The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Paris: promised cuts won't inflict pain on voters > Comments

Paris: promised cuts won't inflict pain on voters : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 2/12/2015

It is difficult to find countries that have cut emissions unless the cut has been an economic shift that was happening anyway.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
It's been clear since we were preparing Australia's policy position for the 1992 Rio Earth Summit - where the global warming scaremongering was entrenched in UN policy - only 'No Regrets' policies could succeed and be politically sustainable. That's why Australia's policy position was to support the 'Toronto Targets' but with an important caveat:

"11 October 1990 - The Australian Government adopted an Interim Planning Target to stabilise greenhouse gas emission at 1988 levels by 2000 and to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005 based on 1988 levels (known as the Toronto target). An important caveat was included in this target. This stated that measures which would have net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia's trade competitiveness would not be implemented in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas producing nations. Actions would be taken if benefits were realised in addition to the greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits, for example energy conservation. This became known as the 'no regrets' strategy. " http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/Background_Papers/bp9798/98bp04
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 9:40:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea that action necessarily involves inflicting pain on voters is one of the main excuses for inaction. Investing heavily in renewable energy (and, where appropriate, nuclear energy) will benefit the entire population.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 11:13:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renewable energy, supported by government incentives, is an enormous waste of money. Rational people realise this.

As an aside, it's notable that there is significant trend to pull-back on government incentives for renewable energy in Europe. They are starting to recognise the enormous costs. An excellent report by J. P. Morgan "Deep De-Carbonisation of Electricity grids" explains the issues and costs, although it understates the magnitude of the problem. I've extracted parts of the and commented on it here: http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/29/deep-de-carbonisation-of-electricity-grids/

Also of interest is this post by Energy Matters on the performance of Spain's solar thermal plants: http://euanmearns.com/a-review-of-concentrated-solar-power-csp-in-spain/ . Spain has 2/3 of the world’s solar thermal capacity. Clearly they do not provide baseload power. On some nights they don’t produce any power at all between sundown and sunup. The chart below is for the first 26 days of November.
http://s4.postimg.org/lk72nyral/temp.png
“Spain’s CSP plants delivered six times less stored power in November than they did in June.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 12:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson

Aidan - not inflicting pain is a reason, not an excuse. As Peter Lang points out, renewables are a very costly answer to the question of climate.. there will be pain, if emissions are to be cut, and that's that.. In fact, there will be no pain as none of the promises at Paris will mean anything at all..

Peter Lang - most interesting stuff.. I'll check out that link on the alleged 24-hour plant in Spain.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 12:40:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson,

I hope you might have time to read this article I've just had posted in an academic Journal,
"Why carbon pricing will not succeed" http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/

It is topical right now as it is directly relevant to the Paris climate summit and to some of Malcolm Turnbull's comments about possible future mitigation policies. I hope you might be able to make use of it to help inform your readers and followers.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 1:14:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well there will be some pain.

Our idiot PM has already made the grandiose gesture of giving a billion dollars to poor neighbours to "help them adapt to climate change". Yep the climate change that has not happened for more than 18 years.

Climate change is obviously a non problem, but god it's a problem to have a PM who wants to be patted on the back by everyone he meets, & will spend enormous amounts of our money to be so patted.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 1:45:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang. Thanks for the references.
Quite obviously, unless we are prepared to get our heads out of the sand and build some nuclear power stations, we are going to rely on our coal fired power stations for a long time. In fact, as our population increases, we may even have to build more coal fired stations as well. We certainly have sufficient coal reserves to keep us going far into the future. We might run out of gas.
Global warming, here we come.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 1:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renewable power is already making South Australian electricity the dearest in the world. Watching Foreign Correspondent last might was like watching a horror movie, with the maniacal Europeans and their wall-to-wall windmills. The average German consumers and tax-payers weren't interviewed about what they thought of the $300 they are now paying for absolutely nothing to help out the rent-seekers and their windmills - on top of what 800,000 illegal immigrants are costing them.

Gold old Comrade Turnbull is going to toss some of our money on 'poor' countries (no control over what they spend it on). The joke is on Turnbull's mates, though, as the money is coming out of the normal foreign aid bucket, and they don't like that one little bit. Less for all the other bludging dysfunctional states.

Any money being used for this outrageous climate BS should be on defending the West from Islamic terrorism.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 3:12:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson

guys thanks for the comments.. have to dash..

Peter Lang - I will make an effort to read that article.. and tnks..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 5:05:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder at the brainpower of folks who think we can go all the way out to 2C ? Which in many minds is a tipping point from which there can be no recovery; at least until we have traversed 5C, and an extinction event? This is what the historical paleontological record tells us?

The problem is money and how much some mighty powerful folk might lose, rather than what the rest of us might pay, given we are very like the warm and comfortable frogs being very slowly brought to the boil!

And only reacting to our predicament when our goose is well and truly cooked!

I'd understand if decarbing our struggling economy was going to impact negatively, rather than provide myriad new opportunities for entrepreneurs and those still capable of using the brains they were born with to wax fat!

Albeit some politicians will need to try some lateral thinking; or just thinking outside the box; which could, in either event, be a novel new experience?

A veritable win/win all round, as long as you're not a bloated billionaire coal baron, or spit lickle yes man!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 3 December 2015 9:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty - this business about 2C and 4C are just horror stories with no foundation in fact, and that's without bothering to get into the science.. the supposedly settled science only deals with the temperature increases. What might actually happen at those increases is just guess work.. incidentally its 1C from now (2C from pre-industrial times with 1C having already occured, not 2 from now - there is endless confusion on that point. If the 1C occurs over, say, three decades, assuming it occurs at all, its doubtful that it would make much difference at all..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 December 2015 9:18:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no evidence of a tipping point at 2C. The critical facts that people sgould be aware of are:

1. the planet is in a coldhouse phase. In fact we are in only the third cold house phase in more than half a billion years (the time when multi-cell animal life has thrived on Earth).

2. There have been no ice sheets at either pole for 75% of the past half billion years, demonstrating the planet is in a coldhouse phase and this is a period of unusually cold.

3. The planet has been cooling from its normal tempts for the past 50 million years

4. Life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder.

5. The climate does not change in smooth curves as projected by the GCM's. The climate changes abruptly; always has always will.

6. We are currently past the peak of the current interglacial. If not for humans' GHG emissions the next abrupt change would be to cooler - that's catastrophic. Warming is not catastrophic, as clearly demonstrated by the paleo evidence

7. Our GHG emissions are reducing the risk of the next abrupt climate change - we are delaying the next abrupt cooling and reducing its severity. This has to be balanced against the risks of potential (but temporary) increased warming (the long term cooling to the next ice age will continue, and the sequence of ice ages and interglacials will continue until the plates realign so North and South America are separated and ocean currents can flow around the world in low latitudes).

People interested in the climate debate are urged to do their own reality checks, not just confirm their biases by reading only the doctrine according to the preachers of the Greens religion.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 3 December 2015 2:33:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,
Burning fuel to produce energy while the sun shines is an enormous waste of money.

Switching to renewables shifts the cost burden from variable costs to fixed costs, and that's something that ultimately makes an economy more competitive. The effect is particularly strong at the moment as interest rates are at record lows.

Government imposed incentives are a different matter, and I accept the existinng ones are inefficient. IMO governments should instead offer concessional loans for renewable energy infrastructure.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 3 December 2015 3:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan.

Your comments are unsupported, irrational nonsense. Despite repeating this same nonsense on many web site all over the place, and many commenters pointing out the nonsense in your comments, you continue to post the same nonsense. You seldom if ever acknowledge you are wrong or correct your mistakes or withdraw your comments. The fact you are unwilling to acknowledge when you are wrong is one of the '10 signs of intellectual dishonesty', as are your frequent strawnman arguments and many of the other tactics you apply to push your ideological beliefs.
Read '10 signs of intellectual dishonesty' here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

"Burning fuel to produce energy while the sun shines is an enormous waste of money."
Disingenuous and WRONG! as are your other comments. It's nonsense to try to cherry pick factoids to try to make a case. The cost has to be compared on the full life cycle cost of the alternatives embedded in a system to meet requirements.

Virtually all authoritative studies comparing options show that nuclear is a far cheaper way of achieving large reduction in the emissions intensity of electricity, and comparisons of countries like Germany and France show it in practice. Frances electricity is cheaper and it's emissions intensity of electricity is 15% of Germany's. How much clearer that that can you get.

No point addressing the rest of your comment, it's all the same sort of disinformation and nonsense.

Aidan, you keep making silly, baseless assertions. You really ought to give up.
BTW, I given the links for many properly conducted, authoritative studies many times in previously. You can refer back to them if you want to educate yourself (although I know your not interested in anything other than continuing pushing your ideology.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 3 December 2015 3:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang, before you yet again disonestly accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, I suggest you try reading what I've actually written! Because it was not the anti nuclear rant you seem to think it is. Indeed in my first post on this thread I acknowleded that nuclear poser is the best solution in some situations.

Why are you so relucant to acknwledge that different power sources have different cost structures? And that low interest rate conditions favour renewables and high interest rate conditions favour fossil fuels?

You seem to be advocating nuclear as a one size fits all solution, but you're overstating the case (another one of those signs of intellectual dishonesty that you're so concernsed about in others). French nuclear power is so cheap because they inflated away most of the build costs; In other countries the costs aren't so favourable.

And the case for renewables is much stronger in Australia than in Germany, partly because of our low population densuty and partly beause we're much sunnier.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 3 December 2015 6:28:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

>"I suggest you try reading what I've actually written! Because it was not the anti nuclear rant you seem to think it is. "

Another strawman. Another example of intellectual dishonesty - you keep providing your own evidence. I didn't say anything about "anti nuclear rant". You made that up. In your words: "I suggest you try reading what I've actually written! "

For others following this blog, they may like to read this excellent post:
"German Energiewende – Modern Miracle or Major Misstep" http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/02/german-energiewende-modern-miracle-or-major-misstep/

And notice this chart of electricity prices in Europe: http://www.theblackswanblog.com/BSB_Library/Electricity-prices-europe.png
Denmark and Germany (countries with the highest proportion of intermittent renewables) have the highest electricity prices by far (2x France's). Germany's CO2 emissions intensity of electricity is about 6x France's. It should be clear by now how misguided and irrational are the renewable energy advocates.

I'd suggest those interested read the post themselves and do not take any notice of what Aidan says about it - any comments he makes about it will more than likely be disingenuous, misleading, use misrepresentations and strawman tactics. Aidan has a habit of using strawman to try to discredit articles like this. He'll quote a bit, or make up his own summary of the main points and imply they are what the author said or meant, or he'll give some irrelevant factoids or some other disingenuous information.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 3 December 2015 7:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy