• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Earliest mention of Climate Change in the media

late said:
Every year, in it's annual energy issue, The Economist politely suggests we get a carbon tax.

They're not the propagandists.
Click to expand...

There are sound reasons for "sin taxes." But I don't think CO2, CH4, etc. are the sins we should tax. Now if we get to a stage where we stop relying on fossil fuels, and the tax is shared by the rich who own classic cars, boats, planes, etc. then I can agree to it.

Dare I prophesize that your solution to the regressive tax situation is more low income subsidies?
 
late said:
That conversation is over.

We need to start working the problem(s).

The first step is an incremental Carbon Tax.
Click to expand...
P.S. I think is may be a violation of forum rules to edit peoples quotes.
No carbon tax is necessary, or even useful.
The market forces will cause a transition to carbon neutral fuels within a decade or so, without any carbon tax.
The only way the global users will switch is for the alternate fuel to be naturally the lowest price choice.
If the alternative is artificially, lower because of taxes, it would encourage a black market.
How would this work?
Modern olefin refineries, can refit to make their own feedstock from water, Atmospheric CO2, and energy.
The liquid fuel output, would be completely compatible with the existing distribution and retail infrastructure.
The profit point will occur when oil hits between $90 and $100 a barrel.
 
Steve Case said:
I like this post because the "They changed from calling it Global Warming to Climate Change." argument is only sort of true,
and besides, so what? The "CC" in "IPCC" stands for Climate Change. The whole thing is based on the warming effect from CO2,
and after nearly 30 years of argument, it's difficult to say how much that effect has been let alone make the case for a catastrophic
climate disaster.
Click to expand...

Not only is that not true but it also shows you don't even know that the effects of CO2 are not reversible. Meaning that once more cataclysmic side effects appear there will be no way to stop them from getting even worse. I know..it requires thinking about the future instead of the now, but you can do it if you try harder.
 
longview said:
P.S. I think is may be a violation of forum rules to edit peoples quotes.
No carbon tax is necessary, or even useful.
The market forces will cause a transition to carbon neutral fuels within a decade or so, without any carbon tax.
The only way the global users will switch is for the alternate fuel to be naturally the lowest price choice.
If the alternative is artificially, lower because of taxes, it would encourage a black market.
How would this work?
Modern olefin refineries, can refit to make their own feedstock from water, Atmospheric CO2, and energy.
The liquid fuel output, would be completely compatible with the existing distribution and retail infrastructure.
The profit point will occur when oil hits between $90 and $100 a barrel.
Click to expand...

Actually the DREAM of syn fuel requires a carbon tax to mitigate the cost difference between making energy out of nothing and just pulling it out of the ground. I don['t ecpect $100 oil for a long time if ever. We have far too much of it in the ground to justify those prices for quite a while. Some of the money from the tax can be used for research to make the process more efficient and scale-able. It is very energy intensive at this point.
I
t is important to note that because this process is an energy sink, it could exacerbate carbon dioxide emissions. The reason they are claiming it doesn’t is because they are assuming little to no carbon emissions from the inputs. That’s why the graphic stipulates that the electricity comes “entirely from renewable energy sources.” It will certainly be difficult to run a plant continuously on intermittent energy inputs, but any fossil fuel inputs into the plant will have their carbon dioxide emissions magnified. To understand this, consider that it may take 2 or 3 BTUs of energy input for each BTU of energy output. You could possibly pull that off in an environmentally-friendly way with 3 BTUs of solar power input and 1 BTU of diesel output, but if you use natural gas instead, then that 1 BTU of diesel output may generate the emissions from 3 BTUs of natural gas input. In a case like that, it would be better to use that fossil fuel input directly in an engine (if possible) than to utilize it to produce a fuel in a process that is an energy sink.
So, circling back to the claim that “carbon-neutral diesel is now a reality” — I think most would agree that projections of what a process will look like after it has been scaled up 2 more times don’t constitute reality. They constitute a vision of reality. This claim is no more accurate than if I were to say “Colonies on Mars are now a reality.”
Click to expand...
Is Audi's Carbon-Neutral Diesel a Game-Changer?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Not only is that not true but it also shows you don't even know that the effects of CO2 are not reversible. Meaning that once more cataclysmic side effects appear there will be no way to stop them from getting even worse. I know..it requires thinking about the future instead of the now, but you can do it if you try harder.
Click to expand...
You have to have faith that there will be cataclysmic side effects in the first place, for them to be irreversible.
The first question, is, will we ever actually double the CO2 level?
Even if we come close to doubling the CO2 level, what is the ECS?
The observable data places the ECS at about 2 C, which means Humans could have changed the Earth's
temperature by 2 C over 180 years.
Since that is about the same rate or warming we have been experiencing for the last 160 years,
it likely will not be cataclysmic.
The most likely effect would be changes in plant hardiness zones.
Think about it this way, what grows 200 miles south of you (assuming there is land 200 miles south),
will be viable in the current location.
There may be a reduction is some chill hour crops, but they will have new viable bands further north.
 
longview said:
1) P.S. I think is may be a violation of forum rules to edit peoples quotes.

2) No carbon tax is necessary, or even useful.

3) The market forces will cause a transition to carbon neutral fuels within a decade or so, without any carbon tax.

4) The only way the global users will switch is for the alternate fuel to be naturally the lowest price choice.

5) If the alternative is artificially, lower because of taxes, it would encourage a black market.
How would this work?

6) Modern olefin refineries, can refit to make their own feedstock from water, Atmospheric CO2, and energy.
The liquid fuel output, would be completely compatible with the existing distribution and retail infrastructure.
The profit point will occur when oil hits between $90 and $100 a barrel.
Click to expand...

1) A lot of the time, I want to separate the wheat from the chaff. Guess I'll have to skip quote and place the relevant bits in quotations in the body of the reply.

2) "If you want to change the behavior, change the price." That's the reality. It's going to take a considerable amount of time to shift the economy off oil. Waiting until the price spikes is economic suicide. It would be awesome for the Koch brothers...

3) Demand for oil is inelastic, and we are utterly dependent on it. Markets are great, but they don't do long term energy planning.

4) You have a point, what you would need is some sort of global agency that can work the problem.

5) In some places, but no law or regulatory system is perfect. You use them because you need them.

6) Looks like a carbon fuel to me, but thanks for inadvertently demonstrating the need for a carbon tax.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually the DREAM of syn fuel requires a carbon tax to mitigate the cost difference between making energy out of nothing and just pulling it out of the ground. I don['t ecpect $100 oil for a long time if ever. We have far too much of it in the ground to justify those prices for quite a while.
Click to expand...

No they do not require a carbon tax.
The process is currently stated as being 70% efficient, so it would take 55 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline.
A barrel of oil yields about 35 gallons of finished fuel product.
Whole sale electricity can be purchased for $.05 per kwh
.05 X 55= $2.75 X 35 =$96.25 per barrel equivalent.
There is also considerable advantage for the refinery to have a stable feedstock source.
You are correct that oil may never hit $100 a barrel again, but that is because of the very market forces I am talking about.
Organic oil has and will continue to have uses, just not as fuel!
If the refinery can save $1 a barrel making their own feedstock they will.
The real problem is where we will come up with the 2.5 billion Mwh per year, just to replace our gasoline.
Photo voltaic power can do the job, but the government needs to clean up the regulations to allow the utilities
to like home solar also.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

You really want me to call you a troll, so you can complain to the moderators, and get me sanctioned.

Don't you?

Keep trying.

You only reveal your ignorance and lack of integrity to all.
Or perhaps, you have a comprehension problem, with simple words like "several?"

Maybe you should pull out a dictionary, and see if "two" qualifies as "several" when I say I subscribe to "several" journals...
Click to expand...

Ooo. 'Several'!

There are dozens of relevant journals publishing climate information. This is the top of information exchange, of course, there are also many conferences, scientific sessions and symposia presented all over the world, not to mention formal and informal collegial networks with listservs and meetings, etc.

But you subscribe to a coup...errr...'several' journals, which makes you think you know as much as a climate scientist...when you know less than an undergrad.
 
late said:
1) A lot of the time, I want to separate the wheat from the chaff. Guess I'll have to skip quote and place the relevant bits in quotations in the body of the reply.

2) "If you want to change the behavior, change the price." That's the reality. It's going to take a considerable amount of time to shift the economy off oil. Waiting until the price spikes is economic suicide. It would be awesome for the Koch brothers...

3) Demand for oil is inelastic, and we are utterly dependent on it. Markets are great, but they don't do long term energy planning.

4) You have a point, what you would need is some sort of global agency that can work the problem.

5) In some places, but no law or regulatory system is perfect. You use them because you need them.

6) Looks like a carbon fuel to me, but thanks for inadvertently demonstrating the need for a carbon tax.
Click to expand...

2) The cheap easy oil has been found, and mostly extracted, what is left is expensive and difficult to get out.

3&4) Market forces have better long term results than Governments are capable of.
The problem is that we have an energy problem, AGW does not identify the real problem.
Solving our very real energy problem will solve anything related to CO2 as a side effect, (even if the problem with CO2 is imaginary)

5) If you think a carbon tax is viable on a required product, please state where and how it would be applied to the process.

6) Man made hydrocarbon fuels are carbon fuels, but are carbon neutral, The CO2 level would stop going up.
What they really offer is a method of concentrating and storing the low density poor duty cycle alternative energy sources,
in a way that is compatible with existing needs, while solving the increasing CO2 issue.
 
longview said:
2) The cheap easy oil has been found, and mostly extracted, what is left is expensive and difficult to get out.

3&4) Market forces have better long term results than Governments are capable of.
The problem is that we have an energy problem, AGW does not identify the real problem.
Solving our very real energy problem will solve anything related to CO2 as a side effect, (even if the problem with CO2 is imaginary)

5) If you think a carbon tax is viable on a required product, please state where and how it would be applied to the process.

6) Man made hydrocarbon fuels are carbon fuels, but are carbon neutral, The CO2 level would stop going up.
What they really offer is a method of concentrating and storing the low density poor duty cycle alternative energy sources,
in a way that is compatible with existing needs, while solving the increasing CO2 issue.
Click to expand...

Cheap and easy oil is not mostly extracted - its still being pumped out at a price of less than $10/bbl in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. And it looks like it will be pumped out for decades - in fact, they seem to be turning on the spigot full blast to beat the realization that AGW is going to shut down extraction in the long term.

And dupes like you are going along with the scheme.
 
longview said:
2) The cheap easy oil has been found, and mostly extracted, what is left is expensive and difficult to get out.

3&4) Market forces have better long term results than Governments are capable of.
The problem is that we have an energy problem, AGW does not identify the real problem.
Solving our very real energy problem will solve anything related to CO2 as a side effect, (even if the problem with CO2 is imaginary)

5) If you think a carbon tax is viable on a required product, please state where and how it would be applied to the process.

6) Man made hydrocarbon fuels are carbon fuels, but are carbon neutral, The CO2 level would stop going up.
What they really offer is a method of concentrating and storing the low density poor duty cycle alternative energy sources,
in a way that is compatible with existing needs, while solving the increasing CO2 issue.
Click to expand...

2) Europe has had high gas taxes for a long time, and they have benefited from them. This would be the perfect time to start a Carbon Tax precisely because gas is relatively cheap. What you are hinting at is Peak Oil, and I don't disagree with that.

3) Some things markets can't do, others it does badly. Economics isn't a religion, and economists usually favor a carbon tax. Doing this gradually makes a lot of sense. Waiting until a massive gas price spike cripples the economy and forces it just isn't smart.

5) For gas, we have an existing tax system, and that can be adapted. That's the easy part.

6) Carbon neutral is not enough, we need to slowly stop carbon emissions (where we can).

There are other ways of storing energy.
 
Threegoofs said:
Cheap and easy oil is not mostly extracted - its still being pumped out at a price of less than $10/bbl in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. And it looks like it will be pumped out for decades - in fact, they seem to be turning on the spigot full blast to beat the realization that AGW is going to shut down extraction in the long term.

And dupes like you are going along with the scheme.
Click to expand...
Most of the worlds oil does not cost $10 a barrel at the well head, and cost a lot more than that to get to the refinery.
Oil will still have value after it is not longer needed for fuel.
 
longview said:
Most of the worlds oil does not cost $10 a barrel at the well head, and cost a lot more than that to get to the refinery.
Oil will still have value after it is not longer needed for fuel.
Click to expand...

Much of the worlds oil DOES cost relatively little at the well head, and will for decades.

That's why we care about the Middle East.


And oil will have much less value when it's not used for fuel. Much,much less.
 
late said:
2) Europe has had high gas taxes for a long time, and they have benefited from them. This would be the perfect time to start a Carbon Tax precisely because gas is relatively cheap. What you are hinting at is Peak Oil, and I don't disagree with that.

3) Some things markets can't do, others it does badly. Economics isn't a religion, and economists usually favor a carbon tax. Doing this gradually makes a lot of sense. Waiting until a massive gas price spike cripples the economy and forces it just isn't smart.

5) For gas, we have an existing tax system, and that can be adapted. That's the easy part.

6) Carbon neutral is not enough, we need to slowly stop carbon emissions (where we can).

There are other ways of storing energy.
Click to expand...

2) About the oil benefit Europe has from high fuel cost is much more efficient cars than we can buy in the US.
Peak oil is a bit of a misnomer, as there is a lot of oil out there, it is just not easy or cheap to get to.
I had a research project on a seismic ship in 1983, we ran past the Continental shelve in the Gulf of Mexico, so as not to disrupt
the working crews. We spotted a salt dome over 1000' high and 100 miles across.
It likely have more oil than the entire middle east.
It is just under 900 fathoms of water!
We can now drill that deep, but it is neither cheap or easy.
It is also not worth the risks, if the absolute ceiling for oil is about $100 a barrel.

3) No one is waiting for a massive price spike, the current low prices are a result of an over supply.
The fracked wells have greater output but shorter lives, and the supply will taper off quickly.
At today's price $49.89 a barrel, oil has come up about 30 % since the $28 low 12 months ago.
Oil will keep increasing because only a few will risk the expense of fracking wells,knowing the a real ceiling for the price exists.

5) I am loathed to offer our junkie of a Government any more of the narcotic they crave.
Even when gas prices were very high, consumption did not fall much.
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/highlights38_gasoline.PNG
So giving the Government more money in the hope people will use less, seems counter productive.

6) Carbon neutral would absolutely halt new carbon emission in their tracks.
An example let's say in the year 2021 oil get to the limiting $100 a barrel number and the major refineries,
in order to make more evil profit, switch out half of their operations to making their own carbon neutral feedstock.
So 140 Billion gallons of gasoline will still be sold, but total carbon emission would be half.
The solar homes need a place to sell their surplus power, the refineries can buy all that is available,
and store that energy in their distribution infrastructure.
The end user may not even know they are buying a different product, only that after a few years, the price is stable.
We can talk about other ways of storing energy, but usually nature has selected the best method,
and we know how nature stores energy.
 
Threegoofs said:
Much of the worlds oil DOES cost relatively little at the well head, and will for decades.

That's why we care about the Middle East.


And oil will have much less value when it's not used for fuel. Much,much less.
Click to expand...
Well the oil under the middle east will have less value, because there are added cost to the $10 a barrel well head price.
The price of oil is a big factor in the price of fuel, not so much in the price of Polyurethane.
 
late said:
2) Europe has had high gas taxes for a long time, and they have benefited from them. This would be the perfect time to start a Carbon Tax precisely because gas is relatively cheap. What you are hinting at is Peak Oil, and I don't disagree with that.

3) Some things markets can't do, others it does badly. Economics isn't a religion, and economists usually favor a carbon tax. Doing this gradually makes a lot of sense. Waiting until a massive gas price spike cripples the economy and forces it just isn't smart.

5) For gas, we have an existing tax system, and that can be adapted. That's the easy part.

6) Carbon neutral is not enough, we need to slowly stop carbon emissions (where we can).

There are other ways of storing energy.
Click to expand...

Have you ever lived in Europe? I have for six years. Their standard of living is lower for the common working class than for ours is for those living on welfare type benefits.
 
Threegoofs said:
But you subscribe to a coup...errr...'several' journals, which makes you think you know as much as a climate scientist...when you know less than an undergrad.
Click to expand...

I clearly know more than an undergrad, and probably more than someone with a BS degree. Possibly more than some with a doctorate in climatology. Schools are not the only way to learn you know. Besides, a climatology degree is so simply to get once you have the basic sciences covered.

I have actually thought of taking some of my extra time and get a formal education in the field. Not so much for the learning which I have mostly covered, but to experience the indoctrination!

Now keep in mind... words have meaning...


Simple Definition of indoctrinate

: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs


Full Definition of indoctrinate

transitive verb

1
: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach

2
: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
​

Indoctrinate | Definition of Indoctrinate by Merriam-Webster

Now tell me...

If you don't learn how to agree with what is taught, no matter how imprecise, what are your chances of a good grade?
 
Threegoofs said:
If I recall, some of us looked at a few of those papers and they said nothing about global cooling.

I recall that thread as being one of your more spectacular fail threads.

Funny you'd resurrect it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the thread was quite a success. AGW mob shouting notwithstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom