An Inconvenient Truth

cumallday said:

You're an idiot!

Click to expand...

Roxanne Appleby presents a carefully thought out, reasoned argument and you respond with a nasty insult. How do you justify using a tactic like that?

R. Richard said:

Seattle Zack, I cited my source. If you will check, it was in the quote you used. If my 'biased source' was inaccurate, why then cite the correct figures, with your source(es). TIA.

OK, let's check out your liberal bias 'facts. In 2006, Gore used an average: 18,414 kWh per month. Ub 2006, Gore paid an average $1359 per month for his electric bill. That works out to an average 7.38 cents per kWh. But since 'friend of the Earth' Al Gore pays '50% more' for his electricity, the normal Tennessee electric rate must be 4.92 cents per kWh. That last is indeed a very low electric rate. Perhaps you could cite your 'liberal facts' as to the Tennesse electric rate. TIA.

Now, let us try to determine how Gore is able to "purchase 'green' electricity, which comes from enviromentally friendly sources such as solar power and wind farms." Since Gore purchases electricity it comes from a source. That source is Nashville Electric Service's, the local power company, power lines. The Nashville Electric Service lines carry power which is almost certainly purchased from the US power grid. Now, since Gore is able to purchase green electricty, he obviously has Maxwell's demon who selects only the green electrons from the power steam. Seattle Zack, we will need an information source for all of that, or a logical counter argument. TIA.

Perhaps you would cite your sources for the fact that Gore pays 50% more for green electric power.

Also Gore uses large amounts of natural gas, from the Nashville Gas Company. Seattle Zack, exactly where is the Nashville Gas Comany getting 'green natural gas?' [If Gore purchases 'green electricity,' does it not follow that he also purchases green natural gas?]

Click to expand...

An alternate source for you. It doesn't answer all of these questions, but does cover some, including the clarficiation of the green energy thing.-
http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/...-8134-c50115fe5aca&p=source_countdown&t=c1149

Another alternate source to ponder:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/talking-points-on-the-gor_b_42335.html

note to cum, reply to roxanne:

Cum, roxanne is not an idiot, though i do share your puzzlement sometimes. An idiot is someone who, seeing his land being flooded, starts digging holes to draw off the water from dry areas. The person of faith, in the same situation, drops to her knees and starts with "Our father who art in heaven.'

Roxanne has a strong practical side, as evidence in her interest in nuclear power. But she is about half, bound up in her somewhat heretical sect of Randian allegiances, involving principally, hostility to all forms of "socialism", taking the term to embrace US social security, British health care and alternate energy policies, Scandinavian 'welfare state,' Stalin's collective farms, Pol Pot's killing fields and Mao iron fisted autocracy.

You can imagine that with a "tool" this blunt, the analysis of anything in the West is going to be passing strange: for instance if the US gov sets up another National Park, she going to be talking of cruel bureaucrats overseeing "killing fields" and violating what Aristotle "knew" about human nature.

With this in mind, let's look at her "argument" that RR calls "reasoned" and attempt to deconstruct it.

RAIn my preferred alternative of an electric economy powered by nukes, the entire population of the planet can enjoy the same high living standards as the west does today, sustainably, for tens of thousands of years. With current technology (even though it will get better anyway.)

P: Somehow the practicalities of nuclear power, which seem to be working in France are transmuted to a faith, a formula for salvation of the planet. Talk about utopian! There is a slight scaling up, problem. If we say France, with 50 reactors can supply its 60 million people, what does it take to supply China's 1.25 BILLION. The scaling factor is 20. So the answer is 1000 nuclear reactors (of the latest, high tech sort). How are they to be built? Where would the uranium come from? How would they be maintained.

France's program cost 400 billion FF, or about 67 billion US 1993 dollars. (see ulr posted above) Apply the multiplier of 20, one estimate that the Chinese equivalent would cost 1.3 trillion 1993 US dollars. Today that's about 2 TRILLION US $$.

RANot all that vague. Your entire position is essentially a "green" version of "we need to create a New Socialist Man." As with that goal, any project that depends on changing basic human nature is not only doomed to fail, if seriously attempted it is certain to spill oceans of blood.

P: This is recycled Rand pap from the 40s and 50s. All 'green' discussion is equated with Stalinist socialism. It's not argument, so much as paranoia.

One of her mantras bears a brief comment for now: "Your plan is against basic human nature, and mine fulfills it." There is no evidence at all for the claim: The social democracies of W. Europe, including France, whom she cites, are apparently violating basic human nature in a way that works quite beneficially for all. Her ideal, a kind of 1890s capitalism in the US--with weak government, lots of child labor, adulterated drugs, infant deaths on an enormous scale--is somehow the golden age, the fulfillment of human nature! (maybe it is? but i'd say, 'we'd better not fulfill human nature! let's discipline and shape it a bit, like the Norwegians do).


RAYou are filled with Old Testament-prophet like finger wagging and warnings of doom, but you have not answered the question I asked yesterday, which is: Which benefits of industrial civilization are you giving up this year: A house that is warm in winter and cool in winter? Having an abundance of material goods that make our lives more interesting and comfortable (like the work station and computer on which you're writing your jeremiads)? Having plenty of good food of all sorts 12 months a year? Having convenient transportation for short and medium distance (cars) and long distance (airplanes)? Having work that is more interesting and less dangerous than our ancestors?

Note that minor nibbling around the edges - giving up kiwis in winter, say, or buying a Honda Pious instead of a Ford Taurus, or turning the thermostat up/down, etc - will not come close to realizing your vision, which really is really the dismantling of industrial civilization. I'm all in favor or being reasonably frugal, but even if we cut energy use in half, the magnitudes used by industrial civ are such that huge sources of concentrated energy are needed - if not fossils, then nukes.

P: Essentially, this is 'you have NOT got the answers,' and 'your plan won't work.' There's a grain of truth here, in that the 'answer' isn't entirely worked out, but Roxanne throws this at every small plan for improvement. Of course she, at the same time has unlimited faith in incremental technological improvement where, it, in her view, is not subject to "socialist" measures. The answer, roxanne, is that we proceed little by little; the vast changes of lifestyle are needed and will come, just as they did from 1900 with no TV, computers, and automobiles, to now. we might say, roxanne, that "human nature" (I.e. the American mindset) requires that one take a gradualist approach here, though it will place the US far behind England, France and Norway, with their "command [Stalinist] economies."


RASo let's get real here. You propose a "New Socialist/Green Man" model that ain't gonna happen - period. Therefore, what is your primary goal: To bring that about, or to "save the planet" from what you say is an imminent threat of catastrophe. If the latter, and you are sincere in that choice, then you will embrace the kinds of things I have suggested: a revenue neutral carbon tax, and cutting away the regulatory undergrowth that all-but prohibits new nukes in the U.S. If you impose the carbon tax the demand for fossil fuels will diminish and the demand for non-greenhouse emitting nukes will boom, so the two policies are complimentary. But - you have to figure out where your priorities really lie.

If you are sincere in your belief about the magnitude of the threat, my advice would be to go for the incentive-changing policies I suggest first, which work just fine with the basic Being, Human, Mark I, and don't require a New Socialist/Green Man to be created before you can "save the planet." Once you've done that, you can pursue your other mission, essentially a religious one, at your leisure. Who knows - maybe in a few thousand years, perhaps with a little gene-splicing, you can create your "Homo Verdis."

P: This is a kind of melange of the earlier claims: you want 'socialist man', 'your plan wont work,' and 'mine is the answer.' Of course RA has not the slightest evidence that the revenue neutral carbon tax is going to wean the US from gasoline; in fact, it's a *minor* step, a drop in the bucket [what she applies to others' plans] that could not possibly remedy the reliance on oil. and she has no talk of where the money comes from to finance the shift-- especially since she rules out government direction ("socialism").

So, cum, you see why some of us get impatient with RA. She's rational up to a point, then BLAM the ghost of Stalin emerges and she starts chanting "you can't change human nature." It's rather like talking to an evangelical whose home is about to be flooded. At first it's 'where can we get sandbags?" and "can we survive on the roof," then all of a sudden the fellow breaks down, falls to his knees and says, "all this is dust in the wind without the help of Jesus; HE is going to be the one who saves; we must not get caught up in the idolatry of sandbags."

PS: one small note, mr. cum. hear Roxanne say:

RA If you are sincere in your belief about the magnitude of the threat,

P: this is a typical insinuation coming from Roxanne, in argument, essentially saying "if you're sincere you'll abandon your position and come over to mine. if you persist, deliberately, to ignore truth and reason, i take that to be evidence of insincerity."

for all her talk of 'charity' and progress in cultivating it, she can't help employ [a diluted form of] Ayn Rand's favorite tactic against dissenters: accuse them of moral corruption, lying, scheming, dissembling about 'real motives', which of course are pettiness, spite, and hatred of the good (?).

I have reviewed the various 'evidence' sites presented as spin on Al Gore's energy hog house. No one has challenged any of the energy usage figures presented. What has been presented as spin is that Gore, after using disproportionate amounts of energy made waht is in effect a contribution to the 'green power' effort.

Now, I did pick up some useful information from the sites. It seems that Gore has [I am assuming had] done considerable renovation work on his house. What is needed here, from the 'green warriors,' is a list [dates of completion attached] of the energy saving mods ol' Al Gore had done to his house. Clearly a green warrior such as Al Gore would have installed new, double insulated windows with sun protection, new, high-rated insulation in the attic, etc. We need data here to clear Al Gore! [Al really can't clear himself after the bit on TV where he thundered, "I did not have sex with that woman!" No, wait! That was the other liar.]

R. Richard said:

Roxanne Appleby presents a carefully thought out, reasoned argument and you respond with a nasty insult. How do you justify using a tactic like that?

Click to expand...

I wasn't being entirely sincere. I just thought I would show how much more "effecient" I am at childish name calling. She says my thinking is certain to spill oceans of blood, but also asks how much energy she needs to devote to "stopping" me. This is childish. She says I am asking to change basic human nature - childish. She says I'm calling for the "destruction" of industrial civilization and asks what I am willing to "give up". I don't remember using the words "destroy" or "give up". I do, however, remember using words like reform and restraint. Is Roxanne an idiot? No. Remember, though, I did say hypocrisy and ignorance are far more inconvenient than truth when it comes to living in peace with mother nature. Maybe we should add childishness to that list. Oh, and, you'll surely forgive me if I fail at becoming overly emotionally invested in what some disembodied words on a screen say.

Pure said:

Cum, roxanne is not an idiot, though i do share your puzzlement sometimes. An idiot is someone who, seeing his land being flooded, starts digging holes to draw off the water from dry areas. The person of faith, in the same situation, drops to her knees and starts with "Our father who art in heaven.' Roxanne has a strong practical side, as evidence in her interest in nuclear power. But she is about half, bound up in her somewhat heretical sect of Randian allegiances blah blah blah . . .

Click to expand...

Ah Pure – so many words, so little content; never let pass an opportunity to sneer and slip in a little illegitimate rhetoricial device; always equate your adversaries with “Ayn Rand” and engage in some demonizing.

What we have here are essentially three visions of how to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions. I’ll set aside for now the very live question of whether this makes any kind of sense.

Vision 1 is the “Green Utopia,” or as I call it creating the “New Socialist/Green Man.” It requires a profound change in human attitudes, motivations and behavior patterns, just as the Marxist vision did. It wouldn’t just slow economic growth - it would reverse it. It views this outcome as a virtue. It would say to Chinese, Indians and others striving to achieve a middle class living standard, “Go back to your villages. Heck, we’re going too.” It would tell Africans living in mud huts that they’re lucky to do so, and maybe give them a windmill to pump water for the village (assuming they’re not “mining” that water, that is.) This is the vision of radical environmentalists, described by Cumalday.

Vision 2 is the command-and-control bureaucratic/political model. We might call it “Politician\Bureaucrat’s Utopia,” because it would vastly increase the power of those classes vis a vis individuals and private businesses. It would create tremendous opportunities for “rent seeking” by smooth operators like agribusiness, and already-existing electric companies enriched by “carbon credit” schemes allowing them to freeze-out competitors. Any technological innovations and alternatives would come about via government-directed research rather than private actors independently seeking market advantage. This option would slow economic growth dramatically, because small companies and entrepreneurs who are not shrewd political operators would be hamstrung by the new bureacracies and regulations. This is the preferred solution of the class that identifies with politicians (like Al Gore), bureaucrats, and slick corporate operators like ADM and KKR. It is defended by Huckleman, Pure and many others. The watchword of this option is “Kyoto.”

Vision 3 is the one I’ve descibed. Let’s call it the “Idiot’s Solution” to reducing carbon emissions. It relies on changing the economic incentives so that individuals and companies acting in their own self interest (gasp!) behave in ways that reduce reduce carbon emissions. I have suggested that phasing in a revenue-neutral carbon tax high enough to create incentives to reduce the use of fossil fuels and innovate alternatives would accomplish this. Also, cutting back the regulatory thickets that make it all-but impossible to build a nuke plant in the U.S. I suspect that if the playing field were leveled in this way nuclear would look to the market like an attractive alternative given the huge magnitude of energy an industrial civiliation requires (a reality that very few in this debate appreciate - actually, the radical greens may be ahead in this regard.) But I could be wrong about nukes - perhaps other innovative alternatives would surpass them.

In any event, the marketplace would sort this out in the most efficient and productive way possible, with no assistance needed from the pols and bureaucrats. The effects on economic growth probably would be neutral or positive. New opportunities would arise and many existing ones would disappear (the the opportunity to make money selling SUVs.) A vast amount of “creative destruction” would take place. Creative innovators would be richly rewarded and unresponsive dinosaurs (SUV makers) severly punished. It would be an exhillirating experience for all. Yes, SUV plant workers would lose their jobs, but vast new opportunities would take up the slack. Citizens of countries like China and India would still be able to achieve middle class status, the prospects of those in real third world basketcases would be no worse, and possibly much improved.


What do these three options mean for those who believe that global warming is such a catastrophe that the highest priority is to dramatically reduce carbon emissions very quickly?

Option 1, “Green Utopia,” requires profound changes in human attitudes, motivations and behavior. In the absence of coercion these are very unlikely to happen in the lifetime of anyone now living. If coercion is used the likely outcome is the “oceans of blood” that Cum finds it so objectionable to mention. With coercion this option would bring about dramatic reductions in carbon emissions, possibly through a massive die-off of the human population. Without coercion, it probably would have a negligible effect – because it's unlikely to happen on any large scale.

Option 2, “Politician’s Utopia” will enrich the political class and those who feed off it, but make everyone else poorer. At most it would reduce carbon emissions by a small amount (China and India are exempt from it's impositions), and would bring about many negative unintended consequences, a rise in food prices and agricultural pollution from the huge ethanol subsidy and mandate scramble now underway being an example.

Option 3, the “Idiot’s Solution,” will enrich those who innovate and produce alternative energy sources and systems that reduce carbon emissions. It will make poorer those who are currently invested in high carbon emissions and fail to respond to the changed incentive structure. The population as a whole probably would not experience major changes in wealth. This approach will lower carbon emissions very dramatically and very quickly. If you truly believe that this is the highest priority for mankind at this juncture and are not just claiming that to further some other agenda, the “Idiot’s Solution” is the approach you would be wise to select.

Some may raise an eyebrow at my focus on economic growth, perhaps considering it “grubby.” It’s not. It’s the difference between life and death in many cases, in fact – I refer you to this article for an explanation. Wealthy societies can do things that are impossible for poor ones, like maintain social “safety nets,” innovate new cures for diseases, and - improve the environment.

R. Richard said:

Seattle Zack, I cited my source. If you will check, it was in the quote you used. If my 'biased source' was inaccurate, why then cite the correct figures, with your source(es). TIA.

OK, let's check out your liberal bias 'facts. In 2006, Gore used an average: 18,414 kWh per month. Ub 2006, Gore paid an average $1359 per month for his electric bill. That works out to an average 7.38 cents per kWh. But since 'friend of the Earth' Al Gore pays '50% more' for his electricity, the normal Tennessee electric rate must be 4.92 cents per kWh. That last is indeed a very low electric rate. Perhaps you could cite your 'liberal facts' as to the Tennesse electric rate. TIA.

Now, let us try to determine how Gore is able to "purchase 'green' electricity, which comes from enviromentally friendly sources such as solar power and wind farms." Since Gore purchases electricity it comes from a source. That source is Nashville Electric Service's, the local power company, power lines. The Nashville Electric Service lines carry power which is almost certainly purchased from the US power grid. Now, since Gore is able to purchase green electricty, he obviously has Maxwell's demon who selects only the green electrons from the power steam. Seattle Zack, we will need an information source for all of that, or a logical counter argument. TIA.

Perhaps you would cite your sources for the fact that Gore pays 50% more for green electric power.

Also Gore uses large amounts of natural gas, from the Nashville Gas Company. Seattle Zack, exactly where is the Nashville Gas Comany getting 'green natural gas?' [If Gore purchases 'green electricity,' does it not follow that he also purchases green natural gas?]

Click to expand...

oh good grief... if you spent as much time getting your OWN house in order as you have spent on criticizing someone else's...

metaphorically speaking... although... literally, I guess, too...

One of the problems with creating a utopia is that you may find yourself having to live in it. Let me cite a not too long ago example.

Smokey The Bear wanted everyone to preserve the forest and not change a thing from the way mother nature intended it. Over the course of a couple of generations, the forest became a tinderbox of dried forest litter ready to explode into fire at any moment. STB's green dream became a nighmare and more so because the green dream that he had sold prevented any rational discussion of controlled burns to rid the forest of the clutter. [The Amerinds used to burn the western forest twice a year. The burns rid the forest of the clutter, consumed the dying trees and left a forest that was dynamic and healthy. The frequent burns were too small to damage a healthy tree and life was good.]

That is the problem with so many 'green dreams.' They look very good until you determine that you simply can't live with some of the features in your new utopia. However, by then it is very hard to just walk away from the unworkable nightmare you have created.

R. Richard said:

One of the problems with creating a utopia is that you may find yourself having to live in it.

Click to expand...

Yet, we do all create them and want and desire Utopia in our own personal POV? What is the problem, again?

three alternatives:

roxanne opines that there are three main alternative to the energy and 'warming' crisis that she denies exists.

Option 1, “Green Utopia,” requires profound changes in human attitudes, motivations and behavior. ...the likely outcome is the “oceans of blood” ....

Option 2, “Politician’s Utopia” will enrich the political class and those who feed off it, but make everyone else poorer.

Option 3, the “Idiot’s Solution,” will enrich those who innovate and produce alternative energy sources and systems that reduce carbon emissions.

---
One can see the alternative universe that Roxanne inhabits, at least in her rhetoric: Let me paraphrase the alternatives:

1) Stalinism. Gulags, killing fields, etc.
2) Liberal Bureaucracy, alleged to be favored by Gore et al.
3) Laisser Faire. (Idiot's Solution).

The Govt institutes a carbon tax and stands aside, doing nothing else except let the genie of free enterprise work its magic. [[The gov't also magically shrinks to its 1960 or 1920 size; all corporate handouts and 'incentives' disappear as well as corporate taxes. ]]

With all due respect, the phrase "Idiot's Solution" was well chosen
(whatever might be the merits of tax (dis)incentives against those releasing lots of CO2).

Of course Roxanne is no idiot; the "three alternatives" are just a lame rhetorical devise to bash the old bugbears of Ms. Rand and tout Ms Roxannes utopian solution. (evidence held to be irrelevant).

Try as a might, I fail to find any content to the previous post. Insult and sneering only. Barely more than, "Is not! And you're a doodoo-head!" It's not as if I failed to provide ample substance on which one could agree, agree with qualifications, or disagree. Maybe others will try to present an actual position and defend it.

Pure said:

roxanne opines that there are three main alternative to the energy and 'warming' crisis that she denies exists.

Option 1, “Green Utopia,” requires profound changes in human attitudes, motivations and behavior. ...the likely outcome is the “oceans of blood” ....

Option 2, “Politician’s Utopia” will enrich the political class and those who feed off it, but make everyone else poorer.

Option 3, the “Idiot’s Solution,” will enrich those who innovate and produce alternative energy sources and systems that reduce carbon emissions.

---
One can see the alternative universe that Roxanne inhabits, at least in her rhetoric: Let me paraphrase the alternatives:

1) Stalinism. Gulags, killing fields, etc.
2) Liberal Bureaucracy, alleged to be favored by Gore et al.
3) Laisser Faire. (Idiot's Solution).

The Govt institutes a carbon tax and stands aside, doing nothing else except let the genie of free enterprise work its magic. [[The gov't also magically shrinks to its 1960 or 1920 size; all corporate handouts and 'incentives' disappear as well as corporate taxes. ]]

With all due respect, the phrase "Idiot's Solution" was well chosen
(whatever might be the merits of tax (dis)incentives against those releasing lots of CO2).

Of course Roxanne is no idiot; the "three alternatives" are just a lame rhetorical devise to bash the old bugbears of Ms. Rand and tout Ms Roxannes utopian solution. (evidence held to be irrelevant).

Click to expand...

Ah - I see I am red passion and not green clean.

well, roxanne, here's a simple question:

given the three main alternatives you describe, from which we allgedly have to choose:

Option 1, “Green Utopia,” requires profound changes in human attitudes, motivations and behavior. ...the likely outcome is the “oceans of blood” ....

Option 2, “Politician’s Utopia” will enrich the political class and those who feed off it, but make everyone else poorer.

Option 3, the “Idiot’s Solution,” will enrich those who innovate and produce alternative energy sources and systems that reduce carbon emissions.

given further, that only 3 could be chosen, according to you, by anyone with sincere concerns about the environment,

where exactly does France fit, a nation you say is taking appropriate steps in energy policy and development?
---

to your challenge, a simple answer:

Maybe others will try to present an actual position and defend it.

A. France is dealing well with the energy crisis, and now has electricity to export. [Stated by Roxanne and other authorities.

B. France is a social democratic state, as are some other nations taking promising steps in energy policy [Englan, for example, and--I think--some scandinavian countries, though i haven't researched it]

C. Ergo, the evidence is that the social democracies are solving the problems and are in the best position to.

D. These are neither Stalinist, nor particularly bureaucratic, nor 'laisser faire' carbon-tax folks.

E. Hence the 'three options' proposed are phoney, a put up job; without plausibility. The intention, one can only speculate, is to claim some be-all and end-all solution for energy and the environment in the quasi Randian scheme of a 'carbon tax.'

SelenaKittyn said:

oh good grief... if you spent as much time getting your OWN house in order as you have spent on criticizing someone else's...

metaphorically speaking... although... literally, I guess, too...

Click to expand...

I have my own house in order. I don't ask anyone else to keep my house in order, unless I contract with them and pay them to do so.

Al Gore thinks that he can keep my country in order as far as CO2 emissions go. He wants to turn control of some of my freedoms over to an international committee. I don't need an international committee to run the US. I don't need Al Gore to run my house.

what's happening

inside the 'land of the free,' but mostly outside:

Source: RAND Corporation
Date: November 14, 2006
More on: Energy and the Environment, Renewable Energy, Environmental Science, Petroleum, Sustainability, Energy Technology
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113173232.htm

Rand Study Says Renewable Energy Could Play Larger Role In U.S. Energy Future
Science Daily — Renewable resources could produce 25 percent of the electricity and motor vehicle fuels used in the United States by 2025 at little or no additional cost if fossil fuel prices remain high enough and the cost of producing renewable energy continues falling in accord with historical trends, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.

Renewable sources currently provide about 6 percent of all the energy used in the United States.
The study was conducted within the Environment, Energy, and Economic Development program of RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

RAND found that meeting the 25 percent renewable energy target for electricity and motor fuels together would not increase total national energy spending if renewable energy production costs decline by at least 20 percent between now and 2025 (which is consistent with recent experience), unless long-term oil prices fall significantly below the range currently projected by the Energy Information Administration.

Wind power, solar power and the burning of agricultural waste are all examples of renewable energy sources that can be used to produce electricity. Biomass resources like stalks from food crops, wood material, and grasses also can be turned into ethanol that can be used to power motor vehicles.

The study evaluates the goal known as 25x'25. This refers to having 25 percent of the energy used for electricity and motor vehicle fuel in the United States supplied by renewable energy sources by the year 2025. The report is titled “Impacts on U.S. Energy Expenditures of Increasing Renewable Energy Use.”

The Energy Future Coalition, a nonprofit organization, asked RAND to assess the economic and other impacts of meeting the 25x'25 goal. The RAND study considered technological and economic factors that would affect the costs of renewable energy as well as non-renewable fossil fuels.

“When talking about the impact of increasing use of renewable energy sources in our energy future, it's important to be clear about the assumptions being made about future energy prices and technological developments, not just for renewables but also for competing fossil energy sources,” said Michael Toman, director of RAND's Environment, Energy, and Economic Development program.
Significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion also can be achieved by meeting the 25x'25 goal, the study found – amounting to 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2025, or 15 percent of projected U.S. emissions. In addition, an estimated 2.5 million barrels of oil consumption would be displaced, according to the study.

Previous studies have relied on a handful of scenarios to capture uncertainties in the U.S. Department of Energy's projections of future energy prices and changes in the costs of various technologies.

The RAND study examined 1,500 cases of varying energy price and technology cost conditions for renewable and nonrenewable resources. The RAND team developed a model based on the National Energy Modeling System created by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
RAND researchers did not assess the impact of renewable energy used directly by industry in buildings currently using natural gas, in off-road vehicles used for construction and recreation, or in railroad and jet fuel.
RAND researchers assumed that implementation of increased renewable energy use would be carried out at a national level in the least costly manner, versus a more piecemeal approach. Among the important uncertainties considered is the cost to ramp up use of new renewable energy technologies.

The lead author of the study was Mark Bernstein, who was a RAND researcher at the time the report was prepared. Other authors are Jay Griffin and Robert Lempert of RAND.

The study was carried out within the Environment, Energy, and Economic Development program of the RAND Infrastructure, Safety and Environment Division. The division's mission is to improve the development, operation, use and protection of society's essential physical assets and natural resources, as well as to enhance the safety and security of individuals in their workplaces and community.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by RAND Corporation
=====

See “Energy Efficiency Policies and recommendations”
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/eepi/conclusions/conclusions.asp

=====
British plan proposed by Desmond Turner, aiming at 40% energy savings, by 2020,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060215/debtext/60215-05.htm

Pure said:

well, roxanne, here's a simple question:


where exactly does France fit, a nation you say is taking appropriate steps in energy policy and development?
---

to your challenge, a simple answer:

Maybe others will try to present an actual position and defend it.

A. France is dealing well with the energy crisis, and now has electricity to export. [Stated by Roxanne and other authorities.

B. France is a social democratic state, as are some other nations taking promising steps in energy policy [Englan, for example, and--I think--some scandinavian countries, though i haven't researched it]

C. Ergo, the evidence is that the social democracies are solving the problems and are in the best position to.

D. These are neither Stalinist, nor particularly bureaucratic, nor 'laisser faire' carbon-tax folks.

E. Hence the 'three options' proposed are phoney, a put up job; without plausibility. The intention, one can only speculate, is to claim some be-all and end-all solution for energy and the environment in the quasi Randian scheme of a 'carbon tax.'

Click to expand...

Pure, you were the one who raised the straw man of "Roxanne opposes social democratic states," a matter that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

To answer your question, for reasons and by processes that also have nothing to do with the matter at hand, France finds itself in possession of an energy mix that is close to what I suggest might be one which purely market forces would create in the US and elsewhere given a substantial carbon tax. As I said, whether markets would actually select for nuclear power would only be determined in time by events, but it's very plausible. I'm sure France got there by means of a command and control process motivated by the reality of not being coal-rich, and the somewhat irrational (if understandable) desire to be energy independent. In short, DeGaulle and his successors ordered, "Let there be nukes, and damn the costs." And so there are nukes.

In addition, for many reasons perhaps related less to its welfare state than to an anti-entrepreneurial culture, plus sclerotic labor laws and regulatory structures, France finds itself falling behind the barbarian Anglo Saxon nations in employment and economic growth. This has many negative consequences (such the troubles in the banlieues), but that is not directly relevent to the current discussion.

However, something about debating me causes you to become unhinged, Pure. You keep throwing out the demon of "laissez faire," and introducing issues that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. To recap my specific proposal: A substantial carbon tax, equivalent to $5/gal or more for gasoline on all fossil fuels, made revenue neutral by a reduction in marginal income tax rates, minus refundable credits to hold harmless low to middle income citizens who don't pay enough income tax to benefit from the lower rates. The government would be funded less by the income tax and more by the energy consumption tax. I have not proposed any reduction in the size or scope of government. If you wish we can raise the carbon tax higher as revenue declines with falling consumption, or shift back to an income tax as that happens.

In other words, I'm chasing all those scary demons away, Pure, so we can focus solely on the matter at hand, which are the three alternative methods with which a nation might respond to a desire to reduce CO2 emissions. Whenever you feel yourself sufficiently calmed down, please feel free to explain how either a semi-religious vision of a "New Socialist/Green" man, or a politicians' and rent-seekers' wet dream of a bureacratic subsidy-and-mandate regime, can be superior as a means for reducing carbon emissions compared to harnessing good old fashioned economic self interest to that purpose.

~~~~~~

You people are the ones proclaiming dread of carbon emissions. I'm taking you at your word, and helping you out by providing a little clear thinking on what the policy alternatives are and the likely consequences of each. No one has laid a finger on my prognoses, or even tried, really.

Here's a specific question/challenge for you, Pure: The current ethanol scramble is the kind of game that gets played when you pick Door No. 2 in my three options. Can you honestly tell me that it will have any real effect on carbon emissions, or do anything except enrich the political opportunists in agribusiness, fatten the politicians they feed, lead to higher food prices that will have dire consequences for the poorest in this country and the world, and cause significant environmental degradation due to overfarming?

Pure said:

inside the 'land of the free,' but mostly outside:

Rand Study Says Renewable Energy Could Play Larger Role In U.S. Energy Future
Science Daily — Renewable resources could produce 25 percent of the electricity and motor vehicle fuels used in the United States by 2025 at little or no additional cost if fossil fuel prices remain high enough and the cost of producing renewable energy continues falling in accord with historical trends, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.

Click to expand...

Do you know what these kind of "programs" always have in common? (I use the term advisedly, because slogans like "25/25" aren't programs, but cover for the subsidy and mandate regimes behind Door No. 2 in my three policy options.) Here's the answer:

*They become compromised at birth with contradictory provisions due to the nature of the political process and the influence of rent seeking special interests. (It's no good pretending this woudn't happen this time.)
*Costs that far exceed the central planners quesstimates.
*Benefits that fall short of their guesstimates.
*Many negative unintended consequences (look to the current ethanol scramble for examples.)
*Either silence from the central planners when the target date arrives and the goal is not even close to being acheived, or bureaucrats with very convoluted and prolix excuses about why the goals were not met.

25/25? Pathetic. Try out my carbon tax regime and see if you don't get 25/15, and 60/25. Self interest and market driven innovation - that's the ticket if you really want to cut carbon emissions. How can anyone doubt it?

Consider the Stern report. Written for the UK gov by former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, a highly respected member of his field soon to return to the London School of Economics. The report concludes that global warming could lead to the biggest recession since the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. Until the report was released last October, most economists felt taking action on global warming to be too costly. Overnight, the Stern Report rewrote the economic argument. Stern simply compared the costs in reduced GDP of preventing climate change against how much climate change will reduce future growth in GDP. That's like comparing the cost of repairing the brakes on your bike to the costs you will face when the brakes fail and you crash into oncoming traffic.

Most economists, following a tired and defunct neoclassical model, see the tragedies of melting glaciers, declining crop yields, acidifying oceans, rising sea levels, and more deaths from malnutrition and heat stress as a hiccup in their dreams of an ever-increasing GDP. Stern, on the other hand, found that using mainstream economics to analyze climate change stretched the discipline to its limits. Stern actually found benefits to exercising reform and restraint.

Personally, I say d'uh! But then again I'm not an economist. Economics, for me, is better at determining output rather than outcome, but at least the report forces economists to make that imaginative/common sensical bridge between human economy and bioshpere. And that's the last thing I'm ever going to post here.

cumallday said:

Consider the Stern report.

Click to expand...

Indeed, Lets. It's considered here.

R. Richard said:

I have reviewed the various 'evidence' sites presented as spin on Al Gore's energy hog house. No one has challenged any of the energy usage figures presented. What has been presented as spin is that Gore, after using disproportionate amounts of energy made waht is in effect a contribution to the 'green power' effort.

Now, I did pick up some useful information from the sites. It seems that Gore has [I am assuming had] done considerable renovation work on his house. What is needed here, from the 'green warriors,' is a list [dates of completion attached] of the energy saving mods ol' Al Gore had done to his house. Clearly a green warrior such as Al Gore would have installed new, double insulated windows with sun protection, new, high-rated insulation in the attic, etc. We need data here to clear Al Gore! [Al really can't clear himself after the bit on TV where he thundered, "I did not have sex with that woman!" No, wait! That was the other liar.]

Click to expand...

Yes, the figures were challenged, particularly the figures given for comparison, which are appearantly a national average, rather than a state average. The figures for $ spent were also challenged, as Gore evidently pays more per kw/h since he uses "green" energy.
As for his renovations, one of the very first articles I posted had a listing of some of the energy savers they've added to the house.

So, a couple of things that I have to say- I get that you don't like Gore, and that's fine. You're not required to. I get that you have issues with the way the global warming issue is being handled here, which is true of alot of folks. What I don't get is why you want to hold so tight to this one article, which is biased and which has been shown to be at least partially faulty in its reporting. By denying any other evidence as has been shown in other sources, both liberal and mainstream, and by holding so dear to that one article, you lose so much of your credibility. You can hate Gore and hate the policies in place on global warming and the politics of it and have better reasons than a faulty article on Gore's electric bill.

As to your comment about "the other liar"- that comment got me to thinking. People still harp on Clinton for lying about his sex life, but you know I think I'd rather a president who lies about sex than one who lies about WMD's to justify a war. At least soldiers didn't die unnecessarily because Clinton lied about a blow job.

how about some details, rox,

okay you've got your soap box? how about a few details in your hitherto vague 'carbon tax' 'revenue neutral' scheme?

assume you're a demigod and can have it your way, with this scheme.

1) What is the new surcharge (tax) on a gallon of gasoline for now and the first couple years?

2) Does 'revenue neutral' mean--at one extreme-- that each *individual* (or factory) pays no more (or less) total tax, or--at the other extreme-- are you aggregating, perhaps for all --so that (merely) total tax taken in for all people and units remains the same; so that *on the whole* the carbon-tax intake equals the overall income and other tax reductions.

Are your aggregates--in between the extremes-- smaller than the whole, but by a given industry, say 'car manufacture'. IOW at what level(s) does 'neutrality' apply.

For example (supposing we're talking inviduals with unchanged position) if family A with income 60K has a huge SUV and their neighbors family B have the tiniest Toyota, and their taxes are otherwise similar except for gasoline, are their respective income positions the same (i.e., minus carbon tax plus reimbursement)? their relative positions?

3) What is the level of reimbursement to poor and working poor, say with family income of 10K, 20K, 30K? Does their after tax income (minus carbon tax plus reimbursement) remain the same?

---
I find it odd that you're endorsed the scheme of Gore, Ignatieff (Canadian liberal bigwig) as well as some conservative institutions.
But hey, you're all smart people, so maybe there is something to the idea, if you could be clear about it.

Pure said:

okay you've got your soap box? how about a few details in your hitherto vague 'carbon tax' 'revenue neutral' scheme?

assume you're a demigod and can have it your way, with this scheme.

1) What is the new surcharge (tax) on a gallon of gasoline for now and the first couple years?

2) Does 'revenue neutral' mean--at one extreme-- that each *individual* (or factory) pays no more (or less) total tax, or--at the other extreme-- are you aggregating, perhaps for all --so that (merely) total tax taken in for all people and units remains the same; so that *on the whole* the carbon-tax intake equals the overall income and other tax reductions.

Are your aggregates--in between the extremes-- smaller than the whole, but by a given industry, say 'car manufacture'. IOW at what level(s) does 'neutrality' apply.

For example (supposing we're talking inviduals with unchanged position) if family A with income 60K has a huge SUV and their neighbors family B have the tiniest Toyota, and their taxes are otherwise similar except for gasoline, are their respective income positions the same (i.e., minus carbon tax plus reimbursement)? their relative positions?

3) What is the level of reimbursement to poor and working poor, say with family income of 10K, 20K, 30K? Does their after tax income (minus carbon tax plus reimbursement) remain the same?

---
I find it odd that you're endorsed the scheme of Gore, Ignatieff (Canadian liberal bigwig) as well as some conservative institutions.
But hey, you're all smart people, so maybe there is something to the idea, if you could be clear about it.

Click to expand...

First of all, I'm talking about revenue offsets coming from the personal income tax, not the corporate, so your questions about "companies" are not relevent.

When I say "revenue neutral" I mean in terms of the net amount flowing into the treasury, AND in terms of net family income at various income levels. In your example of the two middle income families with similar tax situations, obviously the one with the Honda Pious will come out ahead of the one with the SUV - until the changed incentives causes them to unload the SUV.

The tax credit would be graduated, so larger for those who make less. It would phase out at an income level where income tax savings start balancing carbon tax losses, given average energy conumption levels (mid-size car and house, etc.) Perhaps there might be a disproprtionately large refundable tax credit at the low end in the early years to compensate for the relative inability of the poor to substitute quickly - they can't run out and buy a Pious.

I'm almost prepared to let you draft these details, Pure - my goal would be that no individual is significantly better or worse off under the carbon tax than the income tax, except to the extent they choose to engage in behavior (SUV owning) that costs them more (and to the extent they truly do have a choice in that - thus the low income 'bonus' early on for those who can't replace the gas hog easily.)

BTW, the tax is not just on motor fuel, but all forms of fossil fuels, which means heating and electricity bills go up also. Utilities would have an incentive to substitute nukes for coal - their customers would push for it.

The tax would be phased in over 10-20 years. So if it were the equivalent of $5/gallon for gas, it rises 25-cents to 50-cents per year. Inexorably, and with complete predictability. The income tax rate cuts and credits would phase in at a comparable rate. The exact size of the carbon tax would be a function of aggregate elasticity in demand - how high does it need to be to make people really not want to consume fossil fuels? As long as it's revenue neutral in both senses, how high the tax is doesn't really matter in its effect on the overall economy or on family income.

These details are all relatively easy to figure out by the legislative and economic 'mechanics.' I would expect a little bit of game playing and manipulation as the legislative sausage-making process unfolded, but not very much. It would require a broad popular movement to bring this about, because the special interest rent seekers who benefit from the subsidy/mandate regime in my option No. 2 would work against it. They could be trumped by a popular movement, and the fact of a popular movement would also limit the amount of game playing the pols could get away with. The pressure would be on them to pass the thing, and pushing too hard toward using this for wealth redistribution in either direction would blow it up, so the pols would resist those pushes and pulls.

You find it odd I'm in agreement with the (early) Al Gore in supporting a carbon tax? Actually, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. What I'm saying is, if you are convinced that "we're all gonna die " if we don't reduce CO2 emissions, this is how to accomplish it in a way that causes the least damage to the world economy. Eventually, in the next 50-100 years, the increasing price of oil and natural gas as they are delpleted will generate the same outcome without a carbon tax - substitute energy sources will relace them long before the "last barrel" is pumped. But you are all in an all-fired hurry, so the carbon tax accelerates the process without causing a major transfer of power and resources from the private sector to the politicians and bureaucrats.

roxanne says,

RA Actually, I think the whole thing is ridiculous.

i'm not sure if you, RA, mean the carbon tax, or the thesis of global warming as a danger. it's a bit surreal to be discussing either--a solution that's ridiculous or an effective solution to a ridiculous, imaginary problem.

i suppose the point is to embarrass environment people and show their insincerity. so much for the 'sincerity' of your proposals in the debate.

BUT, since various forms of 'carbon tax' have been proposed in good faith by conservatives, liberals, and maybe some social democrats, let's look at three basic problems. my point will be that the problems mean that while 'carbon tax' has some validity, it could only be a minor part of a solution to the problems at hand, not the wonderful sword against waste that roxanne claims (or says she does). it has some validity, since taxing things you want to reduce does have some effect, be it on substandard housing or emisions of poisonous gas (Sweden's tax on nitrogen oxides).

Looking over some of the literature on the internet, I see two problems cited, by analysts, and i'll add a third.

1. Lack of (much)incentive for the individual [or taxed unit] to economize

ra says,
When I say "revenue neutral" I mean in terms of the net amount flowing into the treasury, AND in terms of net family income at various income levels. In your example of the two middle income families with similar tax situations, obviously the one with the Honda Pious will come out ahead of the one with the SUV - until the changed incentives causes them to unload the SUV.

so apparently 'neutrality' is to apply to 'income levels', persons aggregated by income level-- what we call a 'tax bracket. as the example shows, an extravagant consumer on the level of 60 K--the fellow with the giant SUV--, is going to suffer from the carbon tax. To put it roughly, that's the upper end of the bell curve of consumption (top 20 percent consumers, in that bracket, of fossil fuel), let's say in the 50-75 K bracket. The honking big SUVS, those mobile homes that you drive from inside, the ATVs, the boats.

HOWEVER, for the *average* person, lets say the middle 60% of the consumers in the bracket, *there is no change*. what they pay in carbon tax is refunded on income tax. This person has little real monetary incentive to change. Roxanne points out that the tax will be felt, say in a electric bill, where coal has been used. OK, but only the person of that bracket with *exceptional* electric bills are penalized The *average* homes usage in the bracket is going to have 'revenue neutrality. no net tax impact.

2) As the letter below argues, the *amount* of the tax [that would be effective], set by Roxanne at $5, is vastly underestimated. The author below estimate several times that, and points out that Europe has $6/gallon gas [yet overconsumption, by 'green' standards]. Rox proposes only $8, quite affordable for the well off. As the author argues, if one implements the tax at a point where the tax would make a difference, like gasoline at $15-$20/gallon, that is pretty disruptive.

3) I don't believe that the tax as R describes it, is politically saleable, and point 2) above is part of the reason. Further, even at the modest levels, as we see above, the high consumers in each bracket are hit pretty hard. IOW, the top quarter (by consumption) of each upper bracket. So your $250,000/yr lawyer with his private jet, (assuming that's not typical of his bracket) is hit pretty hard.

AND the money goes to the poor and the working poor, to *completely* insulate them from R's $8/gallon [or the author below's $15/gallon gas]. This is a massive income redistribution, if you look at it from one view. This kind of thing isn't popular with Republicans, who've been cutting back the equalization effect of income and other taxes for some time. Roxanne says,

RA The pressure would be on them to pass the thing, and pushing too hard toward using this for wealth redistribution in either direction would blow it up, so the pols would resist those pushes and pulls.

P: This says that more OR less redistribution would be resisted. So the net will remain the same in a plan that is passed. BUT this is unsatisfactory to many Republicans, almost alll Randists etc.; these people hold that that rich are ALREADY robbed to subsidize the poor and want to cut that back further (from the beginning Bush has made), NOT leave it alone as per Roxanne's plan.

What would in fact happen is that Republicans would scrimp on the transfer (since the poor aren't good with money, anyway), shortchange the working poor. Then that obviousl affects the saleability of continuing the plan, once these people feel the pinch. (At which point the Dems rush to their aid, etc.)


--
In short, while a modest carbon tax might have a mild effect, the rumors of it potency (floated for whatever reason by roxanne) appear to be unfounded; or unreasonable, given the evidence.

I might add also that Roxanne avoids applying the tax to industry, where it's most needed.

RA your questions about "companies" are not relevent.

It seems logical that those industrial plants using lots of natural gas or coal or oil should be 'carbon taxed' for the same reasons R applies to individuals This is a component of many carbon tax proposals [ R reject its probably because taxing corporations is anathema to the far right, the Randists]. The exact reasoning Roxanne applies to the individual apply even more to wasteful, high carbon emitting factories. They should feel the pinch, and then their owner will start to economize.

THAT SAID, the above objections apply equally--as have been stated by others. 1) there isn't much incentive for the average factory; 2) the level of the tax would have to be *high*, which very much disrupts the some factories finances. 3) it is unclear how the proposals are going to be 'sold' to the owners of wasteful factories, and why they'd want their income redistributed to the very efficient ones.-----

article on the require level of carbon tax.

HTTP://WWW.NYBOOKS.COM/ARTICLES/19304
VOLUME 53, NUMBER 14 · SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

Exchange
'The Threat to the Planet': An Exchange
By Richard A. Rosen, Ruth F. Weiner, Reply by Jim Hansen
In response to The Threat to the Planet (JULY 13, 2006)

To the Editors:
I want to compliment Dr. Jim Hansen for another lucid presentation of the science documenting the human-induced global warming problem. In fact, Dr. Hansen's article ["The Threat to the Planet," NYR, July 13] covers a critical topic that Al Gore's movie omits, namely it gives the reader a good sense of how soon cuts in carbon emissions would have to begin in order to limit warming to 2 degrees Fahrenheit, i.e., through the presentation of his "alternative" scenario.

Here Dr. Hansen clearly indicates that humanity has less than a decade to begin reducing the emissions rate of carbon in order to achieve the "benefits" of this alternative scenario when compared to "business-as-usual." In addition, Dr. Hansen makes the claim that economists would generally recommend that a carbon tax be implemented on all carbon emissions in order to achieve this goal of declining emissions within a decade.

Unfortunately, here is where I believe Dr. Hansen's recommendations fall somewhat short of what is necessary to achieve his own scenario, and will only be likely to leave the reader of his article with the false impression that a modest carbon tax can easily get humanity off the hook without much fuss and bother by reducing carbon emissions to "acceptable" levels. He even claims that this carbon tax should be phased in gradually, a recommendation that clearly conflicts with achieving carbon emissions decreases within a decade.



What Dr. Hansen fails to discuss is how large this carbon tax might have to be in order to achieve the magnitude of the effect he correctly wants. Given how locked in all economies are to high energy–using equipment including vehicles, it is well known that the price of energy would have to be many times the current price in order to induce the desired levels in reduction of energy use through price effects alone. For example, if gasoline is currently about $3 per gallon, the price including Hansen's proposed carbon tax would have to be several times this level, at least, to have any significant impact on total energy consumption within a decade. (Remember gasoline in Europe already costs almost $6 per gallon, and Europe also uses far too much gasoline.)

Much higher energy prices would be needed because people's response to higher energy prices alone can only be very limited until all the energy-using equipment in the world can change over to vastly more efficient equipment. This takes decades, and a lot of new investment. Thus, to induce less energy consumption, and less carbon emissions within a decade, the carbon tax that Dr. Hansen advocates might have to be vastly higher than the $10–20 per ton of CO2 that economists often discuss as appropriate today; perhaps $100 per ton of CO2, or more. This level of a carbon tax would probably throw most national economies, particularly that of the US, into disarray.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2/AR2007030201442.html?nav=rss_print/asection

I'm changing the topic slightly here because I'm actually very curious about this and I'm hoping some of those who have posted here can give me some insight. I understand that the issue of global warming is controversial, that not everyone accepts the scientific findings thus far. And I especially understand that solving global warming and other environmental problems is very controversial (as evidenced by Roxanne and Pure), but I don't think I understand why Christian leaders are attacking this so strongly. How does global warming hurt the Right? How does the cause of the environment hurt Christians? I'm really confused about this.