Cap And Trade

[Balloon guy 158]

For all of the rhetoric, this Republican administration has done a pretty terrible job about decreasing government control. And, when did I say that I support consolidation of power like that in the President? What's to stop a President from setting those specific benchmarks? Typically, the fact that legislative power resides in Congress.The cap-and-trade system is going to be highly debated and negotiated by a wide range of politicians that we elect. In an ideal world, they're carrying out the wishes of the people. People want to avoid the effects of global warming. In order to reverse that trend, CO2 reduction (limiting GHG's) is a proper approach. BG, why doesn't your widget company use solar or wind power or other clean alternatives for energy sources? This isn't an energy tax and that option proves it. Maybe they'd even produce enough where they could turn a profit by selling carbon credits into the market if we go the way of allocation. You keep saying this is bad for the companies and consumers, but this system is actually probably going to be rather good for the economy.You'd be surprised at how many corporations are getting created with this system in mind and how quickly existing corporations are interested in coming along. The rich and corporations see the long-term and even short-term benefits.

Cop hit the nail here, we are talking about creating a new government system designed to charge for nothing but regulations.I installed over 1,000 windmills when I was young ( I had some help ) Actually I just dug the holes for the footings, but there is a lot of wind energy here and the truth is it is mostly a bust. It represents less than .5% of the electricty generated in California, and is unreliable, which means we must always have coal and natural gas plants running to keep uninterupted power. If it wasn't for tax breaks, then the rich people using wind mills to shelter money would never invest in them.It's one thing to put caps on energy or pollution, it's another to micro manage it.

[El Guapo 8]

Cop hit the nail here, we are talking about creating a new government system designed to charge for nothing but regulations.I installed over 1,000 windmills when I was young ( I had some help ) Actually I just dug the holes for the footings, but there is a lot of wind energy here and the truth is it is mostly a bust. It represents less than .5% of the electricty generated in California, and is unreliable, which means we must always have coal and natural gas plants running to keep uninterupted power. If it wasn't for tax breaks, then the rich people using wind mills to shelter money would never invest in them.It's one thing to put caps on energy or pollution, it's another to micro manage it.

Not only is wind power inconsistent, but the capacitors at the base of the windmill only hold a small amount of electricity, so we could have 40mph winds and the windmills will be sitting still.These are 5 miles from my house, my wife drives that road every day to work, it is a very very windy area and half the time these things are at a standstill. There are 1000's of them in a 10 mile radius.If we just had a a nuclear power plant near ever major metropolis all of this would be a moot point.

[akoff 0]

If we just had a a nuclear power plant near ever major metropolis all of this would be a moot point.

So true, just think 30 years ago we figured that out but didn't have the conviction to see it through...I still believe they are going to be our future.of course now that Al is finished creating the interweb he may design a whole new form of energy...he has an endless supply of water from the melting ice caps....just sayin.

[Loismustdie 0]

Not only is wind power inconsistent, but the capacitors at the base of the windmill only hold a small amount of electricity, so we could have 40mph winds and the windmills will be sitting still.These are 5 miles from my house, my wife drives that road every day to work, it is a very very windy area and half the time these things are at a standstill. There are 1000's of them in a 10 mile radius.If we just had a a nuclear power plant near ever major metropolis all of this would be a moot point.

Windmills have to have backup power because, well, it's ****ing wind. I was reading about this, turns out the "carbon saving" is basically a net zero, the dirty little secret. Thy do make a nice prop in a Mission Impossible movie,though.

[Balloon guy 158]

Windmills have to have backup power because, well, it's ****ing wind. I was reading about this, turns out the "carbon saving" is basically a net zero, the dirty little secret. Thy do make a nice prop in a Mission Impossible movie,though.

that was teh windfarm I worked at. But I didn't do the footing for those, because they are newer.But I did drive by while they were painting them nice and white for the movie, and also saw when they were filming with each windmill lit up, very cool stuff.

[CobaltBlue 662]

I admit to not having studied cap and trade in depth, but this sounds an awful lot like broken window fallacy to me. Real growth in an economy cannot be created by businesses who's only function is to buy/sell/administer something that doesnt in itself add to the economy. If its energy driven, rational companies will employ the most effiecient energy. If its a GW issue, there is insufficient evidence that anything companies do will infuence GW to the extent that its economical to change behaviors in ways that have signficant costs.And that "People want to avoid the effects of global warming" is meaningless if the "people" are unaware of the cost/benefits of "avoiding the effects".

As you stated, energy efficiency does add to the economy. By forcing businesses to examine their carbon footprint, we can allow them to spend those resources that they were wasting on energy in other arenas. Fixing global warming is certainly a benefit, though I agree that few businesses would want to pursue CO2 reduction based purely on the concept. However, with the cap-trade system, I'm adding that they will get further economic incentive beyond just efficiency. I understand your broken window fallacy though.

1st. Depending on location some of these may not be an option.2nd. If they are an option the cost for setting something like this up depending on the scale and energy needs would most likely be cost prohibitive.3rd. We rely on 3rd parties to proved energy to us, we do not know what the source of that energy is, because it is usually a combination of methods.

Solar's rather available, wind maybe less so. However, there are also other options like hydro, tidal, geothermal, and bio. They may not entirely power an operation, but they can certainly be supplemental to the current power sources. And, I agree with you guys that nuclear isn't a bad option. Finding out the source of the energy isn't much harder than looking it up. I'm pretty sure that anyone using a significant amount of power is aware of the sources.

It's one thing to put caps on energy or pollution, it's another to micro manage it.

This is mostly a cap on pollution though, and I understand that you feel it's governmental micromanagement, but really the free market is going to determine how it plays out. It's just recognition of a new commodity market that we took for granted before.Oh, and did you guys bother to check that link I posted before? It has world-changing and world-saving potential.

[copernicus 0]

With wind and tidal, how long will it be before some studies show that they interfere with normal wind patterns or currents, causing irreperable harm and global warming, cooling, increase in hurricane strength/activity, blah blah blah?As chaos theory shows, you cannot claim that anything that isn't "natural" is not potentially harmful. (Or beneficial for that matter. The AGW crowd still hasn't shown that global warming isn't better than the alternative.)

[El Guapo 8]

The problem is Cobalt, a company cannot afford to go set up its own solar field, let alone a tidal turbine. For the most part bio energy has missed at every level and is not efficient at all (at least our current options).If I were to run a manufacturing plant, where I live, I know my energy would come part from Wind, Part from water turbines from the delta, and the rest would be purchased from other areas.

[SCYUKON 0]

Thanks for starting this post, BG, I was just about to start one of my own called "So, anyone experiencing the 5 degrees above normal temperature summer that all the GW experts have called for?"So - anyone there yet? Sure as hell has not been that hot up here in the Great White North? Zeatrix???? What is the situation in your part of the world???? Looks fairly calm to me. Why I even had air conditioning put in last spring for just such an event. Imagine my dismay at having little opportunity to use the lovely system.....I am also pissed as I will be vacationing in good old BC next week, with their freshly implemented "Carbon Tax" added onto the already silly cost of gasoline. Probably going to cost about 1.70/Litre (or about $6.80/gallon for you lucky non-metricized folks), which is still is about $1.60/gallon higher than I pay here in Alberta.I even had a good discussion at a conference I was at last month about the "real" cost of wind generation as it relates to providing "Green Power". The problem is that when the wind stops blowing, and people still have the switches in the on position, guess what? You still need the juice. Therefore more expensive gas power plants, which start up much quicker than those dirty dirty cheap coal plants, get called into action instead of their slower dirty cousins, as people are not fond of rotating blackouts. So of course the cost of the juice goes up due to the higher cost of gas vs coal. Anyone ever factor that into their "Green Economics"????I really wish we could impose a huge fine on all those IPCC dudes who shared a piece of the Nobel Prize, including Mr. Gore himself, when in 10 years things are actually colder but this retarded cap and trade system has taken hold. It is already entrenched now that it is not in vogue to be a denier as a politician.

[timwakefield 68]

It's not extremely hot in Canadia? Clearly global warming must be a hoax.Also, be thankful - it's hot as shit in NY, Canadia sounds pretty good right now.

[SCYUKON 0]

It's not extremely hot in Canadia? Clearly global warming must be a hoax.Also, be thankful - it's hot as shit in NY, Canadia sounds pretty good right now.

Canadia? Good one. Sorry to hear it has been hot as shit in New Yorkie.Actually, no I am not thankful. Summer is usually only July and August, and July has been crap (lots of rain - wait I thought a drought was coming too? WTF???). Soon September and brown grass. Sigh.

[CobaltBlue 662]

With wind and tidal, how long will it be before some studies show that they interfere with normal wind patterns or currents, causing irreperable harm and global warming, cooling, increase in hurricane strength/activity, blah blah blah?As chaos theory shows, you cannot claim that anything that isn't "natural" is not potentially harmful. (Or beneficial for that matter. The AGW crowd still hasn't shown that global warming isn't better than the alternative.)

I'd guess that people have studied the effects of wind and tidal turbines on weather patterns and found their impact to be minimal. On the other hand, the global community clearly has studied the effects of carbon dioxide emissions and found them to be impacting the atmosphere. To suggest that the immediate effects are should be drastic (as Yukon is suggesting) is to exaggerate the situation. However, the impact over the next decades can be quite visible. Perhaps somewhat paradoxically, the fight against global warming is a conservative position...an attempt to maintain the status quo with regard to the climate. Those that are opposed to global warming realize that chaotic climate can severely affect the human population.

The problem is Cobalt, a company cannot afford to go set up its own solar field, let alone a tidal turbine. For the most part bio energy has missed at every level and is not efficient at all (at least our current options).

I was at a conference in San Diego that gave me quite an optimistic of solar's ability to mitigate some (and perhaps significant) energy costs. And, as I keep saying...if you'll take a look at the link I keep plugging, you'll see that bio is going to become rather viable.

Thanks for starting this post, BG, I was just about to start one of my own called "So, anyone experiencing the 5 degrees above normal temperature summer that all the GW experts have called for?

It rained twice in the past week. Does that mean that the southeast is no longer in drought? Please consider the longer term data.

[Balloon guy 158]

It rained twice in the past week. Does that mean that the southeast is no longer in drought? Please consider the longer term data.

Like this one?LinkPersonally, I would like to see solar expand, it would be the best and then I could buy some worthless land in the middle of the desert and make oodles of money which I would then use to buy a house as large as Algores and use 10 times the norm as well.

[SCYUKON 0]

On the other hand, the global community clearly has studied the effects of carbon dioxide emissions and found them to be impacting the atmosphere.

Clearly "they" have studied it. And clearly their predictive models are not worth the paper they are printed out on. Hence my post - is it hotter out there anywhere this summer? Oh and by the way, have they figured out a way to calibrate their models yet? The last time I looked at the latest IPCC report, they still are having a bugger of a time specifying and calibrating the model. I bet drug companies wish they could gain public and government approval for their products with as little rigor as "they" have shown in developing these "predictive" models upon which all of this doom and gloom is based - we would all be free from any and every ailment according to the drugmakers, only to find out one day we had been swindled out of all our money with no improvement to our health."They" made the claim, now I am looking for some validation of their prediction. Don't go and run behind "long term statistics" now. Or if you are going to, then take a good look at the graph supplied by B.G.I get a charge as well as how the term "Climate Change" is now slowly being worked into the mainstream media in place of "Global Warming" to try and sweep under the carpet the fact that the temperature is not steadily climbing as predicted and stated.What a bunch of lemmings....and by the way, check out the link supplied by B.G. as well. "He" has studied it too.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Like this one?Link

Not long enough...Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming(And before you tell me that Wikipedia's not a reliable source, let's remember and examine the citations.)

Clearly "they" have studied it. And clearly their predictive models are not worth the paper they are printed out on. Hence my post - is it hotter out there anywhere this summer? Oh and by the way, have they figured out a way to calibrate their models yet? The last time I looked at the latest IPCC report, they still are having a bugger of a time specifying and calibrating the model.

Have you posted concrete data that it's not hotter anywhere this summer? You seem to be claiming that. As for model calibration, it's obviously a very complex system, but they have reached relative consensus that it's happening. It's really just a matter of how it's happening and how quickly.And again, you're not taking sample size into account. I can predict that AA will beat a random hand 80% of the time. "Oh, no...I didn't win this time...I didn't win the next time! The predictive model must be wrong!"

[Balloon guy 158]

Not long enough...

so less than a quarter of a degree in the last 20 years?Isn't that in the range of okey dokie?And yea, I'm cool with wiki for the most part

[CobaltBlue 662]

so less than a quarter of a degree in the last 20 years?

That's in Celsius, so it's a bit more pronounced than if it's Fahrenheit. Also, that's global average temperature, which, while significant, isn't as alarming as the fact that the temperature's rising faster in certain regions of the world...particularly polar regions which leads to reduced ice...which in turn can lead to reduced solar reflection...which can lead to increased temperatures. Basically, yeah, you can look at it over the past two decades and think, "That's not that bad." The problem is that it's potentially exponential/accelerating. If the global temp goes up 5 degrees Celsius over the next century, we're not going extinct, but it is going to lead to rather dramatic effects on weather patterns, coastal regions, flora/fauna, and potentially the economy. Anyone that suggests "The Day After Tomorrow" scenarios or that the earth is "dying" is guilty of major hyperbole, but global warming (i.e. "rapid" climate change) could easily be a pain in the ass.

[SCYUKON 0]

Have you posted concrete data that it's not hotter anywhere this summer? You seem to be claiming that. As for model calibration, it's obviously a very complex system, but they have reached relative consensus that it's happening. It's really just a matter of how it's happening and how quickly.And again, you're not taking sample size into account. I can predict that AA will beat a random hand 80% of the time. "Oh, no...I didn't win this time...I didn't win the next time! The predictive model must be wrong!"

Well I have been home all summer and we are not having any heat waves, that is for sure. I am asking others if they have been experiencing any heatwaves, and so far I see nada. Big surprise.As for your predictive model, I would say that the IPCC is claiming that a random hand will beat AA 80% of the time, since they found 4 forum posts out of 5 (they had to look long and hard of course to find the posts that fit their theory) where a guy with a crappy hand got lucky and cracked bullets. Get the point? Found the data to support their theory? Get the point? Did not actually do the proper calculation to see that in the long run (because they don't know how to yet) the odds were 80/20 against their random crappy models.Anyways, I challenge you to find me any areas where the ave temp is 5 degrees warmer this summer. I bet you would have a hard time finding a place where the ave temp is even 2 degrees warmer over a 2 month period. Hmmn - maybe in Hell, which is where all these donkeys should end up for making such harmful predictions from such incomplete and uncalibrated models.

[SCYUKON 0]

If the global temp goes up 5 degrees Celsius over the next century, we're not going extinct, but it is going to lead to rather dramatic effects on weather patterns, coastal regions, flora/fauna, and potentially the economy. Anyone that suggests "The Day After Tomorrow" scenarios or that the earth is "dying" is guilty of major hyperbole, but global warming (i.e. "rapid" climate change) could easily be a pain in the ass.

So the time frame now is "the next century" instead of just "this summer"? Interesting prediction change.....p.s. you should follow the advice of Mr. Gladwell in your sig, clearly the GW modellers are swimming in "knowing" without a full dose of "understanding".

[Balloon guy 158]

That's in Celsius, so it's a bit more pronounced than if it's Fahrenheit. Also, that's global average temperature, which, while significant, isn't as alarming as the fact that the temperature's rising faster in certain regions of the world...particularly polar regions which leads to reduced ice...which in turn can lead to reduced solar reflection...which can lead to increased temperatures. Basically, yeah, you can look at it over the past two decades and think, "That's not that bad." The problem is that it's potentially exponential/accelerating. If the global temp goes up 5 degrees Celsius over the next century, we're not going extinct, but it is going to lead to rather dramatic effects on weather patterns, coastal regions, flora/fauna, and potentially the economy. Anyone that suggests "The Day After Tomorrow" scenarios or that the earth is "dying" is guilty of major hyperbole, but global warming (i.e. "rapid" climate change) could easily be a pain in the ass.

Well we don't use celsius so I guess we got nothing to worry aboot.

[El Guapo 8]

That's in Celsius, so it's a bit more pronounced than if it's Fahrenheit. Also, that's global average temperature, which, while significant, isn't as alarming as the fact that the temperature's rising faster in certain regions of the world...particularly polar regions which leads to reduced ice...which in turn can lead to reduced solar reflection...which can lead to increased temperatures. Basically, yeah, you can look at it over the past two decades and think, "That's not that bad." The problem is that it's potentially exponential/accelerating. If the global temp goes up 5 degrees Celsius over the next century, we're not going extinct, but it is going to lead to rather dramatic effects on weather patterns, coastal regions, flora/fauna, and potentially the economy. Anyone that suggests "The Day After Tomorrow" scenarios or that the earth is "dying" is guilty of major hyperbole, but global warming (i.e. "rapid" climate change) could easily be a pain in the ass.

I hope you realize while the ice is melting in the Artic, it is actually expanding in the Antartic. I don't remember the article, but more emphaisis was being pointed towards a shift of the axis and orbit, than global warming.

[Balloon guy 158]

I hope you realize while the ice is melting in the Artic, it is actually expanding in the Antartic. I don't remember the article, but more emphaisis was being pointed towards a shift of the axis and orbit, than global warming.

If that happens I will flip.

[copernicus 0]

I'd guess that people have studied the effects of wind and tidal turbines on weather patterns and found their impact to be minimal.

That would be a shaky guess, since models about relatively well known but chaotic phenomena (like the GW models) still suck. I would lay 1000:1 there are no reliable models on the long term impact of widespread wind or tidal turbines. (Yeah, I guess its unfair to ask for reliable models. )

[CobaltBlue 662]

So the time frame now is "the next century" instead of just "this summer"? Interesting prediction change.....

When the frig did I claim that this specific summer will be hotter than the last? This is about overall trends and statistics. I'm going to have a losing month in poker in July...my worst ever in fact. My past three years of play (my "model") wouldn't have predicted that, because I'm overall a winning player. That said, do I trust that I'm still a winning player? Do I trust the overall trend? Yes. Seriously, your tiny sample size "proofs" aren't indicative of anything.

As for your predictive model, I would say that the IPCC is claiming that a random hand will beat AA 80% of the time, since they found 4 forum posts out of 5 (they had to look long and hard of course to find the posts that fit their theory) where a guy with a crappy hand got lucky and cracked bullets. Get the point? Found the data to support their theory? Get the point? Did not actually do the proper calculation to see that in the long run (because they don't know how to yet) the odds were 80/20 against their random crappy models.

What "agenda" do you think they have? It's pretty easy to figure out the agendas of the few scientists that are dissenting.

I hope you realize while the ice is melting in the Artic, it is actually expanding in the Antartic. I don't remember the article, but more emphaisis was being pointed towards a shift of the axis and orbit, than global warming.

Based on what I've gathered, there are a number of large ice shelves in the Antarctic that are collapsing into the sea (i.e. melting). It's not as considerable as the Arctic melting at the moment, but it's still happening. Fortunately, the melt of most Arctic ice isn't quite as terrible...aside from melting on Greenland. If you found the article you're referring to, I'd be interested.I'm not saying that there aren't natural climate trends. I'm saying that our carbon dioxide output is having some sort of measurable impact that's affecting it. That's really no longer debated seriously in the scientific community. What's still debated is the level of impact.

[nutzbuster 7]

If that happens I will flip.

That's the polar opposite of what I was thinking....