Energy Poverty Is Much Worse for the Poor Than Climate Change

But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million. They correctly point out that forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a "morally dubious proposition." They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty, disaster ensues.

The Breakthrough Institute report invokes the University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr.'s "iron law of climate policy," which states that "when policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time." People will always favor policies to lessen energy poverty over strategies that aim to reduce the risks of man-made climate change.

"Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree," concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. "But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth

comments?

KLATTU said:

But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million. They correctly point out that forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a "morally dubious proposition." They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty, disaster ensues.

The Breakthrough Institute report invokes the University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr.'s "iron law of climate policy," which states that "when policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time." People will always favor policies to lessen energy poverty over strategies that aim to reduce the risks of man-made climate change.

"Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree," concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. "But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth

comments?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's all PLAGIARIZED from
Energy Poverty Is Much Worse for the Poor Than Climate Change - Reason.com

Parts of which can also be seen here:
https://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-have-look-climate-fretting-why-its-unjustified
or, http://www.forums.mlb.com/discussions/Chicago_Cubs/_/_/ml-cubs/449154.1

Oh shoot sorry about that -forgot to link. Thanks for fixing.

KLATTU said:

But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million. They correctly point out that forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a "morally dubious proposition." They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty, disaster ensues.

The Breakthrough Institute report invokes the University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr.'s "iron law of climate policy," which states that "when policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time." People will always favor policies to lessen energy poverty over strategies that aim to reduce the risks of man-made climate change.

"Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree," concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. "But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth

comments?

Click to expand...

The "iron law of climate policy" is a farce when ideologically blinded liberals have control of government. The current governments of the provinces of Ontario and Alberta here in Canada as well as the federal Canadian government put the lie to that "iron law". Liberals don't give a flying **** about the needs of citizens when those needs are counter to their know it all infallibility in government. Here in Canada, with many parts of the country suffering from green energy initiatives that have beggared many, choosing between heating and lighting their homes or buying groceries, the governments want to double down by implementing job and growth killing carbon taxes that will drive business out of Canada to the northern US and bankrupt the middle class.

Liberal elites who are pushing climate change policies should be executed for the damage they are doing to society.

the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption

Click to expand...

I suspect this is from a lack of vision.
What has been lacking, is energy storage. Now that we store and accumulate energy seasonally as hydrocarbon fuels,
the path will change.
Imagine small changes like adding refrigeration, and running water.
Solar panels, not just providing bare minimum electricity when the sun is shining, but producing
fuel to run the tractor for enlarging planted fields, and taking crops to markets.
These things also require stable governments, but are well within reach from an energy standpoint.

KLATTU said:

But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million. They correctly point out that forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a "morally dubious proposition." They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty, disaster ensues.

The Breakthrough Institute report invokes the University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr.'s "iron law of climate policy," which states that "when policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time." People will always favor policies to lessen energy poverty over strategies that aim to reduce the risks of man-made climate change.

"Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree," concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. "But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth

comments?

Click to expand...

We all live in energy poverty relative to the happy future we look forward to.

KLATTU said:

But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty.

Click to expand...

Seriously? That's your pitch? OK then.

Let's get real. Almost 40% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere is from the US and China. Kicking the poor for maybe one day producing more CO2 than those two giants seems a bit odd.

Meanwhile: Fossil fuels are not a great choice for providing energy for the hundreds of millions (if not billion plus) people who have poor access to energy. Fossil fuels require extensive infrastructure for mining, generation and distribution; sustainable sources require less, especially solar and wind. Oil and coal produce lots of pollution, and we're not just talking about CO2. Natural gas is relatively clean for generation, but less so in terms of extraction; heck, fracking is causing earthquakes in areas that were stable for thousands of years.

Renewables are getting much more affordable and efficient. Solar has dropped to around $200/mwh, five years ago, down from $500/mwh and even less in areas with lots of sun, such as sub-Saharan Africa.

And while I'm not holding my breath: Fusion research is making lots of headway with both tokamak and stellarator designs. Once a working fusion reactor is up and running, it is game over for fossil fuels.

Consequently, the Breakthrough writers

Click to expand...

The who?

If you're quoting a source, you should at least provide a link.

....see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level.

Click to expand...

Or, not. Solar is within striking distance of reaching parity with fossil fuels, without needing the same extensive grid infrastructure as a nation like the US.

In many respects, this may work similar to how many poor parts of the world basically skipped getting land lines for telephones, and went straight to mobile phones.

This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million.

Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, that's not going to be because India or Niger want to use more electricity. It's because affluent nations, notably some people in the US, are happy to choke the planet because they want to charge their Roombas and use their Edison bulbs on the cheap. Even China is taking climate change seriously now, and are treating it as a possible engine for growth.

...."when policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time." People will always favor policies to lessen energy poverty over strategies that aim to reduce the risks of man-made climate change.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that is the case, but if it is, then it's just a matter of time before renewable/sustainable/clean power achieves cost parity with fossil fuels.

Further, a major component of international agreements is poorer countries pointing to the big polluters, and telling them to get their act in gear. I'd say that the world will be much better off if China and the OECD nations cut back on CO2, other pollutants, and becoming more energy efficient overall.

Visbek said:

Se

I'm not convinced that is the case, but if it is, then it's just a matter of time before renewable/sustainable/clean power achieves cost parity with fossil fuels.
.

Click to expand...

Well as long as YOU aren't convinced-that's all that matters -LOL
BTW -have you informed all the AGW ,science denying , chicken littles that they have nothing to worry about? Soon the world will all be solar, wind and nuclear fusion. Stop the silly hand wringing.

CanadaJohn said:

The "iron law of climate policy" is a farce when ideologically blinded liberals have control of government. The current governments of the provinces of Ontario and Alberta here in Canada as well as the federal Canadian government put the lie to that "iron law". Liberals don't give a flying **** about the needs of citizens when those needs are counter to their know it all infallibility in government.

Click to expand...

Yes, those "crazy" liberals, trying to cut back on pollutants. Curse them all!

Here in Canada, with many parts of the country suffering from green energy initiatives that have beggared many, choosing between heating and lighting their homes or buying groceries

Click to expand...

Errrr... wha?

You may be a bit confused. NAFTA requires Canada to continue exporting 60% of its natural gas, regardless of domestic needs or even shortages. That was signed in by Mulroney, not exactly a raging liberal.

But go ahead, tell us which "green energy initiatives have beggared many." Tell us more about this mysterious Canadian energy crisis that, uh, kinda doesn't seem to exist.

the governments want to double down by implementing job and growth killing carbon taxes that will drive business out of Canada to the northern US and bankrupt the middle class.

Click to expand...

Please.

For years, crude oil was double its cost today. Although Canada is a big oil producer, it has imported nearly half its oil for years. Was the middle class getting killed when crude was $110 USD and higher? If fossil fuel prices go back up to $75 or $100, will that also drive businesses out of Canada and bankrupt the middle class?

Liberal elites who are pushing climate change policies should be executed for the damage they are doing to society.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just... wow.

Would you be persuaded if I suggested that conservative "elites" should be executed for the damage they're doing to the environment? Good grief.

KLATTU said:

Well as long as YOU aren't convinced-that's all that matters -LOL

Click to expand...

sigh

There are lots of signs of governments, businesses and individuals that aren't going for the cheap buck. This ranges from people buying electric vehicles, to GE manufacturing massive ocean wind turbines, to Tesla's Gigafactory, to hundreds of millions (if not billions) invested in fusion research.

So no, I'm not convinced that the "iron law" is much of a law.

P.S. iron is a relatively soft metal.

BTW -have you informed all the AGW ,science denying , chicken littles that they have nothing to worry about?

Click to expand...

I didn't say they have "nothing to worry about." What I said is that sustainable energy generation is becoming much cheaper. So if that "iron law" is correct, all it would take is getting sustainable energy generation near cost parity with fossil fuels, and it will be a no-brainer for developing economies to go renewable rather than build out expensive and polluting energy infrastructure. Unfortunately, there are numerous other sources of CO2 than energy generation, and lots of feedbacks that are already starting to kick in.

Visbek said:

Let's get real. Almost 40% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere is from the US and China. Kicking the poor for maybe one day producing more CO2 than those two giants seems a bit odd.
l.

Click to expand...

No has tried to say that the poor are being kicked for maybe one day producing more CO2. You missed the entire argument.

The argument is that :
"Some 1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity, according to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2016 report. About 2.7 billion still cook and heat their dwellings with wood, crop residues, and dung."

And instead of increasing energy costs, they are going for as cheap of energy as possible, as fast as possible, to both help the poor directly, and indirectly, through the economic gains that lower cost and more available energy brings.
"The "development first" SSP5 agenda results in the eradication of extreme poverty, greater gender equality, and universal access to education, safe drinking water, and modern energy before mid century, along with a strong build-up of developing countries' human and social capacity. "

In other words, given a fixed spending/time investment, the poor benefit far, far more from cheap energy, and are hurt by greater energy costs in efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses today.

Typically the other argument that goes along with this, is that if we then devote resources some years from now, it will be with greater technology, and greater capital, and we can more than make up for any short term environmental damage between now and then (due to the newer tech and better resource pool...)

Visbek said:

sigh

There are lots of signs of governments, businesses and individuals that aren't going for the cheap buck. This ranges from people buying electric vehicles, to GE manufacturing massive ocean wind turbines, to Tesla's Gigafactory, to hundreds of millions (if not billions) invested in fusion research.

So no, I'm not convinced that the "iron law" is much of a law.

P.S. iron is a relatively soft metal.

Click to expand...

I think part of this is the misconception of how much energy is necessary to achieve a high percentage of modern lifestyle.
If you start with the basics, Running hot and cold water, lights and refrigeration, perhaps a fan,
you are most of the way there. These things could be done with a modest system.
Weekender 640 W AC 4-Panel Solarland Off-Grid Solar System - Wholesale Solar
At $3600 us, it is still a fortune in a poor country, but would add a lot to the family.

Visbek said:

Yes, those "crazy" liberals, trying to cut back on pollutants. Curse them all!



Errrr... wha?

You may be a bit confused. NAFTA requires Canada to continue exporting 60% of its natural gas, regardless of domestic needs or even shortages. That was signed in by Mulroney, not exactly a raging liberal.

But go ahead, tell us which "green energy initiatives have beggared many." Tell us more about this mysterious Canadian energy crisis that, uh, kinda doesn't seem to exist.



Please.

For years, crude oil was double its cost today. Although Canada is a big oil producer, it has imported nearly half its oil for years. Was the middle class getting killed when crude was $110 USD and higher? If fossil fuel prices go back up to $75 or $100, will that also drive businesses out of Canada and bankrupt the middle class?



Wow. Just... wow.

Would you be persuaded if I suggested that conservative "elites" should be executed for the damage they're doing to the environment? Good grief.

Click to expand...

You haven't a ****ing clue what you're talking about - I live it here every day.

If you want to know what's going on, read the auditor's reports on the Ontario government's green energy act and initiatives that have cost the Ontario energy consumer over $36 billion in excess energy fees that have gone straight into the pockets of wind and solar crooks who signed contracts with the brain dead liberal government that pays them 10 times the going rate for all wind and solar energy they produce and the liberals guaranteed them their energy would be purchased first, regardless whether it was needed on the grid or not. As a result, the consumer's energy bills have doubled in about 5 years and are guaranteed to rise another 45% in the next few years with an additional $130 billion floating into the accounts of the liberal government's cronies. To top it off, Ontario is "selling" excess energy to northern US States at a loss - get it?? Ontario is paying Michigan and Ohio and New York and others to take energy from us because it can't be stored.

Liberals should be tarred and feathered and strung up in the public square to be spat at and stoned. All climate change initiatives are money grabs by liberals who can't keep their hands out of citizens' pockets. It's criminal.

Mach said:

No has tried to say that the poor are being kicked for maybe one day producing more CO2. You missed the entire argument.

Click to expand...

If you bothered to read my post, you'd see that I did address it. But let me be more explicit.

• Most of the CO2 currently entering the atmosphere is made by the wealthy industrialized nations, not the currently poor ones. Those nations are also more capable of changing their energy supplies in many respects, e.g. they have resources to develop and install sustainable generation, grids already exist etc.

I.e. rather than worry about the potential future CO2 generation, let's just start with who is currently polluting the atmosphere.

• It is quite likely -- and odds are improving every year -- that sustainable/renewable/clean energy supplies will become affordable in a reasonable time frame. I.e. they are harping on an issue that might be much easier to solve in the very near future. I.e. they may be positing a false choice.


• Those poorer nations have already advanced this line of argument. But what they usually say is: "All these rich nations have polluted for decades, and it's unfair for them to place the burden on poorer nations. Therefore, richer nations should do their fair share." Which... yeah, they should.


• Bonus argument! It really is not clear that the harm of global warming is in fact less than deploying cheap dirty energy. E.g. Indonesia will be seriously screwed if ocean levels continue to rise, and global temperatures continue to rise. It will take longer for those effects to take place, but since the damage could affect dozens of future generations, it's hardly a slam dunk to say "fewer people will be affected by climate change than by a lack of electricity right now."

And of course, it would be devastating to adopt the attitude that "we can't possibly reduce CO2 emissions in time, so screw it, let's just pollute like it's 1999!"

Visbek said:

• Most of the CO2 currently entering the atmosphere is made by the wealthy industrialized nations, not the currently poor ones. Those nations are also more capable of changing their energy supplies in many respects, e.g. they have resources to develop and install sustainable generation, grids already exist etc.

Click to expand...

But they area also the most capable at driving down energy costs in general, which was the point. Wealthy nations diverting resources to stopping C02 today, at the cost of R&D for cheaper energy, fails in the medium term. It's like robbing your 401K today to buy a condo, when in 10 years you could have afforded a house+property from that compounding (roughly you know what I mean). Poorer nations should be investing in utilizing cheap energy to build their economies/infrastructure, not messing with solar panels.

It is quite likely -- and odds are improving every year -- that sustainable/renewable/clean energy supplies will become affordable in a reasonable time frame. I.e. they are harping on an issue that might be much easier to solve in the very near future. I.e. they may be positing a false choice.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind they are talking a 100 year horizon.
You missed the point, its that those developing nations WILL NOT develop their entire infrastructure in the short term, so short-term is irrelevant.
But since we don't actually have these solutions today, its of course even from just that perspective, not a false choice.
Clearly they are presenting a good old fashioned choice.

Those poorer nations have already advanced this line of argument. But what they usually say is: "All these rich nations have polluted for decades, and it's unfair for them to place the burden on poorer nations. Therefore, richer nations should do their fair share." Which... yeah, they should.

Click to expand...

That's the point, their proposal is that the best "fair share" richer nations can do, is investing in cheaper energy today (and the things you can do with cheap energy). You prefer to investing in green solutions, which will not help their populations/economies nearly as much (i.e. it will slow them in comparison).

notes:
- all these little innovations like solar lamps for rural farmers, etc., entirely miss the point they say. Rural electrification ALWAYS comes last anyway.

- energy grid for most households is a BYPRODUCT of an energy grid for non-housing needs, think transportation, industry, etc.
None of these poor countries have those things, and its those things that will require an energy infrastructure, and only THEN can they benefit from clean power in a substantial way.

"Efforts to address energy poverty must address needs for transportation fuels and infrastructure, and for fertilizer and mechanization of agriculture," must come first.

Forcing them to slow that economic growth, will certainly do measurable harm, whereas your "maybe some harm to the environment, that maybe we could fix anyway" is the losing strategy in their view.

CanadaJohn said:

If you want to know what's going on, read the auditor's reports on the Ontario government's green energy act and initiatives that have cost the Ontario energy consumer over $36 billion in excess energy fees that have gone straight into the pockets of wind and solar crooks....

Click to expand...

lol

Do you want me to read the actual report? Or the Globe and Mail hit piece that deliberately misrepresents the report in order to vastly overstate its costs?

The actual cost overage cited in the report amounts only to an additional $2.75 CDN or so per month. That additional $30 per month is not going to bankrupt Ontario's middle class, or drive businesses clear out of Canada. And again, if that is the case, then all of Canada would be completely screwed if crude oil prices went back to $110 USD. Oh, and that doesn't include cost savings due to reduced pollution.

I.e. retiring the coal plants, and developing green energy, isn't responsible for most of the increased costs.

The rest of the costs include: Replacing the aging grid; keeping an aging nuclear power plant online; poorly written contracts, which put the state on the hook for oversupply; increasing costs during peak times, to try and discourage that usage, and so forth.

Liberals should be tarred and feathered and strung up in the public square to be spat at and stoned. All climate change initiatives are money grabs by liberals who can't keep their hands out of citizens' pockets. It's criminal.

Click to expand...

I have to say, I'm not sure whether I should find your fauxrage amusing or distressing.

I think I'll go for: "Your desire for physical assault on people solely because of their political views deeply and thoroughly undermines both your own credibility, and detracts from the merits of your own view. The fact that you can't present your position without loading it down with unnecessary vitriol only demonstrates how it is based in emotion, rather than reason."

Mach said:

But they area also the most capable at driving down energy costs in general, which was the point.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that includes developing sustainable energy supplies. Anyway....

Wealthy nations diverting resources to stopping C02 today, at the cost of R&D for cheaper energy, fails in the medium term. It's like robbing your 401K today to buy a condo, when in 10 years you could have afforded a house+property from that compounding (roughly you know what I mean).

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, and it's a slightly ridiculous claim.

R&D into sustainable energy supplies IS R&D that is aiming to produce cheaper energy. Fusion in particular could be a superb source of cheap energy; solar is, again, heading towards parity with fossil fuels at their cheapest level in years.

Plus, it's not like we need to invest massive amounts of R&D into fossil fuels. You know what's driven down the cost of oil in the past 2 years? The Saudis, who have deliberately cranked up production in order to put the squeeze on international competitors. If anything, we don't need more R&D into how to increase production via fracking -- we need to figure out how much damage fracking is doing to the environment.

Poorer nations should be investing in utilizing cheap energy to build their economies/infrastructure, not messing with solar panels.

Click to expand...

Or, they should start investing now in sustainable energy supplies, that are highly localized, don't require the same kind of infrastructure investments, and basically leapfrog highly polluting technologies.

I mean, really. Have you not heard how bad the pollution is in Beijing? Ever seen any photos of Xingtai's pollution?

their proposal is that the best "fair share" richer nations can do, is investing in cheaper energy today (and the things you can do with cheap energy). You prefer to investing in green solutions, which will not help their populations/economies nearly as much (i.e. it will slow them in comparison).

Click to expand...

Did you miss how the cost of sustainable energy is dropping like a stone? Here, let me illustrate it for you.





It is far from inconceivable that in 5 or 10 years, solar can match or beat some fossil fuels. Seems to me that rushing into building up fossil fuel infrastructure, when costs are falling so rapidly,

- all these little innovations like solar lamps for rural farmers, etc., entirely miss the point they say. Rural electrification ALWAYS comes last anyway.

Click to expand...

OK then. Good luck wiring all of Lagos on the cheap.

energy grid for most households is a BYPRODUCT of an energy grid for non-housing needs, think transportation, industry, etc.

Click to expand...

OK then. You do know that factories have roofs that can use solar panels, and can also use sources like wind or water turbines? Or, that if you're buying new equipment for a factory, particularly in an area where energy is scarce, then you will benefit from equipment that is more efficient in its use of energy?

Or do you really think that burning coal is the only type of electricity that can use a grid?

None of these poor countries have those things, and its those things that will require an energy infrastructure, and only THEN can they benefit from clean power in a substantial way.

Click to expand...

Or: In areas that don't have a highly developed fossil fuel infrastructure, this is an opportunity to leapfrog that stage altogether, and develop cleaner energy from the start.

Forcing them to slow that economic growth, will certainly do measurable harm, whereas your "maybe some harm to the environment, that maybe we could fix anyway" is the losing strategy in their view.

Click to expand...

First, it won't be long before that is a false choice.

Second, just because we don't know the precise consequences of AGW doesn't mean that there will be no harm done, or that we can't make educated guesses about the extent of the harm. And since that harm is likely to have multi-generational impacts, it's not that hard to say that it may well be worth the wait.


Oh, and it seems like those nations themselves are taking climate change seriously. 193 nations have signed the Paris Accords; 114 have already ratified it, including most of Central and South America, China, India, Indonesia, and much of West Africa. I wonder how that could possibly happen? Don't these nations care about their own best interests...?

Visbek said:

lol

Do you want me to read the actual report? Or the Globe and Mail hit piece that deliberately misrepresents the report in order to vastly overstate its costs?

The actual cost overage cited in the report amounts only to an additional $2.75 CDN or so per month. That additional $30 per month is not going to bankrupt Ontario's middle class, or drive businesses clear out of Canada. And again, if that is the case, then all of Canada would be completely screwed if crude oil prices went back to $110 USD. Oh, and that doesn't include cost savings due to reduced pollution.

I.e. retiring the coal plants, and developing green energy, isn't responsible for most of the increased costs.

The rest of the costs include: Replacing the aging grid; keeping an aging nuclear power plant online; poorly written contracts, which put the state on the hook for oversupply; increasing costs during peak times, to try and discourage that usage, and so forth.



I have to say, I'm not sure whether I should find your fauxrage amusing or distressing.

I think I'll go for: "Your desire for physical assault on people solely because of their political views deeply and thoroughly undermines both your own credibility, and detracts from the merits of your own view. The fact that you can't present your position without loading it down with unnecessary vitriol only demonstrates how it is based in emotion, rather than reason."

Click to expand...

You ****ing climate change zombies don't listen to reason, even if you had the mental capacity to reason, therefore, violence may be the only solution to get you to understand. After all, in case you forget, your country was founded on a rebellion based in response to unfair taxation.

Visbek said:

Yes, and that includes developing sustainable energy supplies. Anyway....

Click to expand...

lol yes, but that's the argument.
Either wealthy nations invest in green energy, or they invest in cheaper (power, infrastructure, mechanized agriculture) that gets exported to developing nations (not just lower fossil fuel, that was misleading/an error)

Fusion in particular could be a superb source of cheap energy; solar is, again, heading towards parity with fossil fuels at their cheapest level in years.

Click to expand...

Fusion sadly is a very long way out, its still completely in reactor prototyping, and each one takes a long time to fund, build, and test. Solar is way behind on cost compared to everything else.

Plus, it's not like we need to invest massive amounts of R&D into fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

True, see first response.

Or, they should start investing now in sustainable energy supplies, that are highly localized, don't require the same kind of infrastructure investments, and basically leapfrog highly polluting technologies.

Click to expand...

data? Again, a guy with solar on his roof is not lifting people out of poverty, the article notes, its the infrastructure of the entire economy growing, that does that.

Oh, and it seems like those nations themselves are taking climate change seriously. 193 nations have signed the Paris Accords; 114 have already ratified it, including most of Central and South America, China, India, Indonesia, and much of West Africa. I wonder how that could possibly happen? Don't these nations care about their own best interests...?

Click to expand...

Trump just got elected, crazy happens.

most of the argument comes down to cost. I pulled this form wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
When you factor in the total cost to bring it to the grid, it's:
nuclear : 1.72 $/MWh
coal: 1.07
gas: 0.51
onshore wind: 16.0;
offshore wind: 20.0
solar: 14.0

That includes backup, balancing, grid connection, and grid extension.

Rather than some number that could for all I know be solely the generation cost, and also not account for existing subsidy AND carbon taxes..all of which are part of the equation.

Brookings Institution (2014)

After performing an energy and emissions cost analysis, that "The net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants", with the most cost effective low carbon power technology being determined to be nuclear power.[72][73]

Click to expand...

I was simply debating from the article's position, I don't want to get into an energy cost data back/forth, I don't have a dog in this fight really. Feel free to counter those, I'll read them, but I read a lot of the breakdowns on either side, its all so new an dmoving so fast, that I doubt anyone has reliable data anyway. In general, wind looks close but I don't think that includes downtime costs. I just found the article interesting, and didn't appear to be what you claimed was the thrust of the argument.

I grew up in a city where one of the largest chemical refineries in the U.S. sits in the middle of the city, and the pollution is..present. Watching those old beasts go extinct will be a step forward in human development, no doubt. They were necessary and good for a time, but progress is necessary and good as well.

KLATTU said:

But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million. They correctly point out that forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a "morally dubious proposition." They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty, disaster ensues.

The Breakthrough Institute report invokes the University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr.'s "iron law of climate policy," which states that "when policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time." People will always favor policies to lessen energy poverty over strategies that aim to reduce the risks of man-made climate change.

"Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree," concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. "But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth

comments?

Click to expand...

450ppm being bad?? Why? That is 50 more than now. The effect of doubling of CO2 is expected to be a +1c increase in temperature so 800ppm=+1c and 1600ppm=+2c.

The data since this hypothesis came out supports this level of effect. And also the time it would take to get there is very long.

Today we use huge amounts of food as fuel. This is killing the world's poorest billion at the rate of 20 million per year (my guess).

It is also trapping the next poorest billion in abject poverty.

joG said:

We all live in energy poverty relative to the happy future we look forward to.

Click to expand...

It could be construed, or rightfully so, that the left wants to use climate change policy to force even more people to need handouts proposed by them in congress, thus fortifying their voter base.

Money and power. Look at 97% of those in congress, and that is what you will see their true motives as.

Both the democrats and republicans are guilty of this. Just generally in different ways.

The reason for widespread poverty is that capitalism is an inefficient system for distributing wealth and innovation. It's a zero sum game. If someone gains, someone else must be losing.

If you look at energy consumption per capita, there are countries that consume double the energy that we do, but some are considered third world.

So clearly, you can have a really high energy consumption rate, but it doesn't translate to a higher standard of living for everyone. If there is corruption, crony capitalism, globalization of those resources that never make it back to the people, poor investment, etc... then people in energy rich countries could actually be starving.

The problem is the economic system, not the energy model.

Northern Light said:

The reason for widespread poverty is that capitalism is an inefficient system for distributing wealth and innovation.

Click to expand...

The reason for widespread poverty, and it isn't truly poverty, is the laziness of the people who are content to live subsidized.

And yes capitalism is a bad system. Except... all the others are worse.

Northern Light said:

It's a zero sum game. If someone gains, someone else must be losing.

Click to expand...

Far from true. That is a liberal myth.

Northern Light said:

If you look at energy consumption per capita, there are countries that consume double the energy that we do, but some are considered third world.

Click to expand...

I can't think of any. Care to elaborate, and preferably, provide a reliable link?

Northern Light said:

So clearly, you can have a really high energy consumption rate, but it doesn't translate to a higher standard of living for everyone.

Click to expand...

LOL...

This is the way most climate papers are written. They start from an unproven perspective, and base the rest of the paper on assumptions, without proof of such fact.

Northern Light said:

If there is corruption, crony capitalism, globalization of those resources that never make it back to the people, poor investment, etc... then people in energy rich countries could actually be starving.

Click to expand...

There is corruption in any system. Would you advocate the death sentence for all 1st degree crimes against others? Or, what would you method be to alter human nature?

Northern Light said:

The problem is the economic system, not the energy model.

Click to expand...

The problem, is human nature.

CanadaJohn said:

You ****ing climate change zombies don't listen to reason, even if you had the mental capacity to reason, therefore, violence may be the only solution to get you to understand. After all, in case you forget, your country was founded on a rebellion based in response to unfair taxation.

Click to expand...

Invective is not an argument. Thanks for playing.

Climate change or no climate change I think everyone can agree that less pollution and energy consumption is a good thing, right? Well unless you are a utility or oil company. Anyway I think the US in large has been dragging its heels when it comes adopting new technologies and habits to conserve energy and as a result reduce pollution. I believe that with just a little willingness to adapt we could cut our energy usage by 25% here in the US without us losing a thing or without it costing us any more. The problem is getting people to adapt and make changes in the way we currently do things.

A couple examples of this would be new home construction. By large we still construct the majority of homes in the US as we have for the past 50 years even though new methods and materials that are cost comparative and far more energy efficient are available. We are also very slow to adapt to solar in the US although it has been shown to be cost neutral in many places in the US. We could also lower the hp of automobiles again, automobiles that have been ever increasing in hp for the past 30 years at the cost of being less efficient than they could be. Why so we need 500 hp automobiles when a 200 hp automobile will serve us just as well?