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

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

But if we pull out the other countries do not get environmental child support.

 

Think of the children.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

The US agrees to the accord that puts more restrictions on the US than other nations.  We agree to PAY other nations to do less than us.  The other nations DONT live up to their end of the bargain.  The US Still pays them.  I'll pass thanks.

 

 

[Larry]

 

I'm all for renewable energy, if the market says it is needed. 

 

New technology often pays a huge return, on government assistance when it's starting out.  

 

The government helped promote the building of the railroads.  (And regulated them, considerably and to this day, to make them a national resource).  And the resulting capability contributed to making this country an economic powerhouse.  

 

The government actively promoted the development of aviation, in it's early days.  And I don;t know if it's still true, but I heard 20 years ago that, out of all of the categories of goods that are imported/exported to/from the US, the category that had more US exports than any other product was "four engined jet aircraft".  And, to this day, international air traffic controllers and pilots the world over are required to be able to communicate in English, and to give their altitude and speed in feet, and miles per hour.  Because the US so thoroughly dominated that new technology, when it was starting.  

 

Yeah, I can certainly see the wisdom of being philosophically opposed to the government interfering in a market, most of the time.  

 

But I assert that there are times where it's a good idea.  In fact, when failing to do so can have a devastating effect on the country's future.  

 

And I would assert that "new technology", "a commodity which currently is priced into every single product in the world",  and "a commodity which the world is guaranteed to need, in huge quantities, in the near future" are certainly two of the criteria to use, when asking the question "Should the government meddle in the market in this case?"  

 

 

---

 

It's one of the problems with taking a statement of general philosophy, turning it into a bumper sticker, and then pretending that it's an absolute rule which has no possible exceptions.  

 

(Moved from one of the numerous Trump threads.  Anybody know how to quote a post from Thread A, in Thread B?)  

 

[PeterMP]

14 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's it in a nutshell.

 

The US agrees to the accord that puts more restrictions on the US than other nations.  We agree to PAY other nations to do less than us.  The other nations DONT live up to their end of the bargain.  The US Still pays them.  I'll pass thanks.

 

 

 

Have you read the accord?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/a-readers-guide-to-the-paris-agreement/420345/

"Who should pay for the costs of climate change, and how much should they give?

 

The problem: Surprise, surprise: “Climate finance”—that is, who gets money, and who gives it—was one of the most controversial issue at the Paris talks.

In order to salvage the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen, Hillary Clinton, then the U.S. secretary of state, pledged that the rich world would “mobilize” $100 billion to help developing countries make their economies more sustainable and prepare for the storms to come. The key word was mobilize: Unlike traditional foreign aid, where government money is redirected to poorer countries or aid organizations working there, the U.S. and the EU would arrange for billions to flow from a variety of sources, public and private.

 

Would that count? And would the rich world be defined strictly as the U.S., the EU, Canada, and Japan? The United States preferred for China and India—two wealthy, powerful nations that also contain hundreds of millions of people still in poverty—to pitch into that $100 billion target. Yet even as those two Asian nations talked up their own investment in climate-vulnerable nations, they blanched at being compelled to join the rich world’s pledge.

 

The solution: So here’s something counter-intuitive. The text commonly called the “Paris Agreement” is actually two different documents: the agreement itself, which is legally binding, and the Paris decision, which passes the agreement and sets out a number of less legally binding ways to approach and observe it.

The Paris agreement includes no new specific commitments to finance. But item 115 of the Paris decision says that more than that $100 billion will be needed:"

 

We are legally obligated to pay nothing to nobody under any circumstance (whether they do something or not).

Edited June 2, 2017 by PeterMP

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Have you read the accord?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/a-readers-guide-to-the-paris-agreement/420345/

"Who should pay for the costs of climate change, and how much should they give?

 

The problem: Surprise, surprise: “Climate finance”—that is, who gets money, and who gives it—was one of the most controversial issue at the Paris talks.

In order to salvage the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen, Hillary Clinton, then the U.S. secretary of state, pledged that the rich world would “mobilize” $100 billion to help developing countries make their economies more sustainable and prepare for the storms to come. The key word was mobilize: Unlike traditional foreign aid, where government money is redirected to poorer countries or aid organizations working there, the U.S. and the EU would arrange for billions to flow from a variety of sources, public and private.

 

Would that count? And would the rich world be defined strictly as the U.S., the EU, Canada, and Japan? The United States preferred for China and India—two wealthy, powerful nations that also contain hundreds of millions of people still in poverty—to pitch into that $100 billion target. Yet even as those two Asian nations talked up their own investment in climate-vulnerable nations, they blanched at being compelled to join the rich world’s pledge.

 

The solution: So here’s something counter-intuitive. The text commonly called the “Paris Agreement” is actually two different documents: the agreement itself, which is legally binding, and the Paris decision, which passes the agreement and sets out a number of less legally binding ways to approach and observe it.

The Paris agreement includes no new specific commitments to finance. But item 115 of the Paris decision says that more than that $100 billion will be needed:"

 

We are legally obligated to pay nothing to nobody under any circumstance (whether they do something or not).

To be clear.  I think announcing that we are leaving the accord is stupid.  We didnt have to do anything under the accord at all.  Which in itself shows why it was kind of dumb in the first place.  My other post was more my opinion on what would have happened.  Not what would have been required.  Sorry if that wasnt clear.

[twa]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Move the goal posts much?

deleted..

 

The best solution or right mix of solutions can be figured out as we go based on market drivers.

 

The goal is not static

Which market drivers?....natural or imposed?

 

Market drivers and a thumb on the scales led to relying on others....to our detriment.

 

 

[Llevron]

 

I'm all for renewable energy, if the market says it is needed. 

 

So what is being missed is that we are actively creating the market through the Paris deal. The ENTIRE PLANET agreed to use this energy. It will be a market assuming we can make it work. And if any country can, its the US. AND we would be...not only the front runner.....but the group that makes all the rules. What the United States says goes. So basically the world let us create a market, make it mandatory, get out in front of the competition and we turned around and said no thanks **** you and the planet. 

 

Its stupid. And im not even talking about the environment. Im talking about the money. If the great Donald Trump made this deal he would be hailed as a genius businessman and deal maker. But because it was a black dude that may or may not be Muslim we have to stop it at all costs. 

 

 

EDIT: Sorry, will continue in other thread 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The goal is not static

Which market drivers?....natural or imposed?

 

Market drivers and a thumb on the scales led to relying on others....to our detriment.

 

The energy industry (and most industries) are heavily regulated and are already responding heavily to drivers imposed from government, have been since the start of the country, and will continue to do so far into the future.

 

The government should set large scale objectives and a mechanism to achieve them (e.g. a C emissions tax).  However, other things like land use issues will also be an issue (especially for local and state governments).

 

The governments thumb has always been on the scale and for decades on the scale in favor of fossil fuels.

 

From there as things develop with respect to natural resources, it might make sense or be necessary to add or adjust the incentives.

[Larry]

Common sense says it's needed. Oil is a finite resource. We're going to reach a point where the amount of dead dinosaur goo starts to run dry, and becomes prohibitively expensive to pull from the ground. We need as much energy from renewable sources as possible to ween us off strict oil dependence and extend the life of the planet's leftover oil reserves. I'm not even factoring in the fact the renewable energy is much better for the air you breathe and water you drink.

 

Heck, to me, the best answer to "why should we be encouraging migration to alternative energy?" is "Being able to tell the Middle East to go ahead and kill each other, we don't care any more."  

 

Why anybody needs a better answer than that is beyond me.  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

I'm all for renewable energy, if the market says it is needed. 

 

The market is responding based on goverment actions.  ME oil wells were developed and have been maintained because of government action and support.

 

If the US government changes its actions, the market will respond accordingly.

[mcsluggo]

this was in the wrong thread.... and basically got swamped by the many other discussions going on in that thread   

 

(and it partly slipped by because TWA chose to stop responding with his usual drive-by s  when real numbers were introduced) 

 

but anyway, i am going to unceremoniously yank this over to the climate thread, where it belongs

 

 

When you subsidize adoption of a new technology, it leads to actual use of the technology.  use of a new technology allows it to move more rapidly down the steep portion of the "dynamic cost curve"  (the more the new technology is used, the more rapidly people learn to use it efficiently, and prices drop rapidly.)    On the other hand, in mature industries (like thermal coal power generation, as a random example) the massive cumulative usage of the technology that has already occurred has already moved you from the steep portion of the dynamic-cost-curve (where prices drop rapidly) into the more flat portions of the curve (where costs decline much more slowly with increased usage)

 

THIS is why you subsidize a new technology with "Positive Externalities"  (a clearly defined economics term...not a poetic adjective).

 

 

 

This ignores the fact that you are NOT charging coal generators for the "negative externalities" associated with coal power production (both particulate polution and carbon generation)

 

 

 

AND... even ignoring the externalities (ACTUAL solar is cheaper than its market price, coal is more expensive than its market price).. solar HAS already caught up with coal in cost per KWH.... (but it still cannot replace coal as baseload power)    Price quotes that show solar as massively more expensive than coal look at the average cost per KWH of existing power sources.    coal remains relatively constant i terms of technological usage (but the price of coal has plummeted lately, with the sustained sluggish global economic growth, and the move AWAY from coal usage)... but the price of solar has plummeted.   the cost of NEW solar is in the same ballpark as the price of NEW coal .... even BEFORE you add in the cost of better scrubbers and tack-on carbon capture technology.

 

Historical summary of EIA's LCOE projections (2010–2017)

Estimate in $/MWh			Coal convent'l	NG combined cycle		Nuclear advanced	Wind		Solar
of year	ref	for year		convent'l	advanced		onshore	offshore	PV	CSP
2010	[54]	2016	100.4	83.1	79.3	119.0	149.3	191.1	396.1	256.6
2011	[55]	2016	95.1	65.1	62.2	114.0	96.1	243.7	211.0	312.2
2012	[56]	2017	97.7	66.1	63.1	111.4	96.0	N/A	152.4	242.0
2013	[57]	2018	100.1	67.1	65.6	108.4	86.6	221.5	144.3	261.5
2014	[58]	2019	95.6	66.3	64.4	96.1	80.3	204.1	130.0	243.1
2015	[53]	2020	95.1	75.2	72.6	95.2	73.6	196.9	125.3	239.7
2016	[59]	2022	NB	58.1	57.2	102.8	64.5	158.1	84.7	235.9
2017	[60]	2022	NB	58.6	53.8	96.2	55.8	NB	73.7	NB
Nominal change 2010–2017			NB	−29%	−32%	−19%	−63%	NB	−81%	NB
Note: Projected LCOE are adjusted for inflation and calculated on constant dollars based on two years prior to the release year of the estimate. Estimates given without any subsidies. Transmission cost for non-dispatchable sources are on average much higher. NB = "Not built" (No capacity additions are expected.)   source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source   the most recent solar power that has been built in the USA (2017) has cost $73 per megawatt hour.... the most recent coal Production in the USA (2015) cost $95.1 per MWH

 

[twa]

So solar PV is old tech and no longer needs massive subsides?  (excluding major advances)

What dropped the price was Chinese labor and raping the environment.....paid for in typical NIMBY fashion.

 

 What increased utilization was mandates and subsidies

[Hersh]

Anyone that thinks all these other countries want to damage the strongest economy in the world, as suggested by dumb****s Trump and Pruitt regarding the Paris Climate agreement, is truly ignorant. I mean, what kind of idiot things other countries want a giant consumer country to fail? It would only severely negatively impact the world economy. I am so tired of these totally dishonest explanations. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jumbo]

The following is also fit for the "expertise" thread, which I am not ignoring and will be posting more in at some point.

 

I wa watching an R congress dude citing claimed paleoclimatology findings that in his mind support hard skepticism (he was near 100% rejection) of humans having any meaningful effect on global climate change. It's similar to watching many folks argue "evolution science."  He spewed out several technical, academic-sounding sentences and "statistics" (misused, of course) and then got twisted all around by simple questioning from a reporter whom I assume isn't also secretly a scientist.

 

The ego's emotional directing embraces the science (or things claimed to be science) that brings it the thoughts and numbers it could never arrive at on its own due to exactly such ignorance, to make arguments to defend its positions beyond "it's what I believe/feel/think"

 

So these people inevitably attempt to use a level of science they are not truly educated in (being very kind in phrasing here given most examples of the actual behavior) beyond whatever degree of "self-education" they rely on---these days in our venue it usually amounts to "google plus ego plus poor choices in life"--- to argue endlessly with 90% of actual professionals (literally thousands upon thousands all across the globe) in these fields who say otherwise. This is an interesting dynamic.

 

Defensively reacting to the above with reflexive simple-minded rebukes ala "but experts can be wrong," "a layman can be just as "smart" as some professionals and read and learn and even make better judgments on a matter than some people formally educated in it, ya know", "not everybody needs to go to universities to be as 'smart' as the guy who did". well, all that is true enough given the typical phrasing, but those thoughts can also be taken as an indicator you don't think things through very far if that's where you "settled."

 

When you're the mechanic and the guy (whether he's a logger or a professor) argues with you about what's wrong with his car, and you can tell he doesn't know what he's talking about ,and 90% of the other mechanics all across town agree with you, and also let him know, but he keeps going because he's sure he's right and he knows at least one other mechanic who agrees,  you likely take an appropriately critical view of his reasoning and just send him on his way.

 

 

I recommend that "don't continue to engage" model when it becomes obvious what you're really dealing with, but to each their own. When I had my first gig I was always into a "not a salesman, an expert consultant putting your best interests as you describe them first" model for specialty retail.  But I and my employees were all free---encouraged---to happily walk people to the door when they displayed that "amatuer expert here to argue" syndrome and was very successful even though we "turned some people away" (unforgivable sin in "retail")--in fact, it contributed greatly to the scope our success.

 

 

 

(addendum: IME when you're professionally expert on a subject and not an ego-prick yourself, and you really do get a genuine amatuer expert, you can tell it, and even in argument (assuming they're not an ass in delivery), you tend to appreciate their ability)

 

 

 

 

[DogofWar1]

17 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

This is like a player demanding a trade or new deal because they don't want to do OTAs (and there's zero pressure from coach to come).  Someone asks them "why do you want a trade/new deal over OTAs if your OTA attendance is optional?" and the player responds "I want to renegotiate my responsibilities about OTAs."

Edited June 2, 2017 by DogofWar1

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's it in a nutshell.

 

The US agrees to the accord that puts more restrictions on the US than other nations.  We agree to PAY other nations to do less than us.  The other nations DONT live up to their end of the bargain.  The US Still pays them.  I'll pass thanks.

 

 

So they go back to burning coal and fossil fuels and we get no where.

 

This is a GLOBAL issue. Maybe if we stopped spending 60% of our nationsl budget on bombs we could make some real progress.

 

Oh wait...no we won't because one party likes bombs more than they like clean air.

[FrFan]

Investors send Trump a message on climate change

Market Forces May Impact Emissions More Than Climate Agreements

Exxon to Trump: Don't ditch Paris climate change deal

[visionary]

 

[Kilmer17]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So they go back to burning coal and fossil fuels and we get no where.

 

This is a GLOBAL issue. Maybe if we stopped spending 60% of our nationsl budget on bombs we could make some real progress.

 

Oh wait...no we won't because one party likes bombs more than they like clean air.

How many bombs did Obama drop as President?

[Jumbo]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

How many bombs did Obama drop as President?

 

 

  Fortunately, not all of them. Still work to do.

[Kilmer17]

19 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

States Rights FTW!!!

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

How many bombs did Obama drop as President?

Please remember you're talking with a pacifist.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

Please remember you're talking with a pacifist.

Then I would have expected universal disdain for any party dropping bombs.  Not just one.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

Then I would have expected universal disdain for any party dropping bombs.  Not just one.

You must not pay attention to me much, which is understandable. My stance has been well established here.