainable manner, that does not alter the climate for 100,000 years.

        Is that really so difficult for you to understand??

      • It is about energy, not how it is produced.

        yet you damn the Oil companies just now! Why? If it is not about how it is produced, the Oil companies are innocent of all charges!

        And you have the unmitigated gall to call others dense?

      • Doc Martyn

        The numbers you showed for GDP per ton of CO2 generated from fossil fuels plus cement production are good for most countries.

        But for nations, such as Brazil and Indonesia, that have a large CO2 emission from deforestation, they are misleading.

        Brazil, for example, would be very close to India if these emissions are included (they look much lower in your list, because the sugar cane ethanol resulting from the deforestation lowers the figure, while the carbon from the deforestation is not shown).

        Indonesia would also have a much higher figure if deforestation CO2 were included.

        Otherwise the list looks good (for today’s situation).

        But, like the lead article tells us, the “global inequity” in energy consumption for the “poorest three-fourths” will be partially corrected as these nations develop an industrial base and, with it, an energy infrastructure and higher quality of life.

        How your list would look in 2100 is anyone’s guess – but it is clear that the USA, EU and Japan are not going to have the major impact on future CO2 emissions and any warming that may result from them.

        So David Appell is talking total nonsense.

        Max

      • Philjourdan, “We do understand. We understand you have yet to source, link or prove any wild arse assertions you have made.”

        Actually, he linked a source then started making wild arse assertions that misrepresent his source.

        like this, “After ranking all the plants according to their damages, we found that the most damaging 10% of plants produced 43% of aggregate air-pollution damages from all plants, and the least damaging 50% of the plants produce less than 12% of aggregate damages.” From his hidden costs of energy link which he attempts to attribute all damages to CARBON in order to promote his carbon tax fetish.

        And this, “As Table 2-7 makes clear, most damages come from SO2 (85%), followed by NOx (7%), PM2.5 (6%) and PM10 (2%). This reflects the size of SO2 and NOx emissions from coal-fired power plants and the damages associated with fine particles formed from SO2 and NOx.24 Directly emitted PM2.5 has very high damages per ton (see Table 2-8), but very little PM2.5 is emitted directly by power plants; most is formed from chemical transformations in the atmosphere.”

        Since the dirty 10% were built before 1970, the warm and fuzzies have kept them in operation longer than planned with their death to coal carbon tax planning where they will bankrupt anyone building a coal fire plant. Luckily for the idiots, private sector natural gas exploration is producing a cleaner alternative which they have also fought because they are warm and fuzzy idiots.

        His link – http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12794&page=88

        $3 per ton will let them play with a few hundred Solandras per year with a few A123s and Fiskers for good luck plus fund thousands of studies that will be obsolete by the time they clear pal review.

      • You are correct. I should have said linked a source that supported his assertions. I read his link. It did not support his point.

    • Matthew R Marler

      David Appell: So you think this is a joke — that you should be allowed to pollute for free.

      No. That was an exhortation to you to think things through. The effects of warming since WWII are largely beneficial, and negative consequences are hypothesized (by Prof. Curry) for the distant future. If you are going to talk about money, and if CO2 was responsible for the warming, then the people who benefited from the warming owe something (at least abstractly) to the people who produced the CO2.

      • Consider how much colder it would now be without AnthroCO2 and then start reaching for your wallet. The higher you believe sensitivity is, the more you pay.
        =========

      • The effects of warming since WWII are largely beneficial

        What calculation shows this?
        Include the effects of ocean acidification.

      • The oceans are not acidic.

        But you are welcome to show the pH of the oceans for the past 100 years. And all supporting documentation.

      • Show me the harms, David Appell, of the warming since the Little Ice Age. Show me the harms of the next such aliquot of warming.
        ==================

    • What you mean is that I am ‘Free’ only as far as fascists like yourself allow me.

      WIse up and be honest — there is no fascist boot on your neck. Your choices are all your own. Be a man and step up to them.

      • The only way you would pay your fair share is if the government instigates a ‘fair’ tax on people Body Mass Index.
        Why is it that you believe the ‘science’ of climate change, but not the ‘science’ behind obesity, a sedentary lifestyle and a high fat/high carbohydrate diet?
        Seriously, your photo shows a man with a BMI closer to 35 than to 25, you have the classic signs of poor lymph drainage indicating you exercise less than 30 minutes a day.
        Don’t you know that each pound of excess fat is a hundred miles of blood vessels?
        Be a real man and step up out of that chair, get some exercise, cut most of that fat/sugar and carbohydrate you stuff yourself with and follow the advice that medical science has suggested all your damned life.

      • Seriously, your photo shows a man with a BMI closer to 35 than to 25, you have the classic signs of poor lymph drainage indicating you exercise less than 30 minutes a day.

        That’s just the kind of classless observation I’ve come to expect from your type… and stop stalking me.

      • When the government can no longer pay for the drugs to treat obesity, atherosclerosis, diabetes and hypertension, it will tell us to “Work for Food”.
        ===========

      • ” and stop stalking me.”

        I have be a regular here for a long good while and have never told other posters that they have a duty to behave in a manner I believe is moral.
        I am not an American, but I emigrated here, in part, because of the American dream and thirst for freedom.

        You start posting here, linking to studies full of unsubstantiated crap, appealing to authority and damning those who disagree as morally inferior. You only offer fascism, painted Green, for the future.
        You ignore all evidence that challenges your shallow analysis and self-indulgent historical/social views and instead use the shot-gun method of argument, going off in all directions.
        You and your views are enlightening, but not in a good way.
        Why not move to DailyKos or DemocraticUndergound, where you belong?

      • Why not move to DailyKos or DemocraticUndergound, where you belong?

        Because it’s much more fun to show up people like you.
        (Yes, you.)

      • Why not move to DailyKos or DemocraticUndergound, where you belong?

        I think of David as more of a “skeptic” (although not a “climate skeptic”) than anything else – and as such, he is in very good company at this here blog.

      • David Appell:
        “Accounting is a necessary job, but it is certainly not science.”

        Bachelor of Science in Business. All these years of lying to myself. I even have a lab coat.

      • Bachelor of Science in Business.

        WOW!!

        (Sorry, but not very impressive, as degrees go.)

      • Someone has to write the checks.

      • So you are not impressed by Ragnaar’s degree. What does impress you?

        I happen to have three. BA/History ; MS/Environmental Science & Engineering ; MS/Management of Science & Technology.

        I was hired as an Engineer at Nuclear power plant with just the History degree and was selected for the national standards board for my area of expertise.

        So feel free to denigrate any or all of my degrees. I don’t really care if your carbon footprint is smaller or your penis bigger. At the end of the day people will know who is the juvenile in short pants.

      • Show up? Yep, you showed up.
        =======

      • Not yet – we have not allowed you to wear boots.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Joshua: (although not a “climate skeptic”)

        Just so. Posting on a blog devoted to “Climate Etc.”, he is a true believer in catastrophic anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming. His skepticism extends to doubting that crop yields have increased since the end of the little ice age, and doubting that fewer people freeze in the winter.

    • David Appell,

      US CO2 emissions 2008 – 5.5 billion tons @ 3USD/t= 19.2 billion USD
      Less Foreign food aid.~41 Billion USD

      China CO2 emissions 2008 – 7.3 billion tons @ 3USD/t=22.5 billion USD
      Less Foreign aid ~8 Billion USD

      Looks like the polluters are running a surplus using Mosher’s numbers without be forced to donate. Prosperity appears to breed generosity. I don’t know how reliable the numbers are. The total Chinese foreign aid is supposed to be ~39 billion since 1950, but the “aid” included forgiving mature loans and is increasing by 30% per year, if you believe the guardian

      http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2011/apr/28/china-foreign-aid-policy-report

      • $3/t is an absurd figure.

      • Prove it.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Yeh – the current spot price in Europe is US$5.85.

      • Yeh – the current spot price in Europe is US$5.85.

        That is not the social price of carbon.
        That is only what government policies charge for carbon.
        There is a vast difference.

      • It probably is the social cost since you have not provided any documentation to support your own hysteria.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You confuse me with someone who gives a rat’s arse for what you think the ‘social price’ of carbon dioxide is.

      • David Appell, “$3/t is an absurd figure.”

        Not really. That is for tons of CO2 not C so multiply by 3.67 or about $10 USD per ton if you want to compare to the carbon spot price. The social cost will be that generosity can be retroactively applied to carbon taxation. Even China is providing foreign aid with millions of poor in its own country. There is a crap load of government and private organizations doing more than their fair share to help the under privileged of the world for political and compassionate reasons. Many are more than willing to tell you to F off.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Not really Dallas – the spot price is always quoted for CO2 equivalent. I was just being lazy.

      • Not really.

        Yes, it is. It is nowhere near the ballpark of what climate economists are finding.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Oh please. I am an environmental scientist with some experience of triple bottom line accounting. You make impossible assertions. Little wonder you have no credibility.

      • Chief I was going by what David said “The social cost of Carbon” since it acceptable to go either way. With coal at $40 per ton, the $3 CO2 tax is equivalent to a 20% increase in energy cost. His $35 per ton would be nearly doubling the cost of coal if it were a “Carbon” tax and insane if it were a CO2 tax.

      • Oh please. I am an environmental scientist with some experience of triple bottom line accounting.

        Accounting is a necessary job, but it is certainly not science.
        Stick to what you know.

      • Neither is pontificating science.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I was going by your figures that quote CO2.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        So really degrees in environmental science and hydrology not good enough for you? You should stick to what you know – sfa it seems.

        We were talking environmental economics and I do understand how this is done.

      • “That is not the social price of carbon”
        Ah, ‘social price’. So we are dealing with Climate science where words have quite different meanings than in any other area.
        What is the true ‘social price’ of the export of Western intellectual property to the third world?
        We, the biomedical scientists, have collapsed the maternal and infant death rates and extended the average life-span of people living in the Third World by more than a third in 30 years.
        So biomedical scientists, like myself, must have accumulated ‘social credit’. Well, I want mine. As you think only the First World wealthy have to pay, I want you to personally fund the ‘social capital’ the Third World owes those in medical research and production.

      • So really degrees in environmental science and hydrology not good enough for you?

        IMO a degree (just a B.S.?) buys you a seat at the table.
        That’s it.
        The rest you have to earn.
        Nothing I’ve read from you has been very impressive.

      • I guess you have no seat at the table.

      • David Appell, Since you are a professional communicator and advocate, perhaps you can explain why some think that $35 per ton is huge? Mosher’s $3 per ton results in roughly a 20% tax on the commodity producing the CO2 and yours has to approximately double the cost of energy. You are throwing out incoherent numbers and demanding the “rich” pay your price. Justify it David.

      • David Appell, Since you are a professional communicator and advocate, perhaps you can explain why some think that $35 per ton is huge?

        I don’t.

      • David Appell , “I don’t.” Don’t what? Communicate? Advocate? Understand that Carbon Tax is a vague term? Understand the $35/ton is a 100% plus energy tax?

        I don’t mean this in a bad way, but when Mosher tosses out a tidbit he is generally setting someone up.

      • I don’t mean this in a bad way, but when Mosher tosses out a tidbit he is generally setting someone up.

        I have no idea what this means. Good-bye.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        A pissing contest David? I have a degree in Engineering specialising in hydrology and a Masters Degree in Environmental Science and have been studying relevant aspects of climate for decades.

        e.g. http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/06/irresponsible-advocacy-by-scientists/#comment-361167

        You’re a jumped up science journalist with degrees in physics and experience in IT? Hardly all that interesting once you move past the simple radiative physics. Actually – you should move onto nonequilibrium thermodynamics and nonlinear systems.

        Actually – I am a bit of a jumped up science journalist myself. Just a hell of a lot more interesting than you.

      • I have a degree in Engineering specialising in hydrology and a Masters Degree in Environmental Science and have been studying relevant aspects of climate for decades.

        Wow. Just like everyone I know.

        Those get you a seat at the table. What you do with it then is up to you — and nothing I’ve seen from you has been at all impressive.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I hypothesized ‘the pause’ and wrote about it in 2007 – after the IPCC totally squibed it.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html

        Some of us have come a long way since. Some of us not so much.

      • I’m glad you agree that “the pause” is a mere artifact of oceanic weather — i.e. ENSOs — created by a large El Nino in 1998 and two La Ninas in recent years.

        Accounting for these, Foster and Rahmstorf have shown that greenhouse warming continues unabated, which is the most important message of all this.

      • PS: Do you honestly think anyone takes “American Thinker” seriously?

        It is a joke, on par with Newsmax and the like. No one — absolutely no one — expects anything like journalism from it.

      • P.S. Yes, serious people take it seriously. Serious people do not take you seriously.

      • “Those get you a seat at the table. What you do with it then is up to you — and nothing I’ve seen from you has been at all impressive.”

        The Chief Baby also has a single scientific publication, accepted to the hack journal Energy & Environment. That should allow him to sit at the kiddie’s table.

      • Energy and Environment!!?
        OMG.
        Chief really doesn’t have any personal pride, does he?
        LOL.

      • “OMG” and “LOL?”

        Ahhh…you’re a valley girl. That explains so much.

      • Matthew R Marler

        David Appell: Accounting for these, Foster and Rahmstorf have shown that greenhouse warming continues unabated, which is the most important message of all this.

        Foster and Rahmstorf have shown that they could come up with a model, post hoc, that included bot CO2 and other effects that can’t be rejected on present data. Equivalently, you can write a model that fits the data equally well with a model that has CO2 a consequence of warming (that was done by Murray Salby.) Which of the dozens (hundreds if you include Girma and Vukcevik and others) of models is “correct”, or makes an accurate prediction of the future, is undecidable on present evidence.

        Salby’s model has some advantages: he shows CO2 change as a function of temperature, but temperature change as independent of CO2 concentration, when you use estimates of rate of change. It is not, naturally, “bullet proof”, but it is irrefutable on present evidence. That is, attempted “refutations” have problems of their own.

      • “Salby’s model has some advantages: he shows CO2 change as a function of temperature, but temperature change as independent of CO2 concentration, when you use estimates of rate of change. It is not, naturally, “bullet proof”, but it is irrefutable on present evidence.”

        I used to think of Marler as the only reasonable skeptic in this commenting area, able to contribute statistics knowledge, but since he has gone off the deep end in believing that excess CO2 is not caused by fossil fuel combustion, he has become a full-bore denier.

        It is really not that hard to lift a pencil, desk-check the numbers, and thereby prove Salby wrong. I now consider Marler like The Chief, all bluster and no substance.

  5. “For the sake of argument, lets assume that the IPCC consensus is roughly correct regarding dangerous anthropogenic climate change, with the dangers becoming apparent in the latter half of the 21st century, and mitigation of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is necessary, urgent, imperative (or whatever the latest word being used in professional society advocacy statements).

    How do you square this climate policy ‘imperative’ with the real need right now of the majority of the people on the planet for greater access to energy? ”

    Nuclear.

  6. Well, a full explanation of my opinion (and suggestions) would take at least a long post, more likely a book. But briefly, a simplistic summary of my current answer centers around methane.

    We need a near-term focus on increasing methane production from existing and near-term sources: existing, fracking, and sea-floor methane. This feeds the switchover of fixed energy plants from coal and oil, and as many as feasible of transport technology as well. (e.g. trains, big trucks, shipping, and perhaps aircraft.) Fixed power production should also switch from very large fixed plants to small installations capable of being transported by helicopter and/or truck, feeding an electrical grid much more concentrated on local generation. Short term changes to local demand can thus be met much more quickly, without the construction and right-of-way issues involved in large-scale transport. Power production capacity can also be reused when local demand drops, simply by shipping the power plants to new locations.

    Medium-term should see a focus on nuclear, especially including solar, power. Rather than feeding the grid directly, electrolysis to hydrogen followed by bio-conversion to methane will allow leveraging long-term investments in methane-fired technology. Once the generation, storage, and transport safety issues are worked out with mature technology, hydrogen can replace methane for new construction. Other possibilities include electrolytic creation of metallic sodium, which would certainly be effective in fixed fuel-cell installations, although I’m not certain about vehicles.

    Long-term, of course, is Space Solar Power.

    • Pielke mentioned specifically sub-Saharan Africa. How do you get methane and NG there. You can compress it and ship it there by road vehicle but that is expensive. You can build pipelines but that is expensive as well. It really depends on whether the specific area has a local geologic reserve and that is hit and miss. Some places have no fossil fuel potential.

      Pielke is preening like he has an answer, but he doesn’t even know the question.

      • Sub-Saharan Africa may have to wait until solar/hydrogen/biomethane comes on-line. My guess is 10-15 years.

      • Another possibility is using air-cushion vehicles to transport LNG. This technology might be able to take over a good deal of ship/truck traffic at similar fuel efficiencies. Biggest problem with air-cushion is IT (control), which is advancing fast. Biggest benefit is it can go anywhere even roughly flat.

      • Interesting thoughts, AK, nice balance between realism and thinking outside the box. The air-cushion vehicles were at one time prototyped for the arctic, one hovercraft barge got stuck rescuing a whale.

      • Then what happened to the whale,.. what a story!

      • If you replace wood burning with coal in the 3rd world, would this be overall net good or bad as far as pollution and global warming?

        If you burn fewer trees and emit CO2, is it possible there will be some greening and moister soil? Will there be a change in albedo between
        dark soil and green vegetation that would tend to reflect sunlight?

        I don’t know the answers but I automatically try to look at multiple angles and ask all the questions. I also want to keep the effect of our policies on the 3rd world in mind. We would not want to keep people locked in disease and poverty while only decreasing our own CO2 by only token amounts. Does our gasohol policy increase hunger and starvation in the world. How much does 15 Solyandra’s contribute to either CO2 reduction or helping those in the 3rd world?

      • Maybe they put a tracking device on it, or maybe a collar, or maybe they used a tranquilizer dart on it, or flew it out on a helo?… Scientists care so much about stuff they love, they kill with their kindness along with a picture or two…

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/06/starved-polar-bear-record-sea-ice-melt

        Lucky for the whale that he was too fat too. So many questions not a lot of answers right now.

      • Actually, southern Africa has massive coal reserves – in fact, many coal deposits there have been spontaneously combusting for centuries.

      • South Africa has large coal reserves. South Africa is, however, not what most have in mind, when they discuss development of Sub-Saharan Africa. Rest of Africa has very little coal, while some countries have sizable oil and gas reserves.

        Several African countries have also large hydro power reserves, Congo so large that it has been proposed that it could export power South to South Africa or North to Europe.

      • Tom,

        the whale is sooo yesterday. You need to keep current. It’s the polar bear. Yes, that is THE, as in singular, one, less than two. Poor baby was murdered by climate change. (Ok, it wasn’t a baby polar bear. That would have been too good of a story. I believe it was 18, which in polar bear years is about the same as my 88 year old dad.)

        Perhaps we should take up a collection for its funeral service. That might help David sleep a little better tonight.

      • Tell your Dad he’s now playing with a full keyboard.
        ==========

      • @whut…

        Here’s another thought: based on Friend et el. (1989), the density of methane at 200 atm (20MP)/280 K is about 2/5 of liquid, ~160 Kg/m^3. This is roughly the pressure and temperature 2Km down in the ocean. Floating pipelines this far down might be an economical way to transport large amounts of methane over global distances. Pipelines not needing to contain significant pressure or temperature differences might be economical enough to justify a large distribution network.

        Assuming, of course, that technology for operating at such depths has already become mature through methane hydrate development.

        Friend et el. (1989) Thermophysical Properties of Methane by Daniel G. Friend, James F. Ely, and Hepburn Ingham J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 18, 583 (1989)

      • Marlowe Johnson

        It seems to me that Pielke is being a stealth advocate, but of course I must be wrong…he wouldn’t do that.

      • The interior peoples in Kenya cut down trees everywhere and make charcoal. This is then shipped everywhere nearby for fuel. It’s all they have and its an ugly sight.

  7. > To those scientists that are advocating for a global emissions reduction policy, have you thought this one through?

    Is this a rhetorical question?

  8. Arcs_n_Sparks

    Time to be serious and aggressive with small modular reactor development and deployment. For those worried about proliferation, a ten year sealed reactor core could be “returned to sender” from countries of concern (the Boeing model; no need for them to develop a nuclear infrastructure to enjoy the benefit). Next, use nuclear power to make transportation fuels like dimethyl ether.

  9. The problem is even more wicked. Given the current order of things in the financial world, most of the additional energy consumption that is needed for the 75% will never get to them; most of the additional production will be consumed by the 10%. There is no such thing as “cheap” energy supplies in an overpopulated and violent world where “big fish eats little fish.”

    • It must be nice to live in a reality free zone.

      If there were no such thing as “cheap energy,” all you air headed progressives wouldn’t be trying to hard to get government to make them skyrocket.

      Decarbonizing the global economy only works even as far as you deluded CAGWers are concerned if the whole planet decarbonizes.

      Let’s see a show of hands of everyone here who has ever seen a paper by one of these enlightened geniuses proposing how to lift the Chinese, Indians, Russians, and Africans out of the economic bronze age in the midst of their delusional takeover of the world energy economy.

      Why are there no such papers? Because they don’t give a damn. Progressives (movement progressives anyway) only care about people in the abstract, as a means to power. The actual massive numbers of individual people who pay the price for their fantasies…they couldn’t care less.

      • Let’s see a show of hands of everyone here who has ever seen a paper by one of these enlightened geniuses proposing how to lift the Chinese, Indians, Russians, and Africans out of the economic bronze age in the midst of their delusional takeover of the world energy economy.

        All this does is highlight the immense seriousness of the world’s carbon problem.

        Sure, you can ignore it. But you will then suffer the consequences. If that’s your position, then fine, that’s your position. But many of us are not yet prepared to throw in the towel.

      • “All this does is highlight the immense seriousness of the world’s carbon problem.”

        No, it shows you so called progressives don’t give a damn about progress or people. You care about power. Period. People can go to hell in a hand basket. You’ll even subsidize the basket, as long as the maker makes campaign contributions to the right politician.

        The poverty those billions are still mired in? It’s a result of their countries being run by economic illiterates and power hungry opportunists.

        And it isn’t a question of your throwing in the towel. It is a question of whether the world will let you keep the third world in poverty, and return the first world to it, because of your delusions. So far – nope.

        You are managing to damage western economies. But the dictators and the kleptocrats who run the rest of the world are not stupid enough to put their own necks in the noose, just so you can tell yourself you have saved the world 100 years from now.

      • Baloney. All we’re asking is that your pollution not alter the climate for the next 100,000 years, and you’re so selfish you can’t even agree to that.

      • Easy – Prove that any pollution has altered the climate yet.

        Note, the word proof requires proof, not allegations and models.

        When you have done so, bring it to us so we can verify your work.

      • All this warming can do, the fuzzy little blanket that it is, is benefit us for the next 100,000 years during which we face a great deal of cold. I don’t think it will benefit us much past the end of the Holocene, though, weak as the warming effect is. And you call it ‘pollution’. I know obscenity when I see it, and you drip with it, David.
        ========================

      • David,

        The most likely thing any of us here will suffer is having to listen to your moralizing.

        The most likely thing you will suffer is a loss of credibility.

      • There are two problems. The first and more immediate problem is the savage jump in global temperature that will be caused by human emissions between 1900 and 2200.

        Second, further out that jump into the antropocene will create a platform of high temperature which leaves the Earth prone to plunging much further downwards than usual into the next glacial period once the human greenhouse gases eventually pull from the atmosphere.

        Such a sudden jerk risks destabilizing the planet.

        Fortunately cooling is unlikely to ever be a problem for humans again as by the time it does happen (many 100s of years) our technology is likely to be sufficiently advanced to control matters.

      • “the savage jump in global temperature”

        SAGW?

      • RE:

        Baloney. All we’re asking is that your pollution not alter the climate for the next 100,000 years …

        David, you don’t just stumble over the track when you go off the rails, you manage a high speed passenger train collision with a freight train hauling a combination of LNG, ammonia nitrate and nuclear waste.

        This blows away lolwot’s year 2200 comment.

      • Lordy.

        “the savage jump in global temperature”

        We have a new meme, Houston. :lol:

      • David, you don’t just stumble over the track when you go off

        Another reply with zero scientific content.
        Par for the course on this blog.

      • Since you started commenting, the scientific content has gone down.

      • “David Appell .
        All we’re asking is that your pollution not alter the climate for the next 100,000 year”
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg
        In the typical 100,000 year time period the planet is on average 6 degrees cooler than now and the glaciers cover the Mid-West.
        If the CO2 we inject into the atmosphere now, stops humankind from suffering an ice-age for the coming 100,000 years then all our decedents will praise us for our foresight and dedication toward them.

      • If the CO2 we inject into the atmosphere now, stops humankind from suffering an ice-age for the coming 100,000 years then all our decedents will praise us for our foresight and dedication toward them.

        Baloney. You have no such knowledge of what future people will think.

        All it takes to prevent the next ice age is about 20-30 ppmv CO2. We are wildly overshooting the mark, putting a huge number of species in peril. (Not that I expect you to care about anyone but yourself.)

      • Got some evidence for your outlandish claim? I have never seen that in print. Perhaps you can link to it? can you link to anything?

      • Not only do progressive doom-sayers not write papers
        proposing how ter lift third-world societies out of the
        economic bronze age, they want ter take us back ter
        the bronze age, (golden age ) too.

        A serf-who-escaped-the …

      • David,

        Discussing any sort of science with you is difficult, as you don’t really argue science. You simply tell others they aren’t worthy

      • Whoa, Nellie, David Appell thinks 20-30 ppm of CO2 can prevent the next Ice Age or at least he makes that claim.

        By golly, he’s coming around. Shall I tell him about the Ice Age that anthroCO2 has already prevented then?
        =====================

    • Luis,

      Please feel free to do your part to make this overpopulated and violent world just a little bit less over populated.

      • You’re gonna need a bigger boat.
        ==========================

      • So the world is suffering from over-population, warming and too many nuclear weapons sitting around doing nothing.
        If the ‘nuclear winter’ hypothesis is correct we could lob a few nuke’s at large population centers, increase the aerosols and also provide the climate scientist which a whole bunch of radionuclides to trace through the biosphere; its a winner.
        Wait until the progressives get a hold of it.

  10. New paper finds CO2 emissions self-regulate as economic prosperity increases, without carbon taxes

    A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds that CO2 emissions are essentially self-regulating, that after countries reach a higher GDP level, CO2 emissions stabilize or even decrease, without the imposition of carbon taxes. According to the authors, “Evidence from recent four decades indicates that per capita carbon dioxide emission first significantly and monotonously increase at low income level and flattens after per capita income reaches at about 22,000 $ (2005 constant price).” “A ‘first-rise-then-flat’ relationship of carbon dioxide per capita and GDP per capita was found”, which suggests carbon taxes are unnecessary to stabilize emissions in higher GDP countries.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-co2-emissions-self.html

    • Come on. The “self-regulation” in the US is hardly enough, from a per capita peak of about 22 t CO2/yr to (now) 17 t CO2/yr. That’s hardly anything like what is needed, and even if all coal-generated power were replaced by natural gas, the savings aren’t nearly enough — it only gets you down to about 15 t CO2/yr:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-if-natural-gas-produced-all-our.html

      • US miles driven per capita reached a peak around 2005.

        More like a long-term recession brought on by high fuel prices caused by liquid fuel scarcity.

        So, concerning the “self-regulation” :
        It wasn’t the genius of economic prosperity so much as the inevitable decline of a highly concentrated form of fossil fuel that got us there in the first place.

      • Doug Badgero

        “More like a long-term recession brought on by high fuel prices caused by liquid fuel scarcity.”

        No, brought on by world monetary policy. The highest average annual cost of oil occurred in 1980, during another period of monetary induced inflation.

      • If you consider the difference in efficiencies it is better than that, but if you eliminate coal and natgas for power generation you are still stuck with around 66% of the original emissions. Replacing gasoline/diesel with natural gas is not worth the effort wrt CO2 emissions and electric vehicles charged with natural gas power generation is not much better than using gas/diesel (worse if you consider the energy use in manufacture).

        So let’s say we magically hit the best efficiency mix, you may get to 12 t CO2 per person per year. China and India will wipe out all of that and much more in the mean time.

        What you need is something truly innovativethinking . Not something you read about in the green addition of popular mechanics 20 years ago. Not a butt load of regulations that will never produce what you think we “need” anyway, but some outside the box creativity or a near extinction event.

      • David wants the US to return to 3rd world energy poverty with a per capita GDP of < $6000/yr. That will solve "the problem" by bringing CO2 emissions down to a "safe" level as demonstrated by this paper, based upon economic data from 132 countries.

        Or not, as well-known alarmists claim CO2 emissions have to be reduced to zero plus CO2 removed using geoengineering in order to save the planet from warming "in the pipeline."

        We are doomed, I tell you, DOOMED, if we continue with our economic "prosperity."

      • James Hamilton has shown that all but one of the 11 postwar recessions were associated with an increas in the price of oil, the exception being 1960.

        Badgero would consider those all just coincidences.

        Look up Hamilton’s paper “Historical Oil Shocks”

      • Doug Badgero

        The issue is not whether oil price spikes contribute to recession, but what caused the oil price spike.

      • David Appell

        Even if you get US per capita CO2 emissions down to ZERO today, you still will not change the global temperature by 2100 by more than 0.2C.

        So fuggidaboudit, David. It’s a silly idea that will achieve ZILCH.

        The developing world (the “poorest three-fourths” of the article) will continue to develop, increasing the quality of life of its inhabitants.

        And it will do so just like we did in the last century – by creating an infrastructure that guarantees everyone a reliable supply of low cost energy. And this will most likely be primarily from fossil fuel, with the possibility of some nuclear generation and a smidgen of solar/wind for electrical power.

        All your talk about “pollution” and the “social cost” of CO2 emissions is simply silly BS that has nothing to do with the real issue at hand, which is how make sure the “poorest three-fourths” can improve the quality of life of their inhabitants by resolving the “global inequity” in energy consumption.

        Max


      • Doug Badgero | August 7, 2013 at 6:05 pm |

        The issue is not whether oil price spikes contribute to recession, but what caused the oil price spike.

        How about gasoline shortages, Suez Canal crisis, OPEC oil embargo, USA peak oil, Iranian revolution, Iran/Iraq war, Gulf War 1 & 2, strong demand, supply constraints, and now world peak oil ?

        Read about how oil shocks lead to recession here:
        http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/oil_history.pdf

        The point is that the world economy is so dependent on crude oil to keep its engine running, that any significant shocks to its flow can cause massive recessionary responses.

        The mathematical oil shock model works well to pinpoint the timing of these perturbations.

      • whut,

        You have finally convinced me. Even short term interruptions of fossil fuel distribution cause serious, harmful economic disruptions. I therefore hereby abandon my support for the idiotic progressive public policy of decarbonization.

        I now believe in the grace of the free market and skepticism of the mass hysteria commonly referred to as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

        Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
        That saved a wretch like me….
        I once was lost but now am found,
        Was blind, but now, I see.

        T’was Grace that taught…
        my heart to fear.
        And Grace, my fears relieved.
        How precious did that Grace appear…
        the hour I first believed.

      • ” I therefore hereby abandon my support for the idiotic progressive public policy of decarbonization. “

        Gary, do you need paralegal help to craft an effective sarcastic comment?

      • whut,

        The word you are looking for is parody. In this case a form of sarcasm, but limited by its subject matter.


      • GaryM | August 8, 2013 at 12:59 am |

        whut,

        The word you are looking for is parody. In this case a form of sarcasm, but limited by its subject matter.

        A parody is an exaggerated imitation of behavior, and I don’t know anyone to break out into song, so I wouldn’t classify what you wrote as parody, unless it is very bad parody.

      • Doug Badgero

        “The point is that the world economy is so dependent on crude oil to keep its engine running, that any significant shocks to its flow can cause massive recessionary responses.”

        No argument there. However, there is also a similar response when a housing correction occurs, or any other large structural mis-allocation of capital for that matter.

      • People wanta blame housing, and naive dependence on inadequate models for the recession, but misunderestimated is the misallocation of capital caused by this social mania of fear of a catastrophe, oddly from a naive dependence on inadequate models.

        Sure, I think bots ought to be revered, but never deified. We are, after all, human.
        =============

      • WebHub: “The point is that the world economy is so dependent on crude oil to keep its engine running, that any significant shocks to its flow can cause massive recessionary responses.”

        You’re highlighteng one of its many aspects. We’ve heard talk of theromstats. Oil prices are the thermostat of the economy. Kind of anyways. Perhaps it explains a lot of the passion we see in the debate.

    • Not to mention that stabilizing emissions (even if this thesis is correct) doesn’t really solve the problem as that is still a far cry from stabilizing the concentration.

      • What problem? You mean the 0.008C warming averted by 2050 from a US 20% reduction of CO2 emissions? Ok, got it.

        http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator

      • You mean the 0.008C warming averted by 2050 from a US 20% reduction of CO2 emissions?

        So you agree that much higher cutbacks are needed to affect temperatures?

        Glad to have you onboard.

      • No, I do not, and have over 2000 posts demonstrating why. Even the 0.008C allegedly averted is based upon highly flawed overly-CO2-sensitive climate models incapable of modeling the past, much less the future.

      • So you admit you are presenting bad statistics here?

        Climate models do a pretty good job of modeling the past — see the IPCC 4AR WG1 section on model validation.

      • David

        Please post a link to evidence your claim about ar4 showing that models do a good job of modelling the past

        Tonyb

      • Please post a link to evidence your claim about ar4 showing that models do a good job of modelling the past.

        It’s easily found at ipcc.ch. If you don’t care enough to look for it on your own, you certainly won’t read anything I provide.

      • They did not ask where it was, but for a link.

        Put up or shut up.

      • David

        You have made a claim. Please evidence it instead of airily pointing to a large document. I have never seen the accurate models you cite and if you can’t link to them I will assume you have made a mistake.
        Tonyb

      • Tonyb: That inforamation is very easily found.
        You could have found it already, in the time you’re spend here whining about it.
        You clearly aren’t serious. Don’t expect any further replies.

      • If the information is very easily found, then it is also very easily linked to. Stop procrastinating. You always do that when challenged.

        You will not get away with it here. Either produce the documentation, or admit you lied.

      • Appell says So you admit you are presenting bad statistics here?

        Has nothing to do with statistics, it is based upon overly-CO2-sensitive climate models and thus 0.008C warming is an over-estimate.

        Appell says Climate models do a pretty good job of modeling the past — see the IPCC 4AR WG1 section on model validation.

        Every single one of the 73 IPCC climate models are overly-sensitive to CO2:

        http://www.redstate.com/files/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-620px.png

        Even the IPCC admits the models have not been validated and that they don’t even know how to validate the models:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/un-ipcc-scientist-asks-tough-questions.html

        My most recent 100 posts, the vast majority from peer-reviewed papers, on the abject failure of climate models:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=models&max-results=100&by-date=true

      • David

        I have never seen these accurate historical models you claim and it appears you agree there is no such evidence to back up your claim otherwise you wouod have cited it by now. You were merely arm waving weren’t you?
        Tonyb

      • John Carpenter

        “Climate models do a pretty good job of modeling the past — see the IPCC 4AR WG1 section on model validation.”

        I, myself, do a pretty good job at predicting what happens in the past too! Go ahead, I’ll prove it to you, pick a date in the last 100 years, I bet I can tell you what happened on that day. Is that enough validation to tell you what I think might happen next week? Next year? Next decade? Next century? Until models can make better forecasts that mirror observation over the next 10 to 30 years, we really won’t have a true validation. That’s a long time to wait to see. And since we have nothing else to compare to, i.e. we don’t have another well documented AGW event where CO2 was believed to be the driver to compare to, we can’t validate that way either. Hind casting does not appear to be a true validation technique seeing as observation appears to be on the very, very low end of model prediction and may fall out of line if the pause continues a few more years.

      • This blog is about science. How about presenting some science? Redstate.com is the exact opposite of science.

      • No, Redstate is a source. It has science in it. If you disagree, refute it. But you are in no position to dismiss it out of hand. You have yet to produce a single source yourself.

      • Steven Mosher

        Tonyb

        you are correct. climate models dont do a very good job on the past.
        Either in Ar4 or Ar5.

        This is well known

      • I forget David, who is blue again? It has changed over the years.

      • David Appell

        Let’s say the USA simply “shut down”.

        No more CO2 emissions.

        Back to the Stone Age.

        What impact would this have on the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (whew!) by 2100?

        Try your hand at calculating this.

        Have a go at it – I’ll check your numbers and results.

        Max

      • Appell weasels again from the issue at hand to an ad hom against Red state, which absolutely nothing to do with the fact that every single one of the 73 IPCC AR5 models are over-sensitive to CO2. That graph was produced by John Christy, not Red State, and is from his congressional testimony.

      • Let’s say the USA simply “shut down”.

        That is a dumb assumption.
        Yes, dumb.
        Not worth wasting time on.
        All you have pointed out is the immense deepness of the world’s carbon problem.

      • It is called a hypothetical David. I am sure you have no idea what that is, but it is a good question, and one that needs to be answered. I notice that when you have no answers, you are not honest and admit that, but simply attack the inquisitor.

      • Appell weasels again from the issue at hand to an ad hom against Red state, which absolutely nothing to do with the fact that every single one of the 73 IPCC AR5 models are over-sensitive to CO2.

        Then present science that shows this, not some ideological Web site run by scientific know-nothings.

      • He did not present anything from the IPCC, so your silly insult was wasted.

      • David Appell

        To make it easy for you, I’ve gone ahead and made the calculation of how much global warming could be averted by 2100 by a total USA shutdown today.

        It is 0.2C (using IPCC’s arguably exaggerated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 3C.

        Not really a “big deal”, is it?

        Let’s go through the numbers

        The world is estimated to generate around 3800 GtCO2 from today to 2100, with no USA cutback.

        The USA generates 5.3 GtCO2/year today, so a “shut down” would avoid 461 GtCO2 over the period 2013-2100.

        Half the CO2 emitted “remains” in the atmosphere, so this would be 1900 GtCO2 with no USA shutdown and 1669 GtCO2 with a USA shutdown.

        Today’s atmospheric CO2 concentration is 395 ppmv. So this added CO2 would result in an atmospheric CO2 concentration by 2100 of 638 ppmv with no shutdown and 609 ppmv with the USA shutdown.

        The net impact on temperature (using IPCC’s 2xCO2 ECS of 3C) equals 0.2C

        Ouch!

        Much ado about nothing, David.

        Max

      • “You mean the 0.008C warming averted by 2050 from a US 20% reduction of CO2 emissions?”

        Why are you focusing on the US only?

        That’s like telling a single voter their one vote only influences the election by 0.0001% and therefore they shouldn’t bother voting.

      • Matthew R Marler

        David Appell: This blog is about science. How about presenting some science? Redstate.com is the exact opposite of science.

        That specific link has more science than you have presented. You should check it out.

      • Not really a “big deal”, is it?

        All your calculation shows is the seriousness of the carbon problem — just what many of us have been saying for some time.

      • There is no “carbon” problem unless you are silicon based life and seek to eradicate the “Carbon based units infesting the planet”.

      • you are correct. climate models dont do a very good job on the past.
        Either in Ar4 or Ar5.

        And how well do your climate models do?

      • He is not touting his models. You are touting models that cannot even predict the past. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

      • tony,

        You are forgetting the rules. It is do as David tells you, not as he does.

        David is special. He not only is the holder of the truth on this issue, he’s a more moral person. That counts for something, right?

      • manaker,

        Only calculations count. Arithmatic doesn’t rise to the level of calculation for David. He’s well past that stage and into the real science stuff. You know, stuff with calculations.

      • It is do as David tells you, not as he does.

        I bet my carbon footprint is far smaller than your’s.
        Last time I calculated it it was 6 t CO2/yr.
        Though, again, this problem cannot be solved on the individual level.

      • I bet it is not. But the only way to prove it, is to produce your footprint.

        And all those conferences you jet to are not going to help your lie.

        Show us the receipts.

      • He’s well past that stage and into the real science stuff.

        Absolutely — if you can’t present facts, your claims are meaningless. THough I’m well aware that most of you have been spoiled by being able to claim anything and everything on any blog out there, including this one. It doesn’t cut it for anyone who knows science.

      • You have yet to present a single fact. So all your claims are meaningless – by your own admission.

      • David,

        What goes into your calculation of your footprint? I’d need to know that to make sure any calculation I did was apples to apples.

        Do I have to count the miles I drive from Seattle to Portland when I’m headed down for my non-profit work in science education? Or do I get a special dispensation. Can I total up my donations to organizations such as Mercy Corp and subtract them from my carbon footprint? And if so, how much latitude do I have in assigning a dollar value to a ton of carbon?

      • This is the hindcast of CIMP5 from 1880, to GISS and HADCRU4.
        Note that it fits very poorly until 1950 and then fails as soon as it forecasts.

        http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/models_diff_masks_long.png

    • Even if you get US per capita CO2 emissions down to ZERO today, you still will not change the global temperature by 2100 by more than 0.2C.

      That is the stupidest argument I can imagine.

      All you’re saying is, because my tax dollars are a tiny percentage of all US tax revenues, it doesn’t matter if I (or you) cheat on my taxes.

      Is that really your position?

      • That is the stupidest argument I can imagine.

        And there you go. A “skeptical” argument two times over, ala Brandon. Willard could be having a field day.

      • David Appell:
        “All you’re saying is, because my tax dollars are a tiny percentage of all US tax revenues, it doesn’t matter if I (or you) cheat on my taxes.”
        It does matter. There’s a lot to be said for following the rules. As far as how one views oneself.

      • One does not simply underestimate one’s powers of imagination to win an argument, David.

      • Are you the David Appell who runs Quark Soup? I seem to notice a similarity in style.

  11. Steven Mosher

    good advocating

    • Berényi Péter

      No, the advocacy part is boring & dispensable, the only part which may have merit is water splitting by photons, because that’s science, the rest is not.

      There is no point in whining about the coal fired plant / grid cycle being too cheap either. If he can make a gridless solar / water splitting / hydrogen storage / fuel cell cycle cheaper, so be it. The entire economy is going to switch to that solution in a short timeframe, with no political pressure whatsoever, simply driven by market forces.

      In that case it is needless to lobby for legislation to kill competition off prematurely, is it not?

      • An engineer told me that if they could have 10x electrical energy density storage ‘everything’ would change.

  12. A few cost benefit comments;

    Will the initial investment in a power plant pay for itself over the next 30 years and include a return on the initial investment of an arbitrary 4% a year?

    Do basic services when started provide an exponential benefit to society? Such as when sewer utilities became common. Electricity is an answer to many problems. Pumping water, and providing refrigeration for instance.

    Not that long ago, some of our rural areas received help from the REA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Administration
    I see its name has since changed. Electricity by itself, raised our rural standards of living, and increased our food production. The REA’s biggest challenge was probably the cost of stringing power lines. This is another cost to consider.

    A time frame of 50 years as Judith Curry asks about, is way out there. What is the value of one dollar, fifty years from now? In other words, I will give you one dollar, 50 years from now. Using a 4% interest rate, it’s worth 14 cents now. It is still a consideration. So its weight may be 1/7 when compared to a current dollar.

    Brazilian and Pielke seem to have presented an effective moderate discussion of issue.

    • Adding one more thing. Sewer utilities in most cases require Electricity. It’s used for powering lift stations. You lift it, it runs slowly downhill to the next station. Repeat until you reach the destination.

  13. “ The goal should be to provide the power necessary to boost productivity and raise living standards.”
    This should be “the goal” for the leaders of the nations whose people do not have electricity. It is not necessarily the most important goal for those living in other nations.

    • There is alot of UN, WorldBank, etc money floating around for these purposes. Do they fund new coal plants or not? Etc.

      • If a developing nation does not have the funds to support other than a coal to generate electricity then imo the World Bank should support the building of the plant that uses coal.

        If a developing nation does not have the funds to support other than a coal to generate electricity and the World Bank decides that they do not want to support them using coal due to CO2 emissions, I do not support greater US financial support to fund the increased costs.

      • David L. Hagen

        Starve the poor
        Sierra Club and other first world liberal elite are driving Obama and the EU to cruely starve the poor of energy in the development world.
        No hope: Obama anti-coal policy to keep global poor in dark

        First it was President Barack Obama pledging in June that the government would no longer finance overseas coal plants through the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Next it was the World Bank, then the European Investment Bank, dropping support for coal projects. Those banks have pumped more than $10 billion into such initiatives in the past five years. . . .
        The move by lenders against coal turns “our backs on millions without electricity and chooses not to help them achieve a better standard of living,” said Nancy Gravatt, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association in Washington,. . .

        1,200 Plants
        According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute in Washington, 1,200 coal-fired plants are proposed globally, with more than three-quarters of those planned for India and China alone.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Fluidised bed systems are eligible for CDM credits.

      http://www.worldcoal.org/coal-the-environment/coal-use-the-environment/improving-efficiencies/

  14. The problem posed by Brazilian and Pielke is indeed wicked. In part because there are dimensions that involve inherently ‘moral’ judgements, and not just about present versus future equities. For example:
    If one thought greater equality of economic circumstances (one measure being GDP) is a moral imperative, and also that CO2 is an imperative future problem, then there is an obvious simple solution. Energy ‘have nots’ in the article’s usage above do have sufficient energy for their circumstances. These cannot be all bad since their numbers grow by hundreds of millions to billions every generation. They use renewable biofuels (mostly firewood) for cooking and warmth, just like the entire world did before the industrial revolution. What they don’t have is anything like equivalent post industrial revolution energy, the chief embodiments being liquid fuels (for agricultural machinery and transportation) and electricity (for refrigeration and telecommunications). So an obvious solution is to just take away those things from the industrialized haves. Voila. Solves both equality and AGW at one stroke. Indeed (sarc), some European energy policies as perhaps in the UK seem headed in this general direction. Burning wood for electricity at Drax, tripling electricity prices, reducing grid reliability with wind, (unless standby grid connected diesel generators are subsidized), ignoring cleaner burning abundant shale gas because not green enough…all move the UK toward havenot status.

    Oh, that is not what was meant? Any other discussion brings in the complexities of regional economic development, and why some have and some have not. It must, since the kind of energy meant is industrial so not free. The worlds actions show there is not that much energy charity around.

    Methinks the issue raised, while perhaps laudable, obscures the simpler but still wicked question about haves today versus haves tomorrow inherent in CAGW. That is tough enough for all those with the means to get on the Internet or an airplane to discuss same.
    Solving, for example, Haiti’s or Zimbabwe’s or Myanmar’s intractable at least partly self inflicted social and economic problems at the same time is a bridge too far.

  15. Music to this grizzled skeptics ears. Exactly right.. Even if the IPCC is roughly correct as you posit Dr. C., the wisest course is far from clear. There are competing values and needs at work here. I just don’t understand the simplistic thinking of most alarmists.

    I wrote yesterday that in order to embrace the global warming hypothesis one has to ignore both common sense and ever more unpersuasive empirical data. I left out the very important issue of energy priorities, even if by some stretch the alarmists are right.

    Devastating post imvho.

  16. An observation from someone who was in the Cancun area at the time of the annual climate get together.
    Of course I could not come close to the epicenter of the event as all roads were guarded with tanks or personnel carriers with either an M-60 or 50 cal mounted. I watched on TV as the contingent celebrated Mayan Culture and or heritage with a gala event in which some lucky Mayans were lucky enough to serve the in crowd for a few dollars.
    Not six miles away I watched as Mayans ate a very occasional cooked meal.
    They seemed very friendly and quite surprised at our presents. Accommodations were minimal to say the least. No electricity, and I suppose any fuel would be used for cooking (mostly)or light.
    I learned that their main source of medicine was massage. They would use various message techniques for most everything and it seems with a great deal of success.

  17. As I see it, and I’ve been cogitating on this for several years, developing countries are going to desire between 200,000 and 400,000 btu per person per day depending on how much conservation is forced on them by high prices. By way of comparison, most developed countries today use 400,000 btu and up — largely depending on home and business heating needs. The US uses a rather appalling 900,000 btu per person per day.

    Not a problem because once educated by climate scientists and wise Western leaders, developing countries will recognize the dangers inherent in profligate burning of fossil hydrocarbons? Seems unlikely to me. The developing countries have their own scientists who will be only too happy to advise their decision makers that the climate science case against CO2 is somewhere between problemetic and nonexistent. Many would probably say that even if it weren’t accurate since those who tell those in power what they want to hear will probably be rewarded for doing so.

    My projection. The developing world is probably going to burn through the world’s fossil hydrocarbons at a stunning and currently unanticipated rate. And nothing much will (or can) be done about it. We better hope that the projections of climate driven catastrophe are wrong, because CO2 levels are probably going to soar. Fortunately, I think it rather likely that the projections are very wrong, but it probably won’t change the results much if they aren’t.

    • “The developing world is probably going to burn through the world’s fossil hydrocarbons at a stunning and currently unanticipated rate. And nothing much will (or can) be done about it. We better hope that the projections of climate driven catastrophe are wrong, because CO2 levels are probably going to soar.”

      The cruise liner sinks. A group of 100 survivors find themselves marooned an island. Fortunately each day a number of crates of food wash up on the beach from the sunken ship.

      “We should ration the food”, one survivor points out, “and be greatful for that extra time to find and switch to alternative and sustainable sources of food on the island”

      “Nahhhh” says everyone else. “There’s plenty of food in these crates. We can just sit here and eat through the food. Use it to fatten ourselves and expand our population”. So they start fattening up. Chomping through the crates of food. Most of the women decide it’s a great time to become pregnant.

      A few days later the alarmist pipes up again
      “Uhh the crates are going to run out eventually…we really should ration what we have and plan for the future”

      The view is not popular. “Oh you want to centrally plan do you? Well we know how well that went in the Soviet Union” “Besides the crates might not run out. They might be being generated by the sea…the science is very uncertain…We might just keep finding crates forever. And even IF they do run out…I am sure Human Ingenuity will save us”

      Of course the irony is that they are shunning human ingenuity.

      The crates start coming less frequently. Alarming predictions are extrapolated…but then mmm a stash of floating cans of food marked “shale oil” are found floating on a beach on the otherside of the island.

      “OH look your predictions failed! you were wrong, we found more food and we didn’t run out so there is clearly no problem. Lets use this extra food to double our population again”.

      • The irony is that the cruise liner sank because it ran out of fuel and ran into an ice berg because the idiot progressive captain didn’t want to “pollute” the atmosphere with too much CO2.

        The captain now is concerned about the 100 survivors, not the hundreds he has already killed. OK, that’s not irony, it’s tragedy.

      • lolwot, you have pretty much describe the history of Polynesia. The population blooms, followed by warfare and migration was a familiar pattern.

      • Population growth is a different problem than energy or climate– and one that China has actually addressed. There’s some evidence that as countries develop, population growth slows

        Yes there are too damn many people on the planet and the human race does indeed seem to be determined to continue to be fruitful and multiply until we prove Malthus correct. But even if we quit trying to breed ourselves into some unpleasant dystopia, we’re almost certain to burn through much/most of the world’s petroleum, natural gas and coal before we work out the details of providing a decent general standard of living for everyone that doesn’t depend on hydrocarbon fuels.

  18. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Proposition  The Pope knows how to do scientific advocacy right — including an appropriate balance of short-term versus long-term priorities.

    `Cuz those Catholics really understand history, eh? The Church appreciates that nothing good happens when scientific, mathematical, medical, engineering, and religious advocacy is muzzled.

    Conclusion  Calls for the muzzling of professional advocacy — as Judith Curry’s and Roger Pielke’s views are sometimes interpreted — stand squarely on the wrong side of history.

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • “The Pope knows…”

      Hi Fan, don’t know if you saw my warm words of welcome yesterday :-)

      In any case, I see you’re back on the Pope, which to this wise-guy, agnostic Jew is always a hoot. Talk about an “appeal to authority,” which in matters of science is clearly not legit.

      Thanks for demonstrating classic fallacious thinking, Fan of *more* Discourse!!

    • I agree that they do their homework at the Vatican, but acting on what they know is another matter. After Copernicus and Galileo, it took centuries for them to recognize that our planet is not the center of the universe. In the church, traditions and dogmas have top priority in the short-term. It took even longer for them to recognize that slavery is not part of natural law. As long as they perpetuate the patriarchal paradigm of control and domination in church structures, they are contributing to the economic and ecological exploitation that induces violence and may be inducing climate change. For more on this, the following might be of interest:

      Gender Equality for Solidarity and Sustainability
      http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv09n07page1.html#editorialessay

      • “After Copernicus and Galileo, it took centuries for them to recognize that our planet is not the center of the universe.”

        I agree, the leaders of the Catholic Church were wrong in believing what the consensus of the ‘scientists” of their day told them. Just as the USCCB got suckered by “climate scientists.”

        But please spare us the progressive revisionism. Historical illiteracy seems to be a requirement to be a full blown progressive these days, but good grief.

  19. Seems to me the vast sums of money spent chasing “green energy” in the western world would have been better used actually helping the poor obtain access to reliable and reasonably priced energy – that would be primarily hydro-carbon based fuels. Instead, we see world financial institutions stifling the building coal plants, leaving the hapless poor with what? A dismal existence, but the elitist green movement remains quite comfortable.

    • The amount of money spent on “green energy” subsidies is dwarfed by the amount of damage done by fossil fuels — at least $120 B/yr in the US, according to a 2010 report from the National Academy of Sciences.

      • David Appel

        Bad estimate.

        Fuggidaboudit.

        Readily available energy from low-cost fossil fuels has helped those of us in the industrially developed world (like you and me) enjoy a high quality of life and long life expectancy that our ancestors could only have dreamed of.

        This is the “net benefit of fossil fuels”.

        Max

      • Bad estimate.

        HIDDEN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF ENERGY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION IN U.S., National Academy of Sciences, 2010
        http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794

      • That is a news release. it does not show any calculations or how the number is arrived at. The source was asked for. To be valid, it must be testable. So far you have produced nothing.

      • David, more bogus statistics from you.
        Joseph E. Aldy, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School analyzed the US Federal subsides to fossil fuel producers in the USA and arrived at a figure of $4.1 billion, per year.
        This was published by the Brookings Institute, which describes itself as both independent and non-partisan. However, a 2011 study examining of Brookings Institute employee donations from 2003 to 2010 indicated that 97.6% of Brookings’s employee’s political donations went to Democrats. So this is not a ‘Big Oil’ front organization.

        http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/02/eliminate-fossil-fuel-subsidies

        You source, is complete crap:-

        http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794

        finding ‘hidden cost’ of burning fuel, but ignoring ‘hidden profits’, like not having a starving, disease ridden population.

        Can you actually make a tradition type argument based on facts, as in information known to be true, or based on logic?

      • manacker said in his post of August 7, 2013 at 5:34 pm

        “Readily available energy from low-cost fossil fuels has helped those of us in the industrially developed world (like you and me) enjoy a high quality of life and long life expectancy that our ancestors could only have dreamed of.”
        _____

        I can enhance the quality of my life and increase my longevity by burning more fossil fuel?

        OH BOY !

      • The report you refer to (without providing a link) used a range of possible values of $10, $30 and $100 of damage per ton of CO2-eq which works out to 1.0, 3.0 and 5 cents per kWh for gas fired plants and twice that for coal fired plants (2005).
        http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/hidden_costs_of_energy_Final.pdf

        Subsidies for solar power in 2010 were $775.64 per megawatt hour and $56.29 for wind.
        http://southdakotamagazine.com/renewable-energy-costs

        So … the subsidies for solar power are between seven and 70 times the benefit versus coal and 14 and 140 times the benefit versus gas. For wind it is thankfully far less but still a money loser under most scenarios. And don’t forget that the damage per ton of CO2-eq is best described as a WAG.

      • Can you show us the calculations that go into the $120 billion a year number?

      • Can you show us the calculations that go into the $120 billion a year number?

        Of course. The full report is here:

        “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use (2010),” National Academy of Sciences.
        http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794

      • Guess I’m going to have to print the entire report out. I went to the conclusions chapter and didn’t see the 120 billion / yr number, but that could be the sum of the various numbers for each sector discussed.

        One thing I did note was of the damages attributed coal fired electrical generation, 85% were from SO2 emissions. That distinction usually gets lost when folks talk about coal pollution in terms of climate change. So much so that even the President’s speech a couple months ago referred to it as carbon pollution. You can’t get much more un-scientific than that.

        Note that I haven’t yet touched on the methodologies behind the numbers of that NAS report. As they say, the devil is in the details and when you start looking into methodologies and the assumptions used, the error bars that come with the results are often huge.

    • So … the subsidies for solar power are between seven and 70 times the benefit

      Math isn’t your strong suit, is it?

  20. Whatever is done to develop sub-Saharan Africa takes decades to influence essentially the climate. For decades to come countries like China, India, and Brazil have a much larger influence. The most important conflicts between development of the poor and CO2 releases is in these countries.

    The policy choices related to the energy development of sub-Saharan Africa may be very important for the Africa, not so much for the climate of next couple of decades.

    At the early stage of improving the energy infrastructure renewable energy may have a much larger relative role as it’s often less dependent on existing infrastructure, and as the first most valuable watts can be produced with lesser total costs that way. Having enough power for charging mobile phones and limited LED lighting may be the highest priority. That can be reached by solar panels and batteries. That alone is, however, not enough in longer term. Higher power levels are needed for many purposes important for further development. The right answers vary, however, strongly from country to country and also between different parts of each country.

  21. Here’s the crux:
    The energy crisis and issue is real, and soluble.
    The climate crisis and issue is illusory, and insoluble.

    Pick one to spend your (our) money on.

  22. Willis Eschenbach

    Well, no, I will not assume that the IPCC is correct as you suggest, Judith. Why on earth would I do that? Is that your preferred method for dealing with uncertainty, assume that a player who has rarely been correct is 100% right?

    What we actually have, without your highly unlikely assumption, is the situation where well-meaning but deluded people are fighting to increase the cost of fossil fuels. From that price increase, there is a POSSIBLE benefit of a bit of cooling from reduced CO2 in fifty or a hundred years. This POSSIBLE cooling (according to the advocates of expensive energy) might be as large as a half a degree or so. Whoa, there’s a huge benefit all right, I’d fight and die for that …

    On the other hand, we have real, actual costs which are affecting the poor as we speak. Obama has already denied a loan to provide cheap power for Vietnam in order to “save the planet”, for example, and the World Bank is refusing to provide funds for cheap power to other countries.

    So what we actually have, minus your assumption of papal infallibility for the IPCC, is a situation where there is a very small POSSIBLE reduction of temperature in 50 years as the sole benefit of expensive power, and billions of people being further impoverished as we speak as the costs of expensive power …

    Is there is some difficult choice to be made there? Billions of people actually sentenced right now to more years of grinding poverty, vs. a bit of cooling in 50 years … does the debate team in the ivied halls of the U of Georgia get that as a debate topic, “RESOLVED: that we should sentence the poor to unending years of poverty in exchange for a half degree of cooling in 50 years”?

    Because it seems pretty clear to me … and I doubt if the people living on $2 per day would see much debate in those two positions …

    w.

    • > Is that your preferred method for dealing with uncertainty, assume that a player who has rarely been correct is 100% right?

      Even lousy Backgammon players can roll double sixes from time to time, even if not as often as Chuck Norris.

      • now that’s the willard I remember.

      • Do you really think that some societies have consistently improved the health and wealth of their citizenry and others have failed, time and again, due to luck?

      • Do strawmen really think that preparing against the opponent’s double-sixes and your own double-fives amounts to pray for Providence, Doc?

      • Well I would answer you willard, but I don’t have a clue what you mean.

      • There exists strategies for stochastic games, Doc.

        The fact that nobody knows what will happen next does not forbid to prepare for the worse. In Backgammon, the worse cases are often 5-5 for you and 6-6 for your opponent. That means that if you have to choose between two ways to play the dice you rolled, you might follow this rule of thumb and play what is more “safe” as far as really bad rolls are concerned.

        This has nothing to do with the luck you introduced.

    • “Well, no, I will not assume that the IPCC is correct as you suggest, Judith. Why on earth would I do that? Is that your preferred method for dealing with uncertainty, assume that a player who has rarely been correct is 100% right?”

      It’s called a hypothetical, which allows a discussion from a different frame of reference. Of course you’re free to refuse to pry open that mind of yours for even a minute or two. Meanwhile, most of the rest of us are enjoying the conversation I would say.

      I swear to God Willis, your style sometimes seems taken straight from the alarmist playbook.

      • It does seem as if Willis and Bart are striving for the title of most arrogant at times.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        pokerguy | August 7, 2013 at 5:25 pm | Reply

        “Well, no, I will not assume that the IPCC is correct as you suggest, Judith. Why on earth would I do that? Is that your preferred method for dealing with uncertainty, assume that a player who has rarely been correct is 100% right?”

        It’s called a hypothetical, which allows a discussion from a different frame of reference.

        Indeed it is. Knowing that, I strongly suggested that we not deal with such hypotheticals, particularly such improbable ones, because what is most important is the real world situation. That’s what we have to base our choices on, what we know.

        The problem with hypotheticals is perhaps best illustrated by the old joke, “How many legs does a cow have if your count its tail as a leg?”

        The answer is “Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”

        So you can call the IPCC assumptions true if you wish, but that should never be your starting point, that’s calling a tail a leg. Your starting point should be what you actually know to be true.

        Regards,

        w.

      • Willis, are you ever going to address you misunderstanding of ocean warming?

        No wonder you can’t get published anywhere but a paid-for denialist blog.

      • you misunderstanding of ocean warming?

        Are you ever going to address your inability to write coherently? I can see why you haunt comment sections. You need the extra money because you are no writer.

      • Willis –

        If you weren’t so good-looking, people wouldn’t lie to you as much.

        Too funny.

      • timg56 | August 7, 2013 at 7:36 pm |

        Pfft.

        Even just at CE, I can’t hold a light to the various captains, lords, sirs, Docs, Chiefs, champions, lawyers, skydragon slayers, and the like for claiming titles, credentials, awards, achievements and honorifics. I haven’t even claimed military affiliation or rank. Nothing to try to lend greater weight or authority to my opinion, with the exception of noting that I’m fairly familiar with words for ‘dead’.

        What cause specifically have you spotted for this ‘arrogance’ you think you see?

      • Bart,

        “What cause specifically have you spotted for this ‘arrogance’ you think you see?”

        Without going to the thread and block quoting it, it was your response to me regarding the distinction between murder & homicide. I mentioned I’d check with one of my brothers, whose was previously a proscuting attorney handling homicide and violent crime cases. You said something about doubting he had anywhere close to your experience on the subject (along with some odd comment about Louisiania). Pretty damn arrogant.

        Just curious, were you ever selected by the USAG for a federal task force on developing guidelines for handling federal murder and violent crimes cases?

      • timg56 | August 8, 2013 at 1:53 pm |

        Arrogant? I’d think, as you don’t know me or what my work is, assuming that your prosecutor brother works with so much homicide and murder that it makes him an expert and everyone in the world has to wait for you to talk to your relatives to get agreement on commonplace definitions.. that you’ve hung ‘arrogant’ on the wrong participant in the conversation.

        Louisiania is the state with the highest concentration of homicide cases per prosecutor in the USA. And yeah, your brother would’ve relied on my work when he was on that task force, if he was any good at his job.

      • The only value in taking the IPCC position as a “Hypothetical” is to demonstrate that it leads to absurdity or far different conclusions than are being claimed. In this case: immense costs, heavy damage, tiny and very uncertain (unlikely) benefits.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Breaking News  Micronesia Shifts From Carbon to Solar+Wind

      Short term benefits  Escape from a crippling oil-import deficit economy.

      Longer-term term benefits  A fighting chance to keep the Outer Islands above sea level.

      So this transition is economically rational *AND* morally good.

      Ain’t that right, Willis?

      (to address skepticism … yeah we’ve been there many times & yeah we know the folks making it happen & yeah we understand the technologies involved & yeah we appreciate the cultures involved & yeah it’s real & yeah the Micronesians citizens are hugely stoked to escape the crippling “tether of fuel”)

      That’s common-sense good news, eh Willis?

      Denialist h8ers can whinge as much as they like … but the renewable energy caravan is rolling full speed ahead … and that’s a good thing!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Willis Eschenbach

        A fan of *MORE* discourse | August 7, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Reply
        Breaking News Micronesia Shifts From Carbon to Solar+Wind

        Thanks for that, fan. Let me first say that outer islands are one of the places where solar and wind might actually make sense. However, they are not without their problems, the biggest one being maintenance. In the US they say “What goes around, comes around.” In the Pacific they say “What goes around … stops.”

        The problem with your citation is that it’s from 2006, and it uses figures from 2002. Nor is it reporting that “Micronesia Shifts from Carbon …”. Instead, it proposes that Micronesia shifts from carbon, and then lists what it thinks are good alternative fuels. It’s somebody’s theoretical paper, not a report of success.

        It goes on to the fuels it recommends, beginning thusly:

        Coconut Oil

        Production of coconut oil as a renewable energy source for Micronesia has many advantages. Traditional knowledge for growing coconut is extensive, and cultural traditions value its cultivation. It has many uses, including food, and is well suited to the local climate and soils. Technology for extracting the oil can be simple, durable and affordable. With the appropriate technology, coconut oil can be used to meet most if not all of Micronesia’s energy needs. Coconut oil fuel is also safer than fossil fuels.

        fan, during the time I lived in the Solomon Islands, I looked very closely at the economics of coconut oil as a fuel. It can certainly be extracted, and the technology is simple. The problem is, it’s worth more as coconut oil for its various properties, than it is a just something to burn. In other words, in most places in the world you’d be money ahead to sell your coconut oil to the buyer and then go purchase diesel.

        Next, it takes up a lot of land. Micronesia is from the Greek, meaning “small islands”, many of which are tiny coral atolls. With a few exceptions, they don’t have the land. Before you start advocating such a scheme, you need to run the numbers … and having done so, let me assure you, it takes a whole lot of coconuts to make not much oil, and a whole lot of land to make coconuts.

        Finally, and most importantly, coconuts and coconut oil are both incredibly valuable as foodstuffs for the local population. There aren’t a whole lot of sources of fat on small islands and coral atolls, and shredded coconut and “coconut milk” and coconut water are very important in the local diet.

        Now, for high volcanic islands with a lot of land like say the Solomon Islands or Fiji, where you can grow livestock and have farms, coconuts are not as important. But in Micronesia, anyone proposing burning coconut oil doesn’t understand its place in the nutrition of the populace.

        For all those reasons, fan, although I do think that remote islands are natural candidates for renewable technology, your citation proves nothing except that the authors haven’t really thought their untried proposals through to the end.

        Be clear that I know that there are a variety of solar and wind projects going on in Micronesia. Like I said, it’s a natural for that. However, implementation is the problem. In 2012, less than 2% of the power in FSM was coming from solar. There’s a proposal to use $4 million to install another 1.7% of the power needs, that will make it about 3.7% renewable … I’m sure you can see the problem.

        So I’m not saying its a bad idea, quite the opposite. I’m just saying that your citation is just some guy’s not-necessarily-so-good ideas. For example, he says solar power won’t ever be practical in Micronesia because of maintenance and breakdown problems … but he favors using coconut oil to fuel diesel engines. Go figure.

        All the best,

        w.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Yah know Willis, sometimes you WUWT folks seem absolutely allergic to doing your climate-change homework.

        It’s not that hard, eh Willis?

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Willis Eschenbach

        A fan of *MORE* discourse | August 7, 2013 at 11:17 pm |

        Yah know Willis, sometimes you WUWT folks seem absolutely allergic to doing your climate-change homework.

        It’s not that hard, eh Willis?

        Actually, I’d read that piece about Yap we entered into this discussion. And I agreed with you that it’s a good idea. What’s your point?

        Care to know why I’d read the piece? Because I follow these things, and in particular, because Robert Guild, the man referred to in the article by his full title of Director of the Transport, Energy, and Natural Resources Division of ADB’s Pacific Department, is a long-time and very good friend of mine. I’ve discussed energy and other projects he’s doing all over the Pacific with him … fan, you don’t seem to get it. I know this stuff because I lived in the Pacific for seventeen years, and I know the situations, and I know the players. In 1985, I was hired to skipper a small boat around the outer islands and the Lau Group in Fiji, to do an on-the-ground analysis for the Fiji Government of the existing diesel, solar, and steam powered generation systems in those islands. So I started studying renewable systems in the Pacific thirty ago, and I’ve been a close student of the subject ever since. I’ve been on a host of islands and seen the fate (generally not good) of a whole host of renewable energy “solutions” all around the Pacific.

        So pointing at the report of what my friend Robert is doing, a report which I’d already read, about a future project that I’m already aware of, and then jeering at me … well, that doesn’t work. Robert’s project is a good thing, it’s a dream about the future, and it may come true … but dreams in the remote islands of the Pacific generally have a short and brutal lifetime. The concept of “maintenance” is entirely foreign to the Pacific cultures …

        fan, it’s not clear at all what your point is, or the reason for your unpleasant, sneering tone. Let me implore you to dial it back, my friend. You don’t know whereof you speak, and you’re talking to a man who does.

        All the best,

        w.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Oh, this is classic. On a hunch, I re-read my previous post to you, the one you jeered at. I noted the following (emphasis mine):

        Be clear that I know that there are a variety of solar and wind projects going on in Micronesia. Like I said, it’s a natural for that. However, implementation is the problem. In 2012, less than 2% of the power in FSM was coming from solar. There’s a proposal to use $4 million to install another 1.7% of the power needs, that will make it about 3.7% renewable … I’m sure you can see the problem.

        That $4 million proposal is my friend Robert’s project, the very same one you subsequently so sneeringly cited to me and recommended that I should read … doofus.

        I give up, fan. You win.

        w.

      • You know, Willis, if you weren’t so good-looking, fewer people would lie to you, and then you would be so frequently mistaken in your beliefs.

        If only you were uglier, your opinions would be more valid!!

      • And if Joshua had a windmill in his beard, he’d win all the arguments.

        http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/d/d6/Windmill-beard.jpg

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Willis Eschenbach claims “I know this stuff because I lived in the Pacific for seventeen years, and I know the situations, and I know the players.”

        LOL … Willis, we’re all looking forward to your WUWT/Watts-sponsored essay reporting On Sea-level Rise in Micronesia

        So, when’s that essay coming out, Willis?

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Willis, here’s the deal. If everybody around the world wants to be like us, and improve their standards of living by burning more fossil fuels, we should welcome the competition for theses precious resources and the resulting pollution if we don’t care much for ourselves and our descendants.

      • Max,

        Does this mean you care about me and my descendants?

        Can you demonstrate that concern?

      • As the market price of a commodity increases the more alternatives become attractive.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Thanks, Max. The pollution from modern engines is very well controlled, I see no problem there at all.

        If you are talking about CO2, that’s a natural trace gas that has been repeatedly been demonstrated to be essential to life on earth. Calling a gas that is essential to life “pollution” is a corruption of the language.

        Arsenic is a pollutant in water. So we strive to reduce the arsenic content of our water to zero.

        Unburned hydrocarbons from car exhaust is a pollutant in the air. So we strive to reduce those particular airborne hydrocarbons to zero. That’s what we do with pollutants, we try to remove them completely from our air and our water.

        Are you seriously proposing that CO2 is in the same class, and deserves to be called a “pollutant” and removed entirely from the atmosphere, reduced to zero along with the unburned hydrocarbons and other pollution?

        Pick another word, Max. That one doesn’t fit in the slightest.

        w.

      • Willis Eschenbach can’t even do basic physics:
        http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/06/wuwt-ocean-misunderstanding-and.html

        No wonder WUWT is the only place that will publish him.

      • Willis Eschenbach said in his post on August 7, 2013 at 11:06 pm

        Thanks, Max. The pollution from modern engines is very well controlled, I see no problem there at all.

        If you are talking about CO2, that’s a natural trace gas that has been repeatedly been demonstrated to be essential to life on earth. Calling a gas that is essential to life “pollution” is a corruption of the language.
        _____

        Well controlled ? Have you ever been trapped behind a diesel truck or diesel bus on a two-lane?

        Calling CO2 a pollutant annoys pollution advocates. It’s fun to annoy pollution advocates.

      • timg56 said on August 7, 2013 at 7:37 pm

        Max,

        Does this mean you care about me and my descendants?

        Can you demonstrate that concern?
        _____

        I care about current and future generations, but most of all I care about myself.

        What would you consider a demonstration of my concern?

        And no, I’m not sending you money.

      • Max,

        “Well controlled ? Have you ever been trapped behind a diesel truck or diesel bus on a two-lane?”

        So you believe those diesel fumes you are complaining about is CO2? That’s what you are smelling?

        Here is a hint Max, if you can see it or smell it, it ain’t CO2.

      • Max,

        I have no issue with you caring about yourself first. And you don’t need to send me any money. There are people and organizations who help people that are far more deserving of any money you might part with.

        I would point out that your having put your own self interest first, being critical of others who would act in their own self interest is hypocritical.

        I would also ask, if you had to choose, whom would it be between helping current & future generations? Based on comments above, lolwot would have us concerned about people in 2200. David does him better by almost 3 orders of magnitude, having us think 100,000 years into the future. I must be short sighted, as I believe real people are first in line for any good I can provide, not imaginary people who do not yet exist.

      • tmg56, I’m afraid you didn’t understand my post. The CO2 and the diesel fumes are two different subjects, and that’s why I used two paragraphs. Like you I sometimes misunderstand posts because I don’t read them carefully.

      • Max,

        You are correct. I read the comment through a couple of times and saw the distinction between the two different points.

      • Re post by timg56 | August 8, 2013 at 2:07 pm

        timg56 said: “I would point out that your having put your own self interest first, being critical of others who would act in their own self interest is hypocritical.”

        My reply: Not if the self-interests of some others are against the self-interests of a lot of others.

        timg56 said: “I would also ask, if you had to choose, whom would it be between helping current & future generations?

        My reply: I would choose to help future generations since they likely will be larger in population than the current generation. Helping more people is better than helping fewer people.

      • Steven Mosher

        david,

        while I disagree with much of what willis writes you are wrong. he is published in other places than WUWT

        without looking would you care to condemn every journal that has published him

        No fair looking first.

        and dont trust skeptical science they get it wrong because of a poor search methodology

  23. Judith Curry

    Thanks for bringing this article.

    There is no doubt that those of us bloggers here, who live in the industrially developed world, owe much of our high quality of life and long life expectancy to the fact that we have ready access to a supply of low-cost energy based on fossil fuels.

    According to Morgan Brazilian and Roger Pielke Jr., the poorest three-quarters of the population use only 10% of the energy, leaving them impoverished. But this is changing.

    “The current forecasts for energy demand in the developing world may be understated because they do not accurately capture the dramatic increase in demand associated with poverty reduction.” The point is that energy access is not an end per se; rather it is a necessity for moving to vibrant and sustainable social and economic growth.

    Over the 40+ years since 1970, the global per capita increase in fossil fuel consumption has increased by a bit more than 20%; most of this increase has occurred in the previously underdeveloped world, as these nations increased their industrial development and, with it, the quality of life of their inhabitants.

    At the same time, the per capita consumption of fossil fuels in the industrially developed nations has decreased, while the GDP per ton of CO2 emitted has increased in these nations.

    So it is likely that the future increase in per capita energy consumption will continue to be in the developing world.

    As the authors write, this must be considered in making any forecasts of future global energy consumption.

    The current users of 90% of all energy will likely continue to reduce their per capita consumption, while those using 10% of the energy will rapidly increase theirs.

    With this in mind, it is reasonable to forecast that the average global per capita energy consumption (and CO2 generation) will increase by another 30% from today to 2100, on the following basis.

    “Rich” nations reduce their per capita consumption by 10% by 2100 while “poor” nations increase theirs by 5.5x, with world population growing to around 10.5 billion.

    Under this scenario the “poor” populations would increase their total energy consumption from 10% to close to 50% of the world total.

    This would calculate to a cumulative CO2 generation of around 3800 GtCO2 from today to 2100 and an atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 640 ppmv by 2100.

    This may seem to some like a conflict between energy and climate policies, but the example of China, India and Brazil is showing that the less industrially developed nations will continue their development and the improvement of quality of life of their inhabitants by increasing their per capita energy use based on low-cost fuels, just as we did in the 20th century and this will result in an increase in global energy demand and CO2 emissions, whether we like it or not.

    So we’d better just get used to it and adapt to any changes this (or anything else) might cause to our climate.

    Max

  24. David Springer

    “Our distinctly uncomfortable starting place is that the poorest three-quarters of the global population still only use about ten percent of global energy”

    Oh spare me. 10% of the world that produces 90% of the advances in high technology, communications, industry, agriculture, medicine, military interventions, transportation, aid to impoverished nations, yada, yada, yada. These 10% consume a lot of energy. That’s because you can’t produce those things by subsistence farming and living in thatch huts.

  25. David Springer

    manacker | August 7, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Reply

    “There is no doubt that those of us bloggers here, who live in the industrially developed world, owe much of our high quality of life and long life expectancy to the fact that we have ready access to a supply of low-cost energy based on fossil fuels.”

    Whatever gives you that idea? The middle east and northern Africa have more abundant energy and horrible living standards. China has plenty of cheap energy. And South America.

    Conversely Japan pays dearly for its energy having virtually no fossile sources and has a very high standard of living.

    Think, McFly.

  26. It’s a good story true or not, but reportedly, a journalist once tasked Mrs. Truman with getting her husband to use the word ‘fertilizer’ instead of ‘manure’ for what he put on his lawn. She replied that he had no idea how hard it had been to get him to use the word ‘manure’.

    Similarly, how hard must we work to get David Appell to use the word ‘fertilizer’ instead of ‘pollution’? That stuff he insists is ‘pollution’ nourishes the whole plant kingdom and derivatively, the whole animal kingdom. Justice for All Gaia’s Critters. Haul the language polluter before the bar.
    ==========

  27. What if it’s a big hoax and create a better world for nothing?

    http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/692102203

  28. If the IPCC are roughly correct, why not leave remedies to the European Union? They have vast experience already with getting a bunch of people who do not like or trust one another to shamelessly manipulate a carbon price. You get a bunch of ex-Marxists and crypto-Trots to dress up like Adam Smith for a bit, and preach economic liberalism, market mechanisms and so on.

    If it all starts to get a bit messy, well…as they say in Brussels and Strasbourg, you can’t incinerate omelettes without breaking eggs.

  29. There is no honesty in climate science – there would be no need to create a consensus if AGW was shown to be a fact. Until ‘why hasn’t this been shown?’ becomes the discussion we will continue to be bombarded by inconsequential debate which serves only to distract us from the real problem which is that there is no honesty in climate science.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

    • There is no honesty in climate science – there would be no need to create a consensus if AGW was shown to be a fact.

      Baloney.
      There is the need for a “consensus” only because this science has such a large impact on society.
      You don’t see scientists expressing “consensus” about the g-factor of the muon, or superstrings, or the number of genes in the human genome.
      Those questions don’t have a huge impact on present society.
      Climate science does.
      Hence the need to gauge what the majority of climate scientists think, and take action based on that knowledge, imperfect thought it necessarily is..

      • +1
        That’s a good point i hadn’t considered before. Makes sense, whenever other important subjects are aired there are similar consultations with experts to come to an agreement.

      • David,

        Am I correct in understanding that you are saying climate science has provided more or greater benefit than research into the human genome?

        Can you even identify one benefit GCM’s have provided? For example, have they lead to improvements in modeling theory that has impacts outside of climate modeling? Have they helped with regional weather forecasting? Have they produced anything? Even if the space program had not resulted in any other benefits besides Tang, it would still be one up on GCM’s.

      • Climate may have an impact on society. Climate science, not so much.

      • You appear to have missed my point..

        there would be no need for dishonestly creating consensus – which is what Cook did.

        If there really was a consensus then it would certainly be worth examining their reasons for it, such as the real consensus of the scientists working on the ’95 IPCC report which concluded there was no discernible man made signal and gave their reasons.

        Nothing has changed since then, that is still the only consensus of scientists we have as it has not been shown to be false. That Houghton/Santer took out all reference to this is science fraud.

        And that is why creating consensus by more science fraud as has Cook is the only way you have of showing there is ‘consensus on AGW’.

        Science fraud is a serious offence against real science, and us who are being victimised by it..

      • Could you provide an example or two of the “huge impact on present society” that climate science has?

        Apart from diverting billions of dollars away from health, education, food, etc., that is.

        So far, I have seen precisely no evidence that climate science has benefited anyone except those in the “climate science” industry. But of course, I’m an idiot, so I’m just supposed to believe any crackpot statement made by any “scientist”. So be it.

      • “David Appell
        You don’t see scientists expressing “consensus” about the g-factor of the muon, or superstrings, or the number of genes in the human genome.”
        No?
        When the Human Genome Project came up with 20,500 protein-coding genes. The consensus at the time was the oft-quoted 100,000;
        http://genomebiology.com/2010/11/5/206
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9907/

        As for superstring therory?
        A ‘scientific’ theory that makes no experimentally testable predictions.

      • “Baloney.
        There is the need for a ‘consensus’ only because this science has such a large impact on society.”

        Here, let me help you with that.

        “Baloney.
        There is the need for a ‘consensus’ only because this political movement has such massive government funding.”

        There, that’s better.

      • Thank you for making my point.

      • I can’t get the server to respond, but David Appell is reportedly making a spectacle of himself on some blog where the Piltdown Mann was called a climate charlatan.
        ===============

  30. Chief Hydrologist

    Energy is one term in the development equation. Even complete substitution with carbon free sources of energy is not sufficient to change land use or eliminate black carbon, tropospheric ozone, hydrogen sulphides, methane, nitrous oxide or hydroflourocarbon, perflourocarbon or sulphur hexaflouride emissions.

    The energy solutions are technological. Micro technologies such as solar, microhydro and wind turbines can transform lives even at dwelling level. I have installed solar panels in a Melanesian village and have seen this first hand. Microhydro would have been a better solution but it is another step up in complexity for which the basic skills for maintenance and repair were not available.

    For industry scale energy – perhaps modular nuclear and production of methane and other hydrocarbons from hydrogen and carbon dioxide is the next logical step. This has the added benefit of not needing large scale changes to infrastructure. Modular nuclear is certainly on the energy agenda and has few if any of the problems of conventional nuclear. It has the ability to harvest energy from 270,000 tonnes of existing long lived waste to produce 100’s of years of energy and very much reduced volumes of relatively short lived waste.

    The total solution involves energy innovation and social, economic and environmental progress globally. Internationally the Millennium Development Goals are perhaps the best articulated and resourced means of achieving development objectives.

    There are 8 MDG that have been agreed to by all 189 members of the UN. Funds for delivery are meant to come from increases in aid budgets to 0.7% of GDP.

    Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger,
    Achieving universal primary education,
    Promoting gender equality and empowering women,
    Reducing child mortality rates,
    Improving maternal health,
    Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases,
    Ensuring environmental sustainability, and
    Developing a global partnership for development.

    Within this approach are elements that address population pressures and landscape management measures that have significant carbon mitigation and sequestration potential. Economic development for instance allows for other means of cooking to be adopted reducing black carbon emissions. In these ways Africa can very easily be the source of much climate mitigation in the coming decades.

    There are rational and pragmatic ways to marry climate concerns with development. If you look at the details of the MDG they include management of economic systems. Good governance and transparency – sadly lacking in the west in recent years – are essential to sustained economic growth. One other essential development pathway is through maximum global economic growth and free trade.

  31. Here is your personal Carbon Footprint calculator.

    http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm

    I scored 12, with 5.5 tons coming from eating meat.

    • DocMartyn-
      Thanks for the link.
      At the end of the calculation, the always helpful Nature Conservancy gives you the ‘opportunity’ to send in a check to absolve your carbon sins, at $15/ton CO2. How magnanimous of them!

      I notice the carbon calculator does not ask how many children you have. A peer-reviewed (and therefore infallible- ho ho!) paper by Murtaugh and Schlax in 2009 estimated a carbon bootprint of 9441 (amazing accuracy!) tons of CO2 poison legacy per child. One kid pretty much chucks the rest of the carbo-calculator details into the dumpster.

      But think of the donations the Nature Conservancy has foregone by leaving out the child headcount. Ka-ching!

  32. If David Appell moves any more goal posts here, or constructs any more straw men, I am calling William Tell.

  33. Our distinctly uncomfortable starting place is that the poorest three-quarters of the global population still only use about ten percent of global energy – a clear indicator of deep and persistent global inequity.

    Unfortunately, it is facile to assume that supporting the continued use of fossil fuels will necessarily address that inequity.

    Because modern energy supply is foundational for economic development, the international development and diplomatic community has rightly placed the provision of modern energy services at the center of international attention focused on a combined agenda of poverty eradication and sustainable development.

    What is notable there is the lack of discussion of that “foundational” need in a full context of “foundational” needs. Yes – access to energy is one element of eradicating poverty and supporting sustainable development. However, isolating that need from the fuller context only plays into the polarization around energy that presents an obstacle in progress towards those goals.

    In other words, same ol’ same ol’ from the same ol’ combatants the climate wars.

  34. > The course of development followed by virtually all nations demonstrates that people around the world desire a high-energy future. Our plea is that we begin to recognize that fact, and focus more attention and resources on positively planning for, and indeed bringing about, that future.

    What is a high-energy future?

    When will be begin to recognize that this is what people around the world desire?

    Why don’t we focus more on positive planning?

    How will we bring that future?

    Will there be such future if we don’t focus more on it?

    To plead or not to plead, that is the question.

  35. Off-air until 17 Aug. Be good, and I hope that by my return all outstanding issues and points of difference have been amicably resolved.

    Truth will triumph.

  36. If only we could bring the world’s poor out of poverty just by providing them energy. Failing to act on a reasonably easy problem, say the looming energy crisis or global warming, because there are harder problems out there to solve is immoral.

    Just keep the crocodile tears out of Roubidoux creek for the time being.

    thanks

  37. One thing that I do know about the poor and future energy consumption and that is that the poor will probably will not indulge themselves in the excessive energy consumption that seems to be assumed by modern societies and individuals as their right.

    • Not good grammar but the moot point is that the poor will prefer a reticulated water supply to their homes and for effective sewerage and drainage from their homes rather than the manufacture of brick and tile monstrosities or installation of air conditioners.

  38. Developing countries have the option of leapfrogging to a futuristic energy infrastructure. Similar to how they went straight to the wireless phone and computers, rather than telephone cables, energy can be localized rather than having large fossil-fuel based generation and distribution networks. For example, local solar energy and renewable biomass burning would suit many developing countries with little need for added infrastructure. Walkable communities, compact cities with public transportation save energy too. Low-carbon communities can exist if planned out, as these countries can, in the context of what options are also good for climate.

  39. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    !!! Breaking News !!!

    A Republican Case for Climate Action
    By William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas,
    William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman

    EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.

    The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

    As administrators of the E.P.A under Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, we held fast to common-sense conservative principles — protecting the health of the American people, working with the best technology available and trusting in the innovation of American business and in the market to find the best solutions for the least cost.

    That approach helped us tackle major environmental challenges to our nation and the world: the pollution of our rivers, dramatized when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire in 1969; the hole in the ozone layer; and the devastation wrought by acid rain.

    The solutions we supported worked, although more must be done.

    A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

    The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.

    Good on `yah, Republicans! Voters are eager to support your brand of thoughtful conservative ideals!

    Breaking News  WUWT/Anthony Likens Republican Ideals to N*z* Ideals

    In a puzzling attack on Republican Party climate-change centrism, Anthony Watts has offered-up WUWT as a forum that hosts creepy sexist attacks on scientists, creepy (and anonymously conducted) hacker attacks on web-sites, and now, creepy (and anonymously pruduced) propaganda videos that viciously smear the conservative ideals of Ruckelshaus, Thomas, Reilly, and Whitman.

    Observation  WUWT/Anthony Watts is handily winning the 2013 climate-change “race to the bottom.”

    A Natural Question  Why would WUWT/Anthony Watts desire so badly, and work so hard, to start — and win! — a race to the bottom?

    Conclusion  “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. Would you like to play a nice game of centrist climate-change conservatism?”

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • This blog is quite different from WUWT and there is a quite specific topic ATL. Now, either go over to WUWT and argue with Antony or post something relevant on energy choices for humankind.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      DocMartyn, may I respectfully suggest that you (and other Climate Etc folks) contemplate carefully the thoughtful climate-change analysis of life-long Republicans Ruckelshaus, Thomas, Reilly, and Whitman

      Question  Why is WUWT/Anthony Watts seeking so desperately to destroy their brand of conservatism?

      Hmmmm … that conundrum *does* play a central (and deeply puzzling!) role in the climate-change debate, doesn’t it DocMartyn?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Perhaps some Republicans would care to comment, but I don’t think the Republican Party stands for this kind of thinking within its ranks.

      • Watts is already bought and paid for:
        http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/who-is-paying-anthony-watts.html

        Another denialist whore. Sad, really.

      • I don’t think the Republican Party stands for this kind of thinking

        The republican party thinks ? surely you jest.

      • Jim D,

        What that op-ed proves is that there a re plenty of progressives in the Republican party too. They are desperate to mimic the European “conservative” parties which are not in the least conservative.

        As for the GOP “standing for this kind of thinking within its ranks,” progressives run the GOP. Granted, they are marginally less progressive than their Democrat brethren. But people like Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell are every bit as elitist and statist as the writers of that CAGW screed.

      • Why are you trying to change the topic?

    • He cannot win it – you already did.

  40. energy priorities are real / essential; should and allays will win. The phony GLOBAL warming is a theology that should be ridiculed the way it deserves

  41. Chief Hydrologist

    The cost-benefit analysis will be done by business and government going forward. Nations, businesses and individuals may install whatever energy source best suits their needs.

    There are many ways forward for developing countries but carbon taxes are not optimal. Perhaps the best way for developed nations to facilitate progress is to actually stump up the MDG commitment.

    Developed nations may impose whatever taxes they like – providing they can get enough support from fellow citizens. Good luck with that. The more sensible way forward is to energy innovate and encourage ecosystem and agricultural soil restoration.

    We are not opposed to carbon mitigation, energy innovation or energy efficiency. We are merely against taxes. Simple enough for you?

    • We are not opposed to carbon mitigation, energy innovation or energy efficiency. We are merely against taxes. Simple enough for you?

      Not at all.
      It tells me you are uncaring and selfish, and don’t care about anyone but yourself.
      Such people have, throughout history, been the most destructive people in any society, in a moral sense.
      We are on the verge of making you pay for your pollution, and it will soon come about.
      In a couple of decades, it will seem insane that people like you ever thought you had the right to pollute for free.
      You will look like a antebellum slaveowner does today.
      No wonder you blog anonymously — I’d hide too if I thought like you did.

      • David, you could use Direct TV… Read what you wrote above, I hope.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Hell – I already pay the highest carbon in tax in the world. Hopefully it will all soon uncome about. The polls are neck and neck. Not that it matters much – we are scheduled to transition to the European price. What a joke it all is.

        Names? Haven’t we already been there done that? Is this just an insane game or are you just senile? Everyone knows my name – just ask. In fact I just linked to an article with my name on it.

        The nom de geurre derive in fact from Springfields Chief Hydrological and Hydraulical Officer – Cecil Terwilliger. It amuses me.

        In a couple of decades we will be well on the way to energy transitions without energy taxes of any impact – notwithstanding your insane rant.

        In the meantime there are much better things to spend money than taxes and energy subsidies. Try living up to the MDG commitment for a start.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/07/conflicts-between-climate-and-energy-priorities/#comment-361387

        You seem to be going backwards from idiot status David.

      • Hell – I already pay the highest carbon in tax in the world.

        $/yr?

      • Put up or shut up david. Let’s see your receipts.

      • In a couple of decades we will be well on the way to energy transitions without energy taxes of any impact

        You, a selfish pig, think you should be allowed to pollute for free.
        I, and many others, don’t.
        The pigs will lose, and already are losing
        This is a moral fight, and you are on the wrong side.

      • Don’t? Don’t what? Think or pollute? Or both?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The $/ton is relevant but so is coverage, free permits and per capita impost.

        This is a culture war and you are a pissant progressive – you are on the losing side quite obviously.

      • So you don’t have a $/t figure.
        Worse, you think you should be allowed to pollute for free.
        What kind of pig did your mother raise you to be?

      • Appell, I don’t know what has happened to you recently, but you are setting a new mark for name calling and inaccuracy. BTW, GCM’s are not good at much, including hindcasting. There is some interesting information on this issue i provided at James’. Recent research is making it look pretty bad.

      • False — see the IPCC 4AR WG1.

        And see your own model… oh, that’s right, YOU don’t have a model, do you?

      • True! You never linked to it. So you are lying.

      • Heh, I’ve got a funny feeling that when AR5 is ‘recent’, that David Appell will still claim the same thing. And he’d be right! AR5 is not likely to slam the models.
        =============

      • Appell, I actually prefer observationally constrained estimates of sensitivity over GCM’s. I don’t have a GCM because its a huge undertaking. I have Navier-Stokes models and some recent papers that are pretty disconcerting if you place much stock in GCM’s.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        This is a much better model.

        ‘We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in
        those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system. Citation: Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Lett.

        Nonlinear models are crap.

        ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full

        Appell is an idiot.

      • It tells us you are uncaring and selfish. YOu love to work with OPM, but never put your own where your mouth is.

    • The problem is that any form of power plant requires a lot of investment and has a long pay-off time. Just who do you think is going to invest in in nuclear of fossil fuel plants if they can be closed by government on whim (nuclear) or the price of fuel with be taxed by government on whim (coal/methane) ?
      Pretty soon rolling brown-outs will be common in the UK.

  42. It isn’t just people in developing countries that crave the energy that will allow them to advance. Luckily, in areas far from an electricity grid, in Africa and India, solar panels which are too expensive for the developed world are the right thing to allow people to get the energy to recharge their cell phones, to read at night for school.

    It is also the developed world that needs reasonably priced energy. Here is a comment I left on Tamsin Edward’s blog entry (“Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies”) spelling this out:

    ——–

    What policies, or tactics, should a climate scientist adopt?

    ….I ask the question in the context of the recent revelation in the Financial Times that since 2006, relative to the US, EU electricity prices have increased 40%, and that UK and other EU manufacturers are moving production to the US because energy prices — electricity, not just natural gas — have become so lopsided in favor of the US.

    The EU price increases largely stem from the decision to have so much renewable energy at such high costs for the last 5 years. If these jobs hadn’t moved to the US, they would have moved to China in response. Did the world really save much CO2 here? Or did the EU just lose jobs and taxes for little climate gain?

    So — as someone who does believe that CO2 (and black carbon, and methane, and reduction of sulfates) is responsible for much of the warming we’ve seen in the last 40 years — I would propose that another policy (or tactic) to address climate change might be to accelerate the research needed for solar energy to be commercialized at prices equivalent to alternatives. To do this would require that we don’t try economically unreasonable tactics that only plunge the EU further into depression. It would accept that CO2 (from the EU, anyway) wouldn’t go down as much in the near term (but would go up less elsewhere). But people in the EU will be better off, and I would argue, we will still get at CO2 emissions a decade or two later than hypothesized.

    Eli talked about the book, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” which is relevant to people in the Tea Party. But also look to the origins of Fascism in Europe — it starts when people are desperate financially. Does the EU really want to go further down the road to economic poverty right now?

    Climate policy does not exist in a vacuum.

    • Here is a link to a recent article in the Economist about the how solar power in rural Africa and India allows kids to study at night:

      http://www.economist.com/node/21560983

      First two paragraphs:

      “Which plastic gadget, fitting neatly in one hand, can most quickly improve the lives of the world’s poorest people? For the past decade the answer has been clear: the mobile phone. But over the next decade it will be the solar-powered lamp, made up of a few light-emitting diodes (LEDs), a solar panel and a small rechargeable battery, encased in a durable plastic shell. Just as the spread of mobile phones in poor countries has transformed lives and boosted economic activity, solar lighting is poised to improve incomes, educational attainment and health across the developing world.

      As previously happened with mobile phones, solar lighting is falling in price, improving in quality and benefiting from new business models that make it more accessible and affordable to those at the bottom of the pyramid. And its spread is sustainable because it is being driven by market forces, not charity.”

      • Well, John, I’m a full-blown climate skeptic yet you are making sense to me. Living in a bush setting and seldom getting to town, I have come to love alternatives for everything. I use a light Linux operating system on a second hand computer (with a cheap replacement sitting ready in case of thunderstorm), advances in LEDs and solar enthuse me, I love to experiment with old lacto-ferment techniques that can be combined with modern refrigeration…in short, I love the light, smart alternative every time. At age 64, I’m more likely to walk 12k to town than even to use a mountain bike, and I have dispensed with other vehicles altogether (without preciously renouncing or disdaining such marvels as the turbo-diesel Toyota Land Cruiser I may one day acquire, should I wish.)

        What one cannot get across to the pious New Class intellectuals and shrill scolds is that an alternative in theory has to be an alternative in practise. What works as a support technology may be terrible as a mainstream technology, resulting in the degradation both of mainstream and alternative through neglect, discrediting, haste and waste. A perfect example is Australia, which wastes its heavily taxed coal in old clunkers, even as its exports coal massively to pay for its destructive green fetishism.

        The plastic gadgets you mention are indeed wonders in certain contexts, however slight and commonplace they may appear to us. (Although my definition of a conservative is a “serial appreciator”, so I hope I am always in wonder of such blessings as solar panels and LEDs.)

        A “market” in “carbon” will never be a market, but a clumsy and infinitely manipulable form of regulation. (Please see “European Union”.) A climate intellectual will always be a banker’s favourite vegetable. But ever-improving, light, flexible technologies will not just serve and amaze us, but, as you so very rightly point out, meet that primary human need for illumination everywhere.

        Universal illumination through solar and LEDs. What a great thought, John. What other great thoughts do you have?

      • Mosomoso, thank you very much. It is so easy to get ripped when commenting, that I hardly know what to say when complimented.

  43. Stephen Gardiner dealt with this nonsense quite efficiently

    He points out that the base of the Lomborgianism that Pielke is pushing is the false choice between helping the poor inhabitants of poor countries or their rich descendants later.

    To Gardiner, this is already swallowing a large bunny foot without sauce, because there is no guarantee that climate change does not threaten anyone or anything besides the poor. Others can take it in the nose. But OK, he says

    Lomborg argues that the right answer is to help the current poor now, since they are poorer than their descendants will be, because they are more easily (cheaply) helped and because in helping them one is also helping their descendants

    But wait, there are, as they say, issues

    The first is the threat of a false dichotomy. Arguments from opportunity cost crucially rely on the idea that if a given project is chosen, then that choice forecloses some other option. But this is not the case in Lomborg’s version. Helping the poor and mitigating climate change are not obviously mutually exclusive. . .

    Second it is not clear even that the two projects are independent of each other, in the sense that they are fully separable opportunities rather than necessarily linked and perhaps mutually supporting policies. . . .

    Third, it is not clear that the opportunity that Lomborg wants to emphasize is really available.

    After all, the poor have always been with us, and there is no evidence that rich countries will step in to eliminate poverty (or, as Gardiner points out to mitigate climate change). Fourth to Gardiner, this looks a lot like the first step in a “bait and switch” strategy.

    Do tell.

    Further

    “even hard nosed benefit cost analysts” agree that the claim that future people could be compensated by an alternative policy loses relevance if we know that the compensation will not actually be paid.

    This is more subtle a point that it first appears. The benefit in this case is that the larger economy will allow future generations to deal with an exacerbated climate problem, but if climate change limits economic growth, there is no larger economy, and even if there is a larger economy, it may not be enough to deal with the chaos associated with climate disruption. The Dark Ages in Europe were not nearly as pleasant as Roman times.

    To Gardiner, Lomborg is arguing that it is sufficient to pay for our kids’ education without saving for retirement, because they will take care of us. Sure.

    As Tamsin Edwards puts it there are good reasons for climate policy types to shut their mouths.

    • I reject the false choice of Chinese communist style economic fascism, and European style economic fascism dressed up as concern for the climate.

      The poor have indeed always been with us. There are just a lot more of them when the state runs the economy. And now our modern “progressives” won;t be satisfied by beggaring their own populations, they want to keep the undeveloped world…undeveloped.

      You all would be pathetic, if you weren’t so aggressively anti-human.

    • “The Dark Ages in Europe were not nearly as pleasant as Roman times”
      I have never understood the romance of a bunch of violent, expansionist, fascist, imperialists whose economy was based on slavery.
      It seems likely that eruptions of the Ilopango caldera in central El Salvador caused the extreme weather events of AD535–536 and kick started the Dark Ages;
      “”during this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness…and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear.”
      Procopius of Caesarea

      Cold is bad, even for dumb-bunny’s.

      • > It seems likely that eruptions of the Ilopango caldera in central El Salvador caused the extreme weather events of AD535–536 and kick started the Dark Ages;

        Which modality is this, Doc: is that a “I’ve heard through the grapevines”?

        BTW, have you read the Codex Lukewarmus, written ca 480?

        In it we could read that to solve the problems of the time, we needed to take care of the poor by building more castles.

        Can’t remember who wrote it.

    • Eli Rabett writes,
      “The first is the threat of a false dichotomy. Arguments from opportunity cost crucially rely on the idea that if a given project is chosen, then that choice forecloses some other option. But this is not the case in Lomborg’s version. Helping the poor and mitigating climate change are not obviously mutually exclusive. . . “ – Stephen Gardiner

      A = Resources
      B = Coal Plant
      C = Solar Power
      D = Something not B or C with more value than B or C

      A can be allocated all to A or all to B or some combination to each A & B. Part of all of A can be allocated to D if it exists. I assume A is a constant. If we assume B provides more value, and to then allocate some to C reduces value. I think the either/or part it ties back to A being constant and desiring the most value. Does D exist? Maybe. Other infrastructure, better education, and better healthcare.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Eli’s analysis is nonsense.

      Both Pielke Jr and Lomberg argue for accelerated investments in technology. This brings forward the day when cost competitive options are more widely applicable.

      In the interim both argue for programs that would reduce population pressures, sequester carbon in soils and vegetation and reduce emissions.

  44. He would.

  45. Pol Pot is alive and well in the Luddite CAGW movement, just more humane. Rather than shooting the poor bastards, our “progressives” want to let them die a slow death by depriving them of the prosperity that has allowed these very progressives to sit their lazy, unproductive butts in front of their computers while and tell the world “We got ours – screw you.”

    “Quick, somebody import some of those oddly colored third world folk to pick our fruits and veggies, and clean our houses, while we sit back and tell them their countries have to remain in the economic dark ages.”

    • “Everybody wants to save the world but nobody wants to help mom with the dishes.”
      P.J. O’Rourke

  46. Africa energy

    USEIA tells us that Africa has 510 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves.

    In addition, there are 137 million barrels of proven oil reserves and roughly two times this amount of recoverable heavy oil and shale oil reserves.

    South Africa has the largest coal reserves at around 30 billion tons.

    So there is plenty of fossil fuel energy in Africa.

    Arguably Africa also has additional recoverable fossil fuel resources that have not even been discovered to date.

    But how about fossil fuel consumption in Africa?

    Africa only generated around 1.1 GtCO2 in 2007 according to USEIA (less than 4% of the world total), but it had a population of around 1 billion (14% of the world total).

    What is lacking across sub-Saharan Africa is an energy infrastructure (pipelines, refineries, power generation plants and electrical power distribution systems, etc.).

    These will undoubtedly come as African nations work to end the “global inequity” in energy use and quality of life.

    There will very likely also be some nuclear power generation, plus a smidgen of solar/wind power.

    Exactly when this will all happen is still anyone’s guess, but there is no doubt that it will.

    Max

  47. All this back and forth is interesting, but more interesting is the general acceptance of the thrust of Pielke and Brazilian, that energy consumption has been understated. This follows work by Dan Nocera (and myself, independently) that generally point to roughly 1000 quads being consumed by 2030, 2000 by 2050 and 3000 by 2075. Homework available for inspection here: http://3000quads.com/2012/01/24/research-tables-and-report/).

    Even with very low sensitivity, that’s a lot of joules. As I am fond of saying, if it all comes from coal, we’re screwed.

    • tom fuller,

      A rational progressive. How did you in get past the screaming protesters?

    • Tom, I do think that there will be continued increases in energy consumed, in particular in the developing world.

      But I also think — for reasons an historian of semiconductor costs over time might agree with — that solar photovoltaic costs are going to continue to decline and will within 2 decades or so be cost competitive with central generation plants. We can accelerate that if we wish, by R&D $.

      So I agree about a lot of joules. How many joules can be produced in the deserts of China, Peru, Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan/India, when solar is competitive?

  48. From title on down, what a load of nonsense.

    Conflicts between climate and energy priorities

    This surely ought be limited to only between climate and fossil priorities, no?

    One finds small issue with solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, and even biomass (which is largely a fraud) and natural gas aren’t very much in conflict with climate. It’s only fossil carbon’s free riding industrial ownership that competes with the victims of the climate kinetics caused by their reckless, feckless burning and waste.

    The world’s poor need more than a token supply of electricity.  The goal should be to provide the power necessary to boost productivity and raise living standards.  – Morgan Brazilian and Roger Pielke Jr.

    I asked the world’s poor about this, when I was talking to them this afternoon. They’ve never met Roger Pielke Jr. and think perhaps you’ve misspelled Morgan B_a_zilian’s name. They ask Mr. Pielke to stop implying he represents them, and say shame on Morgan, they thought he knew better.

    Issues in Science and Technology has published a new paper entitled ‘Making Energy Access Meaningful’, by Morgan Brazilian[sic] and Roger Pielke Jr [link].  Excerpts:

    Our distinctly uncomfortable starting place is that the poorest three-quarters of the global population still only use about ten percent of global energy – a clear indicator of deep and persistent global inequity.

    Yes, and no.

    In almost any demographic or general population, be they poor or rich, male or female, by religious affiliation or education level, the same 75% using 10% of the energy ratio holds over and over and over again. In British Columbia, the ration came out more accurately as 77% due the intense interest in analyzing the revenue neutral Carbon Tax. Thus 77% of citizens came out far ahead because the free riders who had been dumping waste for free are now coughing up some limited payment to compensate the 77%.

    There is deep and persistent global inequity. It has to do not with energy, however, but with fossil. Go ahead, look at those statistics again, taking fossil out of the equation, and you’ll find the answer, the preferred solution, of the poor over and over to be among alternative sources of energy.

    Also, there is a myth that more energy use (in all its forms) equates with wealth, health and improved standard of living. Ask those many millions in China who cannot breath downwind of coal plants due choking on black dust and sulfates if they feel this equation valid. This equation is simply false, an unacknowledged and specious assumption of a faulty analysis.

  49. Because modern energy supply is foundational for economic development, the international development and diplomatic community has rightly placed the provision of modern energy services at the center of international attention focused on a combined agenda of poverty eradication and sustainable development.

    Again, no.

    This is the “cheap energy” argument, an invention for selling coal, oil and megaprojects; it has never actually achieved improved welfare uniformly or equitably.

    Also, the diplomatic community is very different from the international development community, and wherever their interests coincide I’ve observed over the past almost four decades that it is to respond to a disaster, or to create one. Wouldn’t it be wiser to place development of appropriate, cost-effective utilities sustainably within reach of the poor, than “modern” (what a judgment-laden term; are they purposely putting down people in lesser-developed nations, or is it just habit?) ones?

    Compounding the difficulty of decision-making in such a complex space is that the concept of “energy access” is often defined in terms that are unacceptably modest. Discussions about energy and poverty commonly assume that the roughly two to three billion people who presently lack modern energy services will only demand or consume them in small amounts over the next several decades.

    Oh look: megaproject or bust, and total mischaracterization of the vast majority of the international development field’s approach to local solutions to local needs.

    This assumption leads to projections of future energy consumption that are not only potentially far too low, but therefore imply, even if unintentionally, that those billions will remain deeply impoverished.

    Wait. What? Millions of Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and people who identify from other cultures live comfortable, well-educated, secure and healthy lives on less than a half ton of carbon emission a year, even in places where the primary source of electric power is fossil. Leapfrogging over the mistakes of the West and avoiding becoming manacled to a doomed fossil economy is clearly the better approach.

    Such limited ambition risks becoming self-fulfilling, because the way we view the scale of the challenge will strongly influence the types of policies, technologies, levels of investment and investment vehicles that analysts and policy makers consider

    If we buy into the flawed undeclared assumptions Pielke and Bazilian rely on, we do rather face this false dichotomy. Good thing we’re skeptical enough not to let them get away with it.

    • It’s fun watching Bart try to write about economics. It’s like watching my 11 month old granddaughter play with a Rubik’s Cube. She holds it, looks at it, turns it around, and then does with it what she does with every other toy. Tries to stick it in her mouth.

      Nothing gets accomplished, but it’s not dangerous and it’s funny as hell to watch.

    • Bart R, you really have to ignore reality to write as you do. Pielke and Brazilian are broadly correct–you are not. Not by a long shot.

      • Personally I’m fascinated at the individual realizations of the general societal madness which is belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
        ======================

      • thomaswfuller2 | August 8, 2013 at 12:27 am |

        BAzilian.

        His name is Morgan BAzilian.

        Broadly correct? You can’t even get the guy’s name right.

      • Bart R, keepin’ it real.
        ======

  50. Chip Neville

    Jim Hansen’s seemingly outrageous comment, “if you let these other countries come up to the level of the developed world then the planet is done for,” is taken out of context. I just read his EurActive interview (http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/james-hansen-verge-creating-clim-interview-519752) where he made it. What he was talking about was carbon emissions, NOT energy usage. He goes on to say we will all be better off if we move to a future where we meet our energy needs with renewable sources. So the issue is not leaving people mired in low energy poverty, but rather finding a way to produce cheap and abundant energy from renewable sources.

    • Wow.

      Thanks for due skeptical diligence. Unfortunately, that is in short supply around here.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The issue is not technological innovation or investment – but taxes and subsidies. Neither is the path to cheap and abundant energy.

    • Meanwhile, Chip, are we to leave them mired in poverty while we whine and wait forever for cheap and abundant energy from renewable sources. Ask Jim how the grandchildren of those left mired in poverty will like it.
      ================

      • Convince Eli first that you are going to tax yourself enough to get that cheap (not anymore) and available (cost of extraction is increasing exponentially) and make it available to the developing nations.

      • Eli,

        Don’t organizations such as the World Bank already have billions ear-marked for investment in developing nations?

        And how much extra do we need to add to a new energy (or carbon, or climate, etc) tax to cover the percentage sure to be lost to corruption?

      • Not anywhere near the needed amounts. Time for higher taxes.

    • Steven Mosher

      “So the issue is not leaving people mired in low energy poverty, but rather finding a way to produce cheap and abundant energy from renewable sources.”

      ah yes, unicorns. we need unicorns for the poor.

      Look the problem isnt emissions, the problem is the lack of a cheap way to take C02 out of the air.

      we need to find a better way to lower the cost of removing c02 from the air

      such a fun game

      • we need to find a better way to lower the cost of removing c02 from the air

        Ever read Cats Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut? Finding a low cost way of doing that is also dangerous. What is to stop a chain reaction from removing it all?

        I would prefer to look for unicorns.

      • The problem is coming up with a cheap global air conditioner.

      • we need to find a better way to lower the cost of removing c02 from the air

        Look to biotech.

      • Steven Mosher

        Before we embark on schemes to “remove CO2 from the air”, let’s ask ourselves:

        – what could this accomplish?
        OR
        – why in the world would we want to do this?

        Let’s say we devise a (low-cost) method to remove and safely store half of the CO2 that is currently being generated.

        That’s about 17 GtCO2 per year.

        If we are able to average a net reduction of 17 GtCO2/year until 2100, that would be 17*(2100-2013) = 1479 GtCO2.

        And let’s say that without this magic scheme we would have reached 680 ppmv CO2 by 2100. So with the scheme we end up reaching around 500 ppmv.

        Using IPCC’s arguably exaggerated 2xCO2 impact of 3C (AR4), we would end up averting around 1.3C warming by 2100.

        If we use latest 2xCO2 estimates, it would be well under 1C.

        Hardly worth the effort, Mosh.

        Max

      • Actually, we don’t need unicorns or pie-in-the-sky schemes to recapture CO2. Bill Gates, a man of great practical accomplishment who has devoted the latter part of his life to raising the third world out of poverty, has an interesting interview in MIT Technology review about this. He believes research dollars will bring a solution, and he outlines several possible approaches, including ones he has put his own money into as COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS. See “Q&A: Bill Gates, The Cofounder of Microsoft Talks Energy, Philanthropy and Management Style,” Interview by Jason Pontin, MIT Technology Review, August 24, 2010 at http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26112/

      • Mosher:- ‘we need to find a better way to lower the cost of removing C02 from the air’

        I will bet you that the recent movement of sand from northwest African deserts will cause an increase in bio-productivity of the Atlantic and beyond and in the next 18-months we will see a change in the lineshape of the annual CO2 saw-tooth in the Hawaiian atmospheric record.

        http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=53872

        We should see that from mid-2013 until late 2014 more CO2 is sequestrated than normal.

  51. JC comments: For the sake of argument, lets assume that the IPCC consensus is roughly correct regarding dangerous anthropogenic climate change, with the dangers becoming apparent in the latter half of the 21st century, and mitigation of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is necessary, urgent, imperative (or whatever the latest word being used in professional society advocacy statements).

    Are you still fuming about the resounding AGU slap-down of scientific frauds, or is it BAMS’s staggering smackdown on the incompetent now?

    Really, it’s big of you to ‘assume’ for the sake of argument the most parsimonious, universal explanation allowing of the fewest exceptions. I’ll assume Newton’s Laws, with Einstein’s extensions, given such heady encouragement to take a leap of faith on this ‘science’ thing.

    Though the dangers are apparent now, according to observational evidence and the insurance industry, the navy, and, you know, people who stick their heads out windows with their eyes open.

    How do you square this climate policy ‘imperative’ with the real need right now of the majority of the people on the planet for greater access to energy?

    Well, you _could_ remember than not all energy is fossil, that not all fossil energy need be done in a wasteful and flagrant manner, and that the majority of people on the planet haven’t demanded greater access to energy at all, but fairer access. And aren’t we forgetting the huge waste of energy by those not in the developing world?

    Further, the potential development associated with increased energy could make these societies far more resilient to natural disasters (whatever the cause) than they currently are now. Not to mention that developed countries have lower population growth rates and pay more attention to their environment.

    I’m certain the people of Lac-Megantic will be gratified to hear they’re more resilient now to natural disasters.

    And what do you mean by “more attention to their environment?”

    Are you saying people in lesser developed nations are less good stewards of their environment than Americans?

    Which imperative is more ‘moral’ – to insist on reduced fossil fuel emissions over concern about what might happen > 50 years hence, in a future world that we can hardly imagine, or to support energy equity in the developing world and concretely improve lives in the here and now? How would cost/benefit analysis of this tradeoff even be conducted? What is the ‘morality’ here?

    I’d imagine before you posit moral questions, you might look to the beam in your own eye.

    Hint. Loaded questions, they aren’t moral.

    Also, as we’ve already covered, cost/benefit analysis is a limited tool requiring commensurability of all costs and benefits and a reasonable timeframe for the sake of comparison of like to like. You have none of that, and also no foundation that CBA is a moral measure, either.

    To those scientists that are advocating for a global emissions reduction policy, have you thought this one through (Jim Hansen seems to have)? This is one of the issues that makes the climate change problem so wicked.

    The problem isn’t wicked, if it has a single common solution that addresses all issues.

    If you remember only one thing, it is that carbon cycle privatization is the moral solution to the conflict between climate and fossil burners.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      For the sake of argument, lets assume that the IPCC consensus is roughly correct regarding dangerous anthropogenic climate change, with the dangers becoming apparent in the latter half of the 21st century, and mitigation of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is necessary, urgent, imperative (or whatever the latest word being used in professional society advocacy statements).

      The new paradigm is that climate is a coupled nonlinear system. Hard to tell who is right in the IPCC – it can’t be that widespread.

      How do you square this climate policy ‘imperative’ with the real need right now of the majority of the people on the planet for greater access to energy?

      We don’t care what type of energy they use. It needs to be freely chosen without duress from deluded buffoons. We would suggest a lot more investment – energy prizes – that sort of thing.

      Further, the potential development associated with increased energy could make these societies far more resilient to natural disasters (whatever the cause) than they currently are now. Not to mention that developed countries have lower population growth rates and pay more attention to their environment.

      Again we are just concerned with optimum growth paths. There is quite a bit in the MDG. Now if only Americans could be trusted keep their promises.

      Which imperative is more ‘moral’ – to insist on reduced fossil fuel emissions over concern about what might happen > 50 years hence, in a future world that we can hardly imagine, or to support energy equity in the developing world and concretely improve lives in the here and now? How would cost/benefit analysis of this tradeoff even be conducted? What is the ‘morality’ here?

      We really suggest doing both but it is a bit like walking and chewing gum. Some people just can’t manage it. Optimum growth now save lives.

      So if only America could get it’s free trade act together instead of just mouthing off much like Bart.

      To those scientists that are advocating for a global emissions reduction policy, have you thought this one through (Jim Hansen seems to have)? This is one of the issues that makes the climate change problem so wicked.

      You going to increase or decrease developing world emissions? Bart is such an idiot.

    • If you remember only one thing, it is that carbon cycle privatization is the moral solution to the conflict between climate and fossil burners.

      Well said, or put another way:

      Keep your filthy greedy hands off my individual private use of the carbon cycle.

      • Myrrh | August 8, 2013 at 4:29 am |

        Exactly the right idea.

        Once you’ve paid the owners for what you take, no one can lay their hands on it but you.

    • Steven Mosher

      and privatizing the carbon cycle is not a wicked problem.

      unicorns. we need more damn unicorns.

      Its the sun stupid.!
      its privatizing the carbon cycle stupid.!

      not surprising that two groups who worship simplicity would
      employ similar appeals, al beit from different sides of the isle.

      • Its doable, we would just need to track the master gene locus of the Javan Rhinoceros, R. sondaicus, then splice into horse embryo’s. At the moment the complete horse genome is finished, but there is no full sequence of any rhinoceros. The data we have is that the are surprisingly close, so doable, cost a couple of billion tops.

  52. Former NASA scientist James Hansen expressed his view of the issue with typical candor, when he said, “if you let these other countries come up to the level of the developed world then the planet is done for.”

    It looks like he wants to use limited access to energy for Population Control.

    He has a problem. He has supporting Model Output but he has no supporting data. Temperature and Sea Level are well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years. As more and more people live on earth, the standards of living get better and better. As CO2 increases, crop productivity gets better and better.

    He has got to work really fast before more people look at actual data.

  53. A magenta planet.

    “It lies nearly 44 Earth-sun distances from its central star, far beyond the system’s habitable zone, and it has an effective temperature of about 460 degrees Fahrenheit (237 Celsius)….”

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/07/pink-alien-planet-is-smallest-photographed/?intcmp=features

    Those purple aliens must be burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

    (Off topic I know, but the hopeless confusion of our progressive commenters when called upon to discuss the billions of people they dream of keeping in poverty is depressing.)

  54. As Wolfram and colleagues observe in a recent study, “The current forecasts for energy demand in the developing world may be understated because they do not accurately capture the dramatic increase in demand associated with poverty reduction.” The point is that energy access is not an end per se; rather it is a necessity for moving to vibrant and sustainable social and economic growth. The lower the assumed scale of the challenge, the more likely the focus will turn to incremental change that amounts to “poverty management,” rather than the transformational changes that will be necessary if we are to help billions climb out of poverty

    And if it were actual energy being discussed, instead of a euphemism for burning fossils and dumping the waste into the air, this might even bear some semblance of sense. The largely hydro-powered Canada doesn’t have inferior social or economic growth because of lack of energy. (It’s because Canada’s a dull place with a socialist, interventionist government.) Sure, much of the world doesn’t have Canada’s wealth in hydro; Canada only has one sixth of most of the less-developed nations’ wealth in solar, so that comes out about even.

    Most readers will have already recognized that our discussion has significant implications for the question of climate change. Former NASA scientist James Hansen expressed his view of the issue with typical candor, when he said, “if you let these other countries come up to the level of the developed world then the planet is done for.”

    Nicely cherry-picked citation.

    Wasn’t it in the context of burning carbon Hansen spoke, not of energy use?

    I think it was. Did they ask James Hansen to clarify?

    Wouldn’t make much sense for Hansen to object to energy, now, would it?

     For the most part, however, the ambition gap has kept this uncomfortable dilemma off the table. If one assumes that billions will remain with levels of energy consumption an order of magnitude less than even the most modest definition of modern access, then one can understand the oft-repeated claim that universal energy access can be achieved with essentially no increase in the global emissions of carbon dioxide.

    Again with this “modern” perjorative.

    I use modern, low-carbon energy; to me, anyone relying on fossil burning for energy is a troglodyte living in a cave, a regressed morlock, a stone-age throwback. If they think they’re “modern”, I laugh at their folly.

    Conflicts between climate and energy (he means fossil) priorities deserve a deeper and more open airing in order to help better frame policy options, including the difficult question of trade-offs among competing valued outcomes. ..if you’re a free-riding con artist. The issues are playing out right now, but remain largely unacknowledged. For instance, under US Senate Bill S.329 (2013) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation – a federal agency responsible for backstopping U.S. companies which invest in developing countries – is essentially prohibited from investing in energy projects that involve fossil fuels, a policy that may have profound consequences in places like sub-Saharan Africa that are seeking to develop oil and gas resources to help alleviate widespread energy poverty.Wait. WHAT?! So the money from these resources goes 100% to the local poor by some equitable mechanism? Won’t they be happy to hear that. At the same time, a different US federal agency – the U.S. Export-Import Bank – helped fund a 4.9 GW coal plant (Kusile) in the Republic of South Africa. The coal plant will help serve both industry and households that currently lack access. These simultaneous interventions appear incoherent. Are you sure you have all your facts straight here? Making such issues more transparent, and opening them up to debates with multiple stakeholders with multiple values and success criteria offers the promise of enriching the array of policy options on the table.

    Interesting. Tell us more about how this would be done, for a program approved under the BUSH ADMINISTRATION?

    The United Nations has attempted to square this circle of climate and energy through the phrase “Sustainable Energy for All”. Still, since value-judgments must be made and priorities established, the UN initiative has explicitly stated a “technology neutral” principle and given primacy to national decision-making, and implicitly has made the goal of universal energy access a “first among equals” of the three sustainable energy goals (the other two relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency). In practice however, as we have emphasized, the trade-offs involved in policies related to climate and energy have often received less than a full airing in policy debate.

    Uh, what?

    In the practice of whom?

    Has the IPCC given too little attention to the trade-offs involved when you burn carbon and dump the residue into the air?

    The AGU?

    BAMS?

    NCADAC?

    Oh. Wait. I know who you mean. You mean Bjorn Lomborg, who has spent a decade now trying to bury the trade-offs under an avalanche of red herrings.

    The course of development followed by virtually all nations demonstrates that people around the world desire a high-energy future.

    Huh.

    Of the most developed nations, the range of fossil intensity is virtually the same as the range of fossil intensity in less developed nations. There is no correlation between level of development on any key indicator independent of fossil and fossil intensity. This claim of Pielke and Bazilian is pure fiction.

    Our plea is that we begin to recognize that fact, and focus more attention and resources on positively planning for, and indeed bringing about, that future. Achieving universal modern energy access will require transformations – in aspirations, but also, for example, in technological systems, institutions, development theory and practice, and in new ways to conceptualize and finance energy system design. Being clear about what modern energy access means can create a foundation for making huge strides in bridging the global equity gap not just in energy but in the new wealth, rising standard of living, and improved quality of life that modern energy access can help to bring.

    Well, as I’ve taken the Luntzian step of defining “modern energy” to mean “not like that knuckle-dragging fossil energy”, I can reconcile myself to this plea for exceptionalism based on no real evidence and flying in the face of observation and inference, armwaved without plan or detail.

    Ultimately, a focus on energy access at a low threshold limits our thinking, and thus our options. Adopting a more ambitious conception of energy access brings conflicting priorities, as well as the scale of the challenge, more clearly into focus and makes hidden assumptions more difficult to avoid. Now more than ever the world needs to ensure that the benefits of modern energy are available to all and that energy is provided as cleanly and efficiently as possible. This is a matter of equity, first and foremost, but it is also an issue of urgent practical importance.

    The Gordian knot is sundered by simply disambiguating “energy” from “fossil”.

    See?

    Easy.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Again – we don’t care what the source of energy is. Just don’t want to transition to higher cost energy at all period. Would prefer to wait a decade or two for modular nuclear for large volume apps. – and in the meantime address all of the other emissions including land use.

      The alternative seems a bit insane – oh right it’s Bart.

    • You might not want to use Canada as an example, Bart R. They use one-third more energy per person than we dastardly Americans…

      • thomaswfuller2 | August 8, 2013 at 12:30 am |

        Yeah, but as much less fossil per capita as more energy per capita.

        Part of why I chose it.

        Oh, and that increase in standard of living? Fastest in Canada during periods when its fossil per capita growth was slowest.

        But sure, there’s a lot of countries you can use instead of Canada.

      • Bart R

        Wrong again, Bart.

        The largest increase in quality of life and life expectancy in Canada (and elsewhere) took place at the same time that an energy infrastructure was installed, which guaranteed everyone a reliable supply of low-cost energy based on fossil fuels.

        Whether you like it or not, this will also happen the undeveloped world – and has already started in developing nations, such as China and India, despite the dire warnings of Hansen et al.

        Max

      • manacker | August 8, 2013 at 3:13 am |

        Been to Canada much?

        Know a lot about Canuckistan’s electrical generation?

        Ever freaking hear of Niagara Falls?

        James Bay?

        CANDU?

        At one point, almost 90% of Canadian electricity production was non-fossil. Even today, it’s still less than 40% fossil-dependent, and with wind coming online more and more every month, that’s bound to fall again.

        When you leap into the middle of things you do not understand with neither knowledge nor ability to form rational statement, does no voice in your head whisper, “this is wrong?”

    • Bart R, in 2010 the world consumed 523 quads. 52 of them came from renewable energy. Of those 52 quads, 50 came from hydroelectric power. The other two came from wind, solar and biofuels. I am a big supporter of solar. I think eventually it will supply most of the electricity used on this planet. But not before 2075.

      I am not willing to let people live in an energy starved environment for the next 60 years. Get them on the grid first. Then worry about the fuel portfolio mix.

      • thomaswfuller2 | August 8, 2013 at 12:33 am |

        In 1970, the average computing power in the world per capita was.. I think you can see where this will go.

        In 1980, the average mobile phone usage in the world per capita was.. I think you can see where this will go.

        In 2000, social media participation worldwide was.. I’m sure you can see where this will go.

        The price of new installed energy right now, today, in current technology is much lower in many cases when wind or solar or pyoil & syngas than fossil due scale and portability and remoteness from grid, and even in cases where grid is available.

        What’s the incentive to get good at solar and wind, if they’re competing with subsidized fossils?

        Practice makes habits. Perfect practice makes perfect.

        Morgan Bazilian is a speculator in world energy megaprojects with a $200 million fund dedicated to coal and oil.

        You think a little measure of skepticism about his claims isn’t warranted?

      • tom,

        reading your comments, there is no doubt you are a person of integrity. And whether or not one shares your concern over the scope of increased energy demand and what might occur to our climate as a result of the CO2 emissions generated from meeting that demand – which I believe you correctly point out as being met primarily from fossil fuel use – it is clear that you are not willing to sacrifice real people in order to achieve some utopian future.

        The gulf between you and David Appell in this is wide enough to be called an ocean.

      • Steven Mosher

        bart

        ‘In 1970, the average computing power in the world per capita was.. I think you can see where this will go.

        In 1980, the average mobile phone usage in the world per capita was.. I think you can see where this will go.”

        Man do you have a lot to learn about manufacturing costs and how they dont apply in the energy field unless you move to personalized energy.

      • @Steven Mosher…

        Man do you have a lot to learn about manufacturing costs and how they dont apply in the energy field unless you move to personalized energy.

        IMO you’re in for a big surprise Steven.

      • Steven Mosher | August 8, 2013 at 3:25 pm |

        You mean from Nocera?

        By all means. Perhaps you’re better at education than fact checking.

        Give explaining what you mean a go.

  55. developing countries cannot afford cheap electricity from coal – they want to impose them solar electricity = if they don’t have brad – let them eat cakes…?

  56. have you thought this one through (Jim Hansen seems to have)

    Hansen is working with Consensus. There is no Thought Process in Consensus. Thought comes with Skepticism.

  57. “JC comments: For the sake of argument, lets assume that the IPCC consensus is roughly correct regarding dangerous anthropogenic climate change, with the dangers becoming apparent in the latter half of the 21st century, and mitigation of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is necessary, urgent, imperative (or whatever the latest word being used in professional society advocacy statements).”

    I don’t think IPCC consensus {if correct} respresent any threat.
    Let’s say instead of IPCC consensus, we have 10 C increase by 2050.
    And CO2 is going to cause all of it.
    Even with 10 C global increase in temperature I don’t see a threat. I see The largest land mass [Asia] becoming slightly more habitable.
    And the human species has lived through such dramatic increases in temperatures. We might get a meter or two rise in sea level. The Netherlands have dikes and are currently have large portion of below sea level- are they some sort of magical people? Are we less able than people living couple centuries ago? The answer may be yes because we have decided to have massively government and powerful governments are always incompetent, evil, and have already killed more people than weather.

    “How do you square this climate policy ‘imperative’ with the real need right now of the majority of the people on the planet for greater access to energy? Further, the potential development associated with increased energy could make these societies far more resilient to natural disasters (whatever the cause) than they currently are now. Not to mention that developed countries have lower population growth rates and pay more attention to their environment.”

    Lower population growth is a disadvantage. Point is that western civilization has technological developed to have more efficient technology. That price of learning has been paid. The reason China has so much pollution is it has a corrupt and evil government. All socialist states have been wasteful and pollute. They are incompetent.
    The problem with all poor countries is they have poor, and accountable government.

    “Which imperative is more ‘moral’ – to insist on reduced fossil fuel emissions over concern about what might happen > 50 years hence, in a future world that we can hardly imagine, or to support energy equity in the developing world and concretely improve lives in the here and now? How would cost/benefit analysis of this tradeoff even be conducted? What is the ‘morality’ here?”
    You can’t plan 50 years into the future. It’s arrogance of retards.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      gbaikie posts “Even with 10 C global increase in temperature I don’t see a threat.”

      Thank you, gbaikie, for a post that nicely illustrates the crucial role of willful ignorance in climate-change denialism.

      As a remedy for climate-change ignorance, PUBMED is our friend:

      Global health and climate change: moving from denial and catastrophic fatalism to positive action

      Impact of ambient temperature on children’s health: a systematic review

      Workplace heat stress, health and productivity – an increasing challenge for low and middle-income countries during climate change

      Lessons for the Day

      Lesson 1  A global temperature rise 10C would constitute a irretrievable catastrophe of unprecedented scale and magnitude.

      Lesson 2  Willful ignorance is essential to the sustainment of denialist cognition … that is why ideology-first denialist forums strive to cultivate ignorance, paranoia, cultural divisions, and hatred.

      Fortunately we can all work in the opposite unifying direction!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Wingnut, inform yourself with this article:

        The Age of Global Warming is Over
        http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/7-8/the-age-of-global-warming-is-over

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Thank you, Peter Lang, for a Climate Etc comment that consisted entirely of personal abuse, accompanied by one cherry-picked single-author citation; a citation that contained no physical theory, and no supporting data, that was written by an ideology-driven non-scientist.

        Your post is admirably exemplary of denialist cognition!

        The contrast with (for example) James Hansen’s multi-author, multi-disciplinary, multi-national, exhaustively referenced Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature is mighty striking, isn’t it?

        Over the long haul, isn’t it exhausting to sustain the toxic mix of willful ignorance, isolationism, and personal abuse that is the ideological foundation of climate-change denialism?

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Fan, ” Over the long haul, isn’t it exhausting to sustain the toxic mix of willful ignorance, isolationism, and personal abuse that is the ideological foundation of climate-change denialism?”
        Exhausting Fan? Not at all. As long as totalitarian – oriented pissant progressives such as yourself exist we will fight to the death. How ironic Fan that history will show it is you and your comrades that are the real science deniers. Live free or die.

      • Afomod, the planet ain’t warming.
        Hansen’s wrong.
        Get over it now will ya.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Rob Starkey asserts  “I think the probability of the US enacting any widespread program involving carbon credits [is] very very remote.”

        Rob Starkey, a consensus of foresighted Republicans that includes Ruckelshaus, Thomas, Reilly, and Whitman believes that in the short term you are entirely correct, and in the long term you are utterly wrong.

        For many conservative-minded voters, a key long-term question is this: Will the American Republican Party survive and prosper as a viable agent of 21st century conservatism … or will the Republican Party be destroyed from within, by a hyperactive cabal of willfully ignorant, personally abusive, ideology-driven, corporation-bought, agents of denialism?

        What do you think, Rob Starkey?

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Fan. You have your own thread over at WUWT. Make good use of your 15 minutes. They’re ticking.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/mad-haxor-skillz-godwinize-skeptical-science/

      • Fan

        Not being a republican I do not really care if the party survives. I think it would be a bad policy decision to enact a carbon trading scheme and I think common sense prevail and it will not be enacted in the US.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Harold says [Brandon Shollenberger has disclosed the techniques used to hack the SkS website vulnerability]

        Thanks Harold!

        However, the dubious ethics of the WUWT attack on SkS were of greater interest (to most people) than the details of the technique … and those ethical deficiencies were evident right from the start of the WUWT campaign!

        Claim  Reading the thoughtful Ruckelshaus, Thomas, Reilly, and Whitman climate-change analysis is a much better use of Climate Etc folks’ valuable time than reading juvenile WUWT/Watts smears.

        Perhaps this week’s creepy WUWT/Watts “race to the bottom” is deploying smears, hacks, and vicious videos as a ploy to obstruct rational climate-change discourse?

        Conjecture  The strategic target of this week’s WUWT/Watts “creepy campaign” is not SkS and Mann, but rather thoughtful centrist Republicans like Ruckelshaus, Thomas, Reilly, and Whitman.

        That would be an effective political strategy, eh Harold?

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Are you written in Java or C++? I suppose LISP is a possibility.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        WUWT/Watt-style hacking/smearing is a peculiar game. The only winning move is not to play.

        Climate Etc folks don’t need a supercomputer to teach them *THAT*, eh Harold?

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • I think fan gets some kind of brownie points over at SkS for every time he posts the same comment. “We’ll bore those damn skeptics to death!”

      • “Lessons for the Day

        Lesson 1 A global temperature rise 10C would constitute a irretrievable catastrophe of unprecedented scale and magnitude.”

        So locally one gets 20 C increase and decrease per day. Somehow creatures without air conditioning survive it. Seasonally, we get over 10 C increase in average temperature. The only places which do not get a high seasonal difference is in the tropics.
        And the tropics have highest average temperature on Earth. The average yearly temperature in the tropics is about 25 C.
        And the words “tropical” and “paradise” often go together. Combining “Siberia” and “paradise” is usually ironic.
        The average temperature of Siberia is about -5 C.
        And average temperature of Canada is around 0 C or colder- but most Canadian don’t live in most of Canada [it’s too cold] rather they mostly live near the their southern border to the US. So Canadian Cities are here:
        http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Canada/Cities/temperature-annual-average.php

        Now question is how would a 10 C increase in global temperature manifest itself? For example would one the areas not in the tropics, warm up to resemble the tropical temperature. That would perhaps the easiest
        possibility. Another possibility is tropics and the rest of the world would warm up more or less in same amount. Another possibility is polar regions will warm more than the rest of the world.
        Whether the polar region warm or cool has little to do with global average temperature, due to the fact that polar regions are a small area of the entire globe- the polar region could +/- 30 C and it doesn’t have much effect upon increasing the global average temperature.
        What control or determines global temperature is 40% of global surface area, called the tropics [23 degrees north and south latitude]. And extend it to 38 degree north and south- it’s about 1/2 of the world’s surface area.
        The practical way to increase global temperature is to increase tropic average temperature. At the moment, the tropics is the heat engine of the world, vast amounts of heat generated in tropics is transport northward warming Europe. And simply because it’s a large part of surface area of Earth, it’s high average temperature gives the “appearance” that the rest of world is warmer- the tropics large area and high average temperature increases the lower average temperature of the rest of the planet.
        In helping to disguise the fact we living in an ice age- most of land area on average is freezing.
        [And largely the reason we live in an ice age, has do with the continent of Antarctic being at the south pole. It has a balmly average temperature of -49 C and miles of stacked ice, the amount of stacked glacial ice makes Antarctic the highest continent in the world- remove the ice and it’s one of the lowest continents in the world. A lifeless, bitterly cold place- particularly during it’s 6 months of darkness. ]

        Before the Antarctic caused our world to be an ice box, the world were much warming than it is today- about 10 C warmer. Larger areas of earth were tropical conditions.
        So we already have model of how Earth could be 10 C warmer- instead tropical conditions existing mostly only in the tropics, the temperate zones have condition similar to tropics.
        So a 10 C increase could like tropics extending up to say 45 degree latitude of north and south. So Oregon is tropical. Or you could grow orange trees in Oregon [easily] one even grow oranges up past US- Canadian border. The arctic treeline would extend more than 1000 miles poleward- hundreds of miles further than at any time during our present interglacial period. Animals make be able to survive in the southern most peninsula of the Antarctic. Polar ice would melt in the summer. Greenland would lose a significant amount of ice over the decades of such warmer conditions. But just as there glacier which exist in much places much warmer than Greenland, there would still be a lot glacier in Greenland. And it seems Antarctic would still be much
        colder than Greenland. Though if given thousand years of such warmer conditions one could see profound changes even in the Antarctic.

        So does such change kill humans or animals? No.
        Is it possible? No.
        For this to happen one need a ocean which significantly warmer than the ocean we have. But even in this fantasy world which makes some impossible transformation due to a trace gas, it’s not a threat to humans.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Bob says “As long as totalitarian – oriented pissant progressives such as yourself exist we [denialists] will fight to the death.”

      Hmmmm &helllip; Bob, it’s scarcely likely that any amount of scientific evidence and rational discourse could ever alter your adamant denialist faith! That’s why

      • Denialist cognition has itself become the subject of global scientific study; in particular the ruthless exploitation of individual denialist cognition for amoral purposes of corporate denialism is well-illustrated in climate-change discourse.

      • Politically speaking, around the world an effective strategy is proving to be the separation and isolation of irreconcilable ideologues from persuadable citizens; “minority bubble” political parties that impose litmus tests of ideological purity have proven to be effective agents for achieving this separation and isolation.

      Obviously, there are plenty of ideological purists here on Climate Etc, who are attracted to climate-change denialism as a means of sustaining “precious ideological essence.”

      Ideology-driven denialists make plenty of noise, but over the long haul their programs politically fail, because as Dwight Eisenhower famously wrote “Their number is small and they are stupid.”

      Conclusion  The ideologically pure yet blindly ignorant denialism of WUWT/Watts, rigorously enforced at the primary level, and sustained over several election cycles, will doom the Republican Party to permanent minority status.

      Isn’t that the way of it, Bob?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Fan, ” Ideology-driven denialists make plenty of noise, but over the long haul their programs politically fail, because as Dwight Eisenhower famously wrote “Their number is small and they are stupid.”

        I searched that ref and found nothing from your quote. Your a phony, in denial about real science, and will never prevail. Get a shot of testosterone and go away pissant.

      • Fan, recognize yourself here. Keep in mind Fan, you’re the true denier.
        http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/climate_realism_and_socialist_realism.html

      • Denalists like

        Alexander Otto
        Friederike E. L. Otto
        Olivier Boucher
        John Church
        Gabi Heger
        Piers M. Forster
        Nathan P. Gillett
        Jonathan Gregory
        Gregory C. Johnson
        Reto Knutti
        Nicholas Lewis
        Ulrike Lohmann
        Jochem Marotzke
        Gunnar Myhre
        Drew Shindell
        Bjorn Stevens
        Myles R. Allen

        As all these believe that the equilibrium climate sensitivity <2.0°C

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Bob says “I searched that ref and found nothing from your quote. Your [sic] a phony, in denial about real science, and will never prevail. Get a shot of testosterone and go away pissant.”

      Bob, thank your for providing yet another example of abusive denialist cognition! The passage in question (by President Eisenhower to his nephew Edgar Eisenhower) reads as follows:

      “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

      Eisenhower Presidential Library
      Document #1147; November 8, 1954
      Letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower

      Nowadays the foresighted but ideologue-outraging social security, unemployment insurance, and farm programs of the 1950s have become the foresighted but ideologue-outraging Clinton/Romney/Obamacare and climate-conservation programs of the 21st century … ain’t that right Bob?

      Summary  Now as in the 1950s, denialist ideologies stand on the wrong side of history, economics, science, and rationality … and that is why denialist ideologies are doomed to fail.

      Which is good, eh Bob?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Fan

        If your conclusion is correct then you should be quite happy and the US will soon be implementing a fossil fuel tax and fining people for emitting co2. Perhaps you are incorrect and on the wrong side of history if those things in fact do not come to pass. Care to wager?

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        An Inconvenient Political Fact  The document A Republican Case for Climate Action (by William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman) foreshadows the coming reality of carbon credits as plainly as RomneyCare foreshadowed the present-day reality that is ObamaCare.

        Because inflexible ideology-driven “bubble” politics invariably loses to the inexorable force of rationality science, economics, and history.

        Ain’t that a common-sense modern political reality, Rob Starkey?

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Fan asks-
        Regarding the coming of carbon credits Ain’t that a common-sense modern political reality.

        My answer- I think the probability of the US enacting any widespread program involving carbon credits as very very remote. An additional fossil fuel tax is more likely than any carbon credit /trading scheme but also very unlikely.

        Neither would accomplish much

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Rob Starkey, a reply is posted above.

        And also, without regard for our differences of opinion, please let me say, that I appreciate and thank you for your thoughtful engagement regarding these issues!

      • Phony Fan, you had it in quotations. Go away.