I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Mad Mike]

EPA: Limiting Climate Change Would Have Tremendous Benefits For The U.S. | ThinkProgress

 

 

Acting on climate change will have major economic, environmental, and health benefits, according to a report released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The report analyzes two future climate change scenarios — one in which “significant global action” on climate change has limited warming to 2°C (3.6°F), and one in which no action on climate change has forced global temperatures to rise 9°F. The report documents the multiple benefits that the U.S would feel if major action is taken on climate change. 

These benefits include a reduction of the frequency of extreme weather events and a lowered risk of extreme temperatures. According to the report, if the world limits warming to 2°C, 49 U.S. cities could avoid 12,000 deaths associated with extreme temperatures every year by 2100. Compared to a scenario with no action on climate change, that’s a 90 percent reduction in annual deaths. The report notes that, if the world doesn’t tackle greenhouse gas emissions, America’s number of extremely hot days is expected to more than triple between 2050 and 2100. And, it adds, the reduction in deaths from extreme cold that is expected to occur will be “more than offset” by the projected increase in heat-related deaths. 

“Climate change is not a belief system — it is a fact. This is science,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told CNN Monday. “So EPA is putting the science on the table. We’re providing all the information, and we’re showing that, in fact, if you actually take action today, you will save significant lives.”

 

 

In addition, the EPA looked at costs associated with combating climate change, particularly in terms of infrastructure damage. It found that with no action on climate change, annual road immanence costs would increase by $10 billion by the end of the century — whereas with action on climate change, up to $7 billion of those costs could be avoided. The report also looked at the impact climate change will have on bridges. It found that the costs of adapting bridges to climate change if no climate action is taken would total about $170 billion from 2010 to 2050, and $24 billion from 2051 to 2100.

 

Heat wave kills more than 1,100 in India - CNN.com

 

Heatwave in Pakistan's Sindh province leaves 224 dead - BBC News

 

Australia Is Melting Under a Horrifying Heatwave | TIME

 

But hey, "I haz a snowball".

 

[Larry]

But is anybody seriously predicting climate change of 9 degrees C per century?  I thought the scientists were talking more like 2 or 3. 

[PeterMP]

But is anybody seriously predicting climate change of 9 degrees C per century?  I thought the scientists were talking more like 2 or 3. 

 

Generally, it is talked about as function of doubling CO2 concentration from pre-industrial CO2 levels.

 

The believed upper limit is somewhere about 4 C.  Something below 2 C is very much more likely.

 

There is a declining affect as you add more CO2 so doubling could be 4 C, but doubling again is not likely going to give you a 8 C.

 

9 C would mean either we've badly misunderstood something, we've dumped or a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, or we've started to add some other green house gas.

 

I'm guessing the 9 C would be the result of warming induced release of methane from places like permafrost where methane is a more potent green house gas than CO2 and slow (slower than I'd bet on) transformation of it into CO2, which happens naturally.

 

There is some talk of large scale warming in terms of changes in the oceans in terms of their ability to dissolve/absorb CO2.  If the oceans even stop dissolving CO2 things could get worse relatively quickly, much less if you start to speculate about some sort of change where the oceans actually start giving up CO2.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2949595/Did-deep-sea-currents-end-ice-age-Carbon-dioxide-released-ocean-floor-triggered-warming-claims-study.html

 

I think most people would agree that 9 C is very unlikely.

 

**EDIT**

Sorry, I was talking about C above.  The article is talking about 9 F.

 

That's about 5 C.  That's very likely too high, but it is certainly more possible than 9 C.  If we do absolutely nothing and you see large industrialization of the rest of the world with the same green house gas production of the US that seems possible.

 

Realistically, that isn't likely because there is almost no way you will be able to industrialize the rest of the world and have them generate green house gases the way we do without causing fossil fuel prices to sky rocket at which point in time people will use other fuels.

 

Unless our ability to find and extract fossil fuels changes pretty dramatically.

Edited June 23, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

I think that the safest and most sane way to look at global warming is that there are costs associated to both lowering carbon output and ignoring the problem and dealing with the consequences of global warming.

 

The bottom line for me is that while oil and coal profits will take a hit, America can offset that impact on the overall economy by LEADING in alternative energy solutions. Unfortunately Republicans don't seem to believe in American ingenuity and our ability to tackle remaining hurdles in solar and other alternative energy sources. They have no problem with subsidies for oil and coal but they demand that alternative energy gets no such help.

[PeterMP]

I think that the safest and most sane way to look at global warming is that there are costs associated to both lowering carbon output and ignoring the problem and dealing with the consequences of global warming.

 

The bottom line for me is that while oil and coal profits will take a hit, America can offset that impact on the overall economy by LEADING in alternative energy solutions. Unfortunately Republicans don't seem to believe in American ingenuity and our ability to tackle remaining hurdles in solar and other alternative energy sources. They have no problem with subsidies for oil and coal but they demand that alternative energy gets no such help.

 

The biggest thing to me is the way that people under estimate the real costs of fossil fuel to us.

 

Why are we dropping bombs on ISIS, but essentially doing nothing about Boko Haram?

 

And what are the costs associated with that difference?

 

Those costs distort the real "cheapness" of fossil fuels as compared to the alternatives, without even talking about climate change.

Edited June 23, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

Peter wouldn't that be the real costs of obstructionist environmentalists?

 

 

I think that the safest and most sane way to look at global warming is that there are costs associated to both lowering carbon output and ignoring the problem and dealing with the consequences of global warming.

 

The bottom line for me is that while oil and coal profits will take a hit, America can offset that impact on the overall economy by LEADING in alternative energy solutions. Unfortunately Republicans don't seem to believe in American ingenuity and our ability to tackle remaining hurdles in solar and other alternative energy sources. They have no problem with subsidies for oil and coal but they demand that alternative energy gets no such help.

 

 

Your first paragraph makes sense, your last ignores reality

 

alt energy is heavily subsidized, astronomically so per energy unit produced.

 

Ya need to find the energy solution before expanding it, but never fear the frackers got your gateway drugs to bring energy and jobs back here

[PeterMP]

Peter wouldn't that be the real costs of obstructionist environmentalists?

 

Where do you want to drill that would be economically advantageous that they can't already drill?

 

Is it obstructionist environmentalism if the people that live along the Gulf Coast of FL don't want Deepwater Horizon happening 40 miles from their resort beaches?

 

Or is it capitalism?

 

Where can't you drill for purely environmental reasons that would eliminate the world's need for Middle East oil without massive increases in fossil fuel prices?

 

(The answer to the question is no where.  Even now the fracking industry is struggling.  People talk about the Keystone Pipeline creating US jobs.  How many fracking jobs is it going to kill?)

 

(And since I brought up Deep Water Horizon:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/millions-of-gallons-of-bp-oil-rests-on-gulf-floor/22729311/

 

"Millions of gallons of BP oil rests on Gulf floor"

 

""If it's on the sea floor the oxygen would be lower so that might mean it would hang around longer and be a source of contamination in the future. It would linger longer," he said. "This is going to affect the Gulf for years to come. Fish will likely ingest contaminants because worms ingest the sediment, and fish eat the worms. It's a conduit for contamination into the food web.""

 

Sounds like what I said when it happened.

Edited June 23, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

Where do you want to drill that would be economically advantageous that they can't already drill?

 

Is it obstructionist environmentalism if the people that live along the Gulf Coast of FL don't want Deepwater Horizon happening 40 miles from their resort beaches?

 

Or is it capitalism?

 

Where can't you drill for purely environmental reasons that would eliminate the world's need for Middle East oil without massive increases in fossil fuel prices?

 

(The answer to the question is no where.  Even now the fracking industry is struggling.  People talk about the Keystone Pipeline creating US jobs.  How many fracking jobs is it going to kill?)

 

 

 

Where ever.....remove the bans (except extremely environmentally sensitive areas) and find out.

 

Allow Floridians the choice....and find out

 

the fracking industry will be fine with Keystone, even with the delusional fearmongers

 

Pass Keystone and see....you will be wrong again since it can be exported.

 

Horizon harm predictions were like AGW  and peak oil ones, subject to great variance and mostly fearmongering.

 

 

better yet make the environmentalists live their dream w/o fossil/nuclear fuels or the money from it......maybe Musk will give them Telsas and dream homes......except he would be broke w/o sucking money from the rest of us.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2015/06/22/natural-gas-revolution-stakes-are-too-high-to-fail/?ss=energy

[PeterMP]

Where ever.....remove the bans (except extremely environmentally sensitive areas) and find out.

 

Allow Floridians the choice....and find out

 

the fracking industry will be fine with Keystone, even with the delusional fearmongers

 

Pass Keystone and see....you will be wrong again since it can be exported.

 

Horizon harm predictions were like AGW  and peak oil ones, subject to great variance and mostly fearmongering.

 

 

better yet make the environmentalists live their dream w/o fossil/nuclear fuels or the money from it......maybe Musk will give them Telsas and dream homes......except he would be broke w/o sucking money from the rest of us.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2015/06/22/natural-gas-revolution-stakes-are-too-high-to-fail/?ss=energy

 

At least 20 years from now people will still be talking about the damage done from the oil from the oil spill.  It wasn't the normally expected damage because of the unprecedented use of despersants, but it is still there.

 

 

FL has consistently said not to off shore drilling at both the state and local level:

http://news.wfsu.org/post/florida-legislature-says-no-offshore-drilling

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-offshore-drilling-florida-protests-20150115-story.html

 

Where should they open that isn't open?  Be specific.  Where is it currently not open that you think would actually make a difference with respect to our involvement in the Middle East?

 

Exporting doesn't matter.  Fossil fuels are already sold on a international level and fracking is already hurting.

 

Fracking is already slowing down:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-oil-prices-threatening-fracking-industry/

 

And there is certainly an play between the Keystone pipeline, fracking, and low fossil fuel prices.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-connelly/could-the-oil-price-crash_b_6263124.html

 

I don't know anybody that is saying get rid of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

 

The current Democratic President has been more pro-nuclear power than any President in my life time except for maybe Jimmy Carter (another Democrat).

Edited June 24, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

no need to be specific, why prevent it ?

 

Our middle east involvement has always been about more than oil, but if the obstructionists would change, it's oil would be unneeded here.

 

exporting matters, both in oil and NG, Keystone does nothing but improve access(and bring in money) , the price of Canadian oil sand products is above what fracking  here can provide......if there is demand and feasible price supply can increase to meet it.

 

looking at the short term trend in fracking is foolish, oil prices are going back up.

 

you don't know anybody obstructing nuclear/fossil fuels here?....foolish word games

[@DCGoldPants]

Fecal bacteria high at Texas beaches following flooding

 

Climate change or act of God?

[twa]

sounds like bull****, and others.

 

nothing new after floods, and those certainly aren't new.

[Mad Mike]

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[twa]

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/taxpayers-slapped-with-866615-jet-fuel-bill-for-obamas-earth-day-speech/article/2566914

 

how come they only act like it is a crisis when they want more money and control?

 

we are all gonna die....from the Greens exhaust.

[Mad Mike]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/taxpayers-slapped-with-866615-jet-fuel-bill-for-obamas-earth-day-speech/article/2566914

how come they only act like it is a crisis when they want more money and control?

we are all gonna die....from the Greens exhaust.

Yeah, oil and coal companies are pure as the driven snow. The stupidity of your argument is mind boggling.

And I noticed you didn't address my link. Classic tactic... Can't argue facts? Deflect and change the subject.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Mad Mike

[PeterMP]

no need to be specific, why prevent it ?

 

Our middle east involvement has always been about more than oil, but if the obstructionists would change, it's oil would be unneeded here.

 

exporting matters, both in oil and NG, Keystone does nothing but improve access(and bring in money) , the price of Canadian oil sand products is above what fracking  here can provide......if there is demand and feasible price supply can increase to meet it.

 

looking at the short term trend in fracking is foolish, oil prices are going back up.

 

you don't know anybody obstructing nuclear/fossil fuels here?....foolish word games

 

It is prevented for a combination of economic and environmental reasons.  You claimed that the high costs associated with our involvement from the Middle East could be eliminated through ending environmental obstructionism.

 

I'm asking you to actually back that up.

 

Where has environmental obstructionism prevented drilling that would eliminate the need for our involvement for Middle East oil?

 

(and again, the answer to the question in no where).

 

Oil sands are expensive to generate oil from.  But the costs are mostly up front.  Once you've paid the costs, large amounts of oil can be generated relatively cheaply.  For the Canadian oil sands that are already in production, those are sunk costs.  Production is going to continue.  Even for projects that are most of the way developed, most of the costs are sunk.  Those projects will likely be brought on line.

 

Fracking is different.  Any given well doesn't generate much and the costs is in generating a well.  Now developing a single well doesn't cost anything like developing a oil sands field, but you have to continually dig new wells.

 

Low oil is slowing those investments in fracking.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-12-22/canadas-oil-sands-are-better-bets-than-shale-oil

 

"A few things play to their favor. The first is that their costs are more akin to a mining operation than conventional oil drilling. Oil sands projects require massive upfront investments, but once those are made, they can go on producing for years with relatively low costs. That’s made oil sands, and the companies that produce them, quite profitable over the past few years."

 

"That cost structure may give oil sands producers an advantage over frackers in the U.S., who operate on a much shorter time horizon. Fracked wells in the U.S. tend to produce most of their oil within about 18 months or so. That means that to maintain production and rates of return, frackers need to keep reinvesting in projects with fairly short lifespans, whereas an oil sands project, once up and running, can continue to chug along, even in the face of lower prices, since its costs are spread out over a decade or more rather than over a couple years. That should keep overall oil sands production from falling and help insulate oil sands producers from lower prices, at least for now."

 

Maybe in the context of longer term, the low oil will hurt development of the oil sands, but realistically right now, it is fracking that is and has taken the hit.

 

And building Keystone is going to give the oil sands even more of an advantage over frackers.

 

I didn't say there was never any environmental obstructionism with respect to any oil development/nuclear power plant.

 

You claimed:

 

"better yet make the environmentalists live their dream w/o fossil/nuclear fuels or the money from it."

 

Currently, that's nobodies dream.  It might be some people's dream of the future, but not right now.

Edited June 25, 2015 by PeterMP

[tshile]

i watched the VICE episode on the niger delta and the illegal oil production going on there.

 

the crap going on in those third world countries is just awful and way worse than what we're doing. we have no ability to control/stop it either.

[twa]

It is prevented for a combination of economic and environmental reasons.  You claimed that the high costs associated with our involvement from the Middle East could be eliminated through ending environmental obstructionism.

 

I'm asking you to actually back that up.

 

Where has environmental obstructionism prevented drilling that would eliminate the need for our involvement for Middle East oil?

 

(and again, the answer to the question in no where).

 

 

 

You set up the answer to fail since we do not separate our and our allies needs, as well as all the other reasons for ME intervention.

 

 

You are overlooking processing costs with oil sands, once again allow the opportunity and you will be demonstrated wrong on it harming fracking.

 

We have exposed our throats over the years and harmed our economy to enrich despots because of nimbys .....and the world is more polluted for it.

 

The US is capable of meeting it's energy needs and doing it affordably and cleaner, other countries following that example will do more than the carbon schemes and investing subsidies in dated tech will to both improve the environment and the world.

 

 

Yeah your right on 'nobody's dream' more like a fantasy .

[mcsluggo]

personally.. i love the way the frakking scenario has played out.

 

we now have a demonstrated, and relatively quickly scalable "reserve".   one that is priced higher than the cost of production in many of the oil-endowed scary-states of the world, but low enough that it is a credible threat (indeed a certainty) to be scaled back up quickly in the face of rising global oil prices.

 

when it becomes a credible threat to be scaled up OUSIDE the US as well, the Russias and OPECs of the world lose a huge portion of the threat that has been hanging over oil importing countries since the 70s.  

 

Energy efficiency And alternate energy sources) and widely dispersed untapped petro reserves... the perfect hedge to **** regimes everywhere.   

 

 

 

edit*** and,... without us actually even having to produce oil.   the best threat is the reserves, NOT the production.  we have demonstrated that we can and will produce wildly if the price rises.  THe threat alone keeps the price down.   perfect

Edited June 25, 2015 by mcsluggo

[PeterMP]

You set up the answer to fail since we do not separate our and our allies needs, as well as all the other reasons for ME intervention.

 

But the fact of the matter is that it is our energy consumption that drives the market.  

 

We consume 61 barrels of oil day/1000 people.  Norway 47. Germany 30.69.  France 28.26.  Japan 34.95

 

If we cut back back on our fossil fuel consumption to even be closer to those countries, the market for fossil fuels decrease and the world is less dependent on Middle East fossil fuels.

 

Realistically, we are paying a huge costs in terms of our military/foreign policy to keep oil cheap, and it benefits not just our allies, but most of the world.

 

But we pay the majority of the costs and have one of the economies most dependent on oil (and fossil fuel) usage and so are most hurt by increasing oil prices (at least historically).

 

We'd be better off cutting our ties with the Middle East, saving money on defense spending, and just giving cash to our allies.

 

(Or even better, giving them products that the were produced by US industries and then purchased by the US government.)

 

What we are doing makes no sense outside of the context of Americans like to consume (oil).  What we are doing isn't for our allies.  It is for ourselves.

Edited June 25, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

Illegal not to act: Could courts save world from climate change? - environment - 25 June 2015 - New Scientist

 

 

All governments have a legal duty to protect their citizens from harm. They must therefore do their part to prevent dangerous global warming. And if they fail to act, their citizens can take them to court to compel them. This legal argument has been tested for the first time in the Netherlands. A court ruled yesterday that the government must do much more than it is currently doing. 

 

The Netherlands was aiming to cut its greenhouse emissions by 17 per cent by 2020, but the court has ordered that they must be cut by 25 per cent in the same time frame. "It's an historic case," says James Thornton, head of environmental law firm ClientEarth. "It's revolutionary in terms of requiring the government to do it."

 

The Dutch government can appeal against the decision, but if it loses it will have to come up with a plan for achieving the 25 per cent cut by 2020.

[Mad Mike]

Downloads for the CIRA Report | Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action | US EPA

 

 

Summary of Key Findings: 

Climate change poses significant risks to humans and the environment. The CIRA project quantifies and monetizes the risks of inaction and bene1fits to the U.S. of global GHG mitigation within six broad sectors (water resources, electricity, infrastructure, health, agriculture and forestry, and ecosystems). Looking across the impact estimates presented in this report, several common themes emerge

 

Global GHG Mitigation Avoids Costly Damages in the U.S.:

For nearly all sectors analyzed, global GHG mitigation is projected to prevent or substantially reduce adverse impacts in the U.S. this century compared to a future without emission reductions. For many sectors, the projected benefits of mitigation are substantial; for example, in 2100 mitigation is projected to result in cost savings of $4.2-$7.4 billion associated with avoided road maintenance. Global GHG mitigation is also projected to avoid the loss of 230,000-360,000 acres of coldwater fish habitat across the country compared to a future without emissions reductions. 

Edited June 25, 2015 by Mad Mike

[twa]

But the fact of the matter is that it is our energy consumption that drives the market.  

 

We consume 61 barrels of oil day/1000 people.  Norway 47. Germany 30.69.  France 28.26.  Japan 34.95

 

If we cut back back on our fossil fuel consumption to even be closer to those countries, the market for fossil fuels decrease and the world is less dependent on Middle East fossil fuels.

 

Realistically, we are paying a huge costs in terms of our military/foreign policy to keep oil cheap, and it benefits not just our allies, but most of the world.

 

But we pay the majority of the costs and have one of the economies most dependent on oil (and fossil fuel) usage and so are most hurt by increasing oil prices (at least historically).

 

We'd be better off cutting our ties with the Middle East, saving money on defense spending, and just giving cash to our allies.

 

(Or even better, giving them products that the were produced by US industries and then purchased by the US government.)

 

What we are doing makes no sense outside of the context of Americans like to consume (oil).  What we are doing isn't for our allies.  It is for ourselves.

 

 

our energy consumption can be provided for  by our own sources, removing market pressure, allow export and it does even more so and simply becomes a price game.

 

I think you overstate oil's part in our ME policy in the present......at least as far as OUR needs

 

I certainly don't object to reducing consumption as a part of that, hell I live it(unlike many)

[mcsluggo]

our energy consumption can be provided for  by our own sources, removing market pressure, allow export and it does even more so and simply becomes a price game.

 

I think you overstate oil's part in our ME policy in the present......at least as far as OUR needs

 

I certainly don't object to reducing consumption as a part of that, hell I live it(unlike many)

 

 

we don't want to supply our own petroleum.  we want to thave enough reserves to be ABLE to do so--- so that we can obliviate the presence of monopoly power from suppliers--- but the oil is cheaper from other sources, so use the cheap sources, AND keep up our reserves in the ground so that they can continue to discourage upward price pressures well into the future.

 

 

the key to killing monopoly power doesn't have to be more producers, but rather lower barriers to entry.  now that we have demonstrated that US frakkers can enter the market at sufficient scale if the price goes above a strike price---- there is a built in moderating effect on the market price  without even depleting US reserves.  teh best of all worlds.

[twa]

ya need to maintain enough domestic to have the infrastructure to ramp up....otherwise ya go shipping it on rail cars or are subject to supply interruptions 

 

the economics of production costs work fine to limit domestic production.

 

much easier to expand where ya have existing pipelines,workers and suppliers

 

ya are certainly right about breaking the monopoly, totally different game than deepwater ect