Sharon Astyk Demolishes Jared Diamond's NYT Op-Ed - Energy Bulletin

[hatrack]

EDIT

And I will cheerfully agree that all of these are good things. He might have mentioned other environmental initiatives my WalMart as well, including their investment in organics. There is no doubt that these things reduce WalMart's enormous negative impact. The problem is that it isn't enough. WalMart still makes its living selling goods made of toxic plastics, mostly imported from China at tremendous fossil energy cost. The goods are mostly of poor quality and not durable, and encourage people to discard items into landfills and replace them with more cheap goods.

The same goes for the other groups - it is wonderful, sincerely that Coca-Cola is so concerned with water resources, and indubitably, Coke is now a better citizen than it once was, and its investment in cleaning up contaminated water is an unadulterated good. That said, it would be an overstatement to say that Coke always operates in the best interest of communities - a 2008 report by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) suggests, for example, that the Coke bottling plant located in Kala Dera near Jaipur India knowingly located its plant in an area of water scarcity, causing serious consequences for nearby farmers. Coke refused to release its own environmental impact studies. It would also be an overstatement to suggest that Coke has been acting from its own interests - in fact, it has bowed to pressure from a student campaign to remove Coke products from universities.

But the major problem isn't whether Coke is good or bad, it is whether we can afford, in a world of rapidly increasing water scarcity to prioritize resources for something as non-essential as sugar-water. Can we afford to ship water mixed with a few other ingredients around the world, using fossil fuels? Moreover, what happens when Coke's eternal need to expand its market runs up against material limits? Can we expect Coke to voluntarily say "ok, enough growth, enough market share, other people need that water for agriculture and drinking?"

Diamond goes on to explore the issue of climate change, and why we have to do something about it. And he's absolutely right. So what does that mean? We can see from "The Copenhagen Diagnosis" the recent updated review of climate literature that the scale of the problem will rapidly bring the limits of corporate good citizenship into clear view. The Copenhagen Diagnosis, overshadowed in many place by the East Anglia Climate Scandals, was a review of all the major climate papers published since the latest IPCC report, and the picture it paints is deeply disturbing. The window for radical action is getting much, much smaller very rapidly. For example, we've seen rapidly increasing greenhouse emissions - and increases not just in the Global South, but in the developed world as well. That is, despite all this good citizenship, in the net, we're still doing way too much harm.

EDIT

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50925

[kristopher]

1. More like "Sharon Astyk's Baseless Opinion"

This piece has several demonstrably wrong statements and is otherwise crafted aroud unsupported opinions presented as fact. For example, this is demonstrably wrong, "if we are to soften the simultaneous blows of climate change and energy depletion is to use dramatically fewer fossil fuels - and that's only possible with fewer cars on the road."

The use of electric drive vehicles is a viable alternative that will work to accomplish the stated goals.

Then we have her opinions based on nothing but a slipshod seat of the pants view that is supported by no research. For example, "WalMart still makes its living selling goods made of toxic plastics, mostly imported from China at tremendous fossil energy cost. The goods are mostly of poor quality and not durable, and encourage people to discard items into landfills and replace them with more cheap goods."

Even *if* true this is hardly an indictment of Walmart. Walmart is operating under a set of rules and within that set of rules their business model is extremely effective at finding EFFICIENT ways to obtain and deliver goods to consumers. If you want to change the rules (for example produce more local goods) then the way to do it is to go to the source of the problem - policies that do not count the cost of carbon. Depending on individuals and corporations to act against their self interests is foolish; as is criticizing them for using money as a benchmark for what constituted efficiency since it IS the universally accepted way the term is judged. Complaining that it is a bad metric because it doesn't capture externalities is blaming the yardstick for the failure of the workman to take all measurements needed to do the job at hand - it is an absurd, baseless, poorly thought out perspective.

Astyk's knowledge base and general analytic skills aren't evn close to being in Diamond's league. Reading this is like reading something written by a not particularly bright high school student who is trying to make up for lack of knowledge by appeals to beliefs she knows to be commonly held by her classmates.

[joshcryer]

3. You're right, we have to get rid of coal since it is the biggest and biggest growing pollutor.

The actions of corporations toward "efficiency" are not going to magically get rid of coal.

[kristopher]

4. Corporate profit seeking is the only way we get rid of coal

The trick is to design a playing field where there is more money to be made by producing power from non-coal sources.

There are three components involved: charge for carbon, redesign the power system so that it captures the benefits of renewable generation, and provide structural assurances to capital markets that the infrastructure changes (fossils out - renewables in) are long term permanent policy.


That sends all the bean counters on a mission to make money by finding ways to build a better energy mousetrap. Remember this is a "ground floor" opportunity that is a beacon to entrepreneurial innovation. Those that snooze are going to lose.

[joshcryer]

5. Yet we aren't charging much for carbon and we can see that corporations are warming to...

...carbon trading schemes that experts on emissions such as Hansen do not believe will work.

In the end the policies you describe would affect consumers more than corporations, which is how it should be. Corporations would not be taking the brunt of anything nor would they be at the forefront of carbon reduction to any sensible person who knows how to do simple addition and subtraction.

[kristopher]

6. With all respect to Hansen, this isn't his area of expertise.

It is mine.

Your assertion that it would affect consumers more than corporations is untrue. The consumers should continue to have power and the cost of that power should be less over time than it would otherwise be.

It also takes all the money we now spend on buying stored fossil energy and puts it into jobs building and maintaining a renewable infrastructure. On a per watt basis there is a lot more labor cost for distributed generation than there is for centralized generation.

That is a huge win for the public all around.

[IrateCitizen]

7. .

:popcorn:

[joshcryer]

9. If consumers do not take the brunt of the costs, then nothing will be achieved.

You cannot deny that we are not on track to stem emissions before 2.0C, indeed, you, being the big expert you are, won't even touch it when I ask you what you think. You "won't speculate." It's not speculation to look at emissions, count how long we have until we guarantee ourselves 2.0C, and then determine what level of phaseout is necessary to get us there. Indeed, the status quo lives by the mantra "reduce some now, do the rest later." But reports that look at this strategy determine that it simply isn't enough.

All of the corporations in the world could be 100% zero emissions for in-house CO2 utilization (Wal-Mart could buy all clean energy, for instance; coal power companies could have solar panels powering the lights inside the power plant, etc), and it would simply not make a dent in all of the consumer-related CO2 that is emitted.

Hansen is correct that 2.0C is upon us unless we make dramatic moves today. Saying he is not is ignorance and stupidity.

Feel free to indicate what papers you've authored.

[kristopher]

12. Think about it a bit, Josh.

You wrote this paragraph,

You cannot deny that we are not on track to stem emissions before 2.0C, indeed, you, being the big expert you are, won't even touch it when I ask you what you think. You "won't speculate." It's not speculation to look at emissions, count how long we have until we guarantee ourselves 2.0C, and then determine what level of phaseout is necessary to get us there. Indeed, the status quo lives by the mantra "reduce some now, do the rest later." But reports that look at this strategy determine that it simply isn't enough."

Actually that is exactly what it would be - speculation. First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be. Second, the pace of our response is tied to human systems and a whole host of concerns that the humans in those systems are prey to. It isn't some kit that you put together in your garage, it is a restructuring of the entire way civilization functions.

You can argue with me all day and all night about it and your opinion isn't going to make some magic change in human behavior suddenly materialize. It doesn't matter that you are so scared you're wetting your pants about 2C; it isn't going to alter the pace of change by one minute.

Trying to shift the discussion from the human sphere and what actions are possible to the consequences you fear is nothing more than a dishonest diversion from the topic. I suspect it is diversion you feel compelled to make because you know I'm correct.

You also wrote,

"All of the corporations in the world could be 100% zero emissions for in-house CO2 utilization (Wal-Mart could buy all clean energy, for instance; coal power companies could have solar panels powering the lights inside the power plant, etc), and it would simply not make a dent in all of the consumer-related CO2 that is emitted."

This, together with your headline "If consumers do not take the brunt of the costs, then nothing will be achieved" shows that serious gaps exist in your knowledge of how the economics of the problem are shaped and how they will or will not be able to help.

Let's define costs. To me, that has two related but distinct meanings - one is a monetary burden, the other is a non-monetary burden.

Since ultimately all monetary costs are laid on the backs of consumers, it is an obvious truism that they will pay for the power they receive from noncarbon sources - and that payment will, as always, include the costs of construction.

What you are referring to is a bit ambiguous. It could either be money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay or it could be costs such as lack of services, degradation in lifestyle etc. In other words, you are saying that the onerous part of dealing with climate change belongs to the consumer.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It isn't correct to say that the consumer will have to pay money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay. The current dependence on declining fossil fuel supplies coupled with the emergence of China and India as energy consumers and competitors for finite fossil fuel resources means that the energy security outlook for consumers is bleak.

There is very little doubt that over the course of however long the transition to renewables takes, energy sources that do not require constant inputs of fuel will act as a stabilizing influence on energy prices. The reason is simple - the costs are virtually all front loaded. You know from day one what the costs of the energy produced will be for the next several decades - it isn't subject to competition based on limited resources. If competition for the output puts upward pressure on the price the power, it is cheaper to build more renewable generation than to get into a bidding war.

So from the consumer perspective what they should see is continued service at rates comparable to today's rates. They will support the transition financially but it will not be a lump sum, it will be a redirecting of the funds they currently spend for energy from one set of energy sources to a different set of energy sources - from one set of actors on the energy stage to a different set of actors. All the consumer will see is the end result.

I can't think of a non-financial burden related to consumers that would be of any significance. There are some lifestyle changes that we could expect will probably happen, but there is little reason to think these would be considered a burden. Most non-financial burdens are associated with the present system and will be largely eliminated through the transition to renewables.

Read this carefully because it's the crux of the entire problem: the group that will suffer the "brunt of the costs" isn't the consumer, it is the owners of fossil fuel resources and the industries that will disappear when they are replaced.

The idea that the costs will fall to the consumer is a lie spread by this group to encourage the public to oppose action on climate change.

******************************
Page 2

Let me summarize your beliefs as I see them and put them in context.

You believe the problem of climate change is real, of human origin, and urgent.
I agree.

You believe that action - strong action - should have taken place decades ago and that we are now on the cusp of being too late.
I agree.

You believe that the survival of not only human civilization is at stake, but perhaps even the survival of the species.
I agree.

You believe that the above justifies any measures necessary to effect change in the most rapid manner possible.
I agree.

Now here is where we disagree.

You believe there is some way to immediately impose your list of priorities on the rest of the country; that there is some mechanism by which it is possible to make everyone abandon their priorities and adopt yours.
I disagree.

You believe that the government has the authority to act on the scale that would allay your fears without having public support.
I disagree.

When we discuss whether the profit motive or massive direct government action is best, we are really talking about these two points - what is possible.

If we had strong public support, either method would solve the problem. In the case of strong public support, I'd advocate for an approach where there was a massive public works effort that was dedicated to the goal of eliminating at least 75% of fossil fuel use within 15 years. In that time we'd be able to harness the profit motive to improve on the basic framework and infrastructure laid down by government.

But we don't have that support and those who have ownership of property that is destined to be worthless are trying their hardest to make sure we never have the avenue of direct government action available to use. They are largely succeeding.

What does that leave?

We have to fight them. That option involves creating a competing class of property owners that will fight the fossil fuel interests in their own, economic arena.

That's what Diamond and many others are working to make happen. I don't know if it will be soon enough, but I know with virtual certainty that it is the only game in town that stands any chance at all of working.

*******************************
Page 3

Finally, you wrote this bit of nonsense,

"Hansen is correct that 2.0C is upon us unless we make dramatic moves today. Saying he is not is ignorance and stupidity.

I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change.

Please stop using that kind of poor logic. You're better than that; it is an example of letting your pride overpower your ethics.

Of course I could be wrong on that pride thing; it could be that you're just an internet centered alarmist that has no true grip on the issues you are opining about and no real interest in learning. Yes, it's possible that instead of just getting carried away, you could be 30% zeal, 30% bombast, 30% panic and 10% knowledge. But hey, even then if you'd change that ratio you'd accomplish a lot more than you would by being one of those who run around like a chicken with its head cut off.

But I'd rather believe you just got carried away and that you'll curb such impulses in the future.

[joshcryer]

13. Try responding, please. Most of what you wrote didn't address me.

Instead it was as if you were typing to someone else entirely.

First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be.

We know from climate science that one doubling is one degree C. We double in 17 or so years. Assuming no emissions reductions whatsoever, and given that India and China are bringing online hundreds of GW of coal in that time frame, world reductions will not occur. So why you say this stuff about "temperature (not being) clear" is peculiar to me, since I have heard similar stuff before from denialists every day this month practically.

No, we don't know the exact values, but we know ranges that are disconcerting at best, with high degrees of likelihood. And we're putting out a fucking shitton of CO2 every year. Shitton.

You can argue with me all day and all night about it and your opinion isn't going to make some magic change in human behavior suddenly materialize.

OK. Thanks for the heads up. (I wasn't aware I was trying to "make some magic change in human behavior suddenly materialize.)

I merely want people to be honest with themselves, and not dumb down or dismiss the effects of climate change, that are happening here, that are happening now.

Trying to shift the discussion from the human sphere and what actions are possible to the consequences you fear is nothing more than a dishonest diversion from the topic.

The topic is whether or not corporations are going to help mitigate climate change. You are the one trying to shift it back into this abstract language that doesn't answer the tough questions. And it misleads people who read it and believe it because the reality is that little is being done. Very little is capable of being done without major, life altering intervention.

It isn't correct to say that the consumer will have to pay money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay. The current dependence on declining fossil fuel supplies coupled with the emergence of China and India as energy consumers and competitors for finite fossil fuel resources means that the energy security outlook for consumers is bleak.

Of course. But you have two options.

Consumers transition from one technological base to the next, gradually, over many years, while utilizing both technology types throughout, until the more competitive and cheaper option wins out. Eventually the transition off of fossil fuels will happen as they are depleated.

Consumers transition from one technological base to the next, dramatically, over a short period of time, while avoiding harmful technologies the whole while because they are artificially made more expensive. Fossil fuels would stay in the ground.

The former scenario is the one we are experiencing, mind you the beginnings of it, but it will get better over time. The former scenario does not keep us from doubling our CO2 emissions, nor does it put any onus on the rest of the world to slow their emissions. And of course, the consumers don't see any costs associated with the transition because it is natural, however, long term the costs will be astronomical.

The latter scenario is the one we need to prevent extreme climate change. We will not have that scenario, because the world is populated by pragmatists like you. In the latter scenario, consumers would pay the brunt of the transition cost in the near term, and they'll probably never be grateful for saving themselves, because people are like that.

Read this carefully because it's the crux of the entire problem: the group that will suffer the "brunt of the costs" isn't the consumer, it is the owners of fossil fuel resources and the industries that will disappear when they are replaced.

Sure thing, fossil producers are already investing in green tech, they know that their end is nigh. They won't lass forever on an exhaustable resource. But that is scenario A. Where a lot of those fossil fuels get dug up until they are not as competitive.

The idea that the costs will fall to the consumer is a lie spread by this group to encourage the public to oppose action on climate change.

No, it is clear that what we are doing does not cost the consumer one iota, but that is because we are doing scenario A. What your little analysis is lacking is basic scientific facts.

I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change.

First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be.

Let's be honest kristopher, what you don't like is for people on these forums to recognize that your favorite system of all isn't actually going to stem extreme climate change, and that more needs to be done. Of course, you would agree that more needs to be done, but you'd fall back to "political reality" to dismiss anyone who dares voice the opinion that enough isn't being done.

[kristopher]

15. Are you brain damaged?

Look at this nonsense you wrote.
I wrote, "no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be. And you respond by accusing me of being a denier and then proceed to acknowledge what I said, "We know from climate science that one doubling is one degree C. ... So why you say this stuff about "temperature (not being) clear" is peculiar to me, since I have heard similar stuff before from denialists every day this month practically. No, we don't know the exact values, but we know ranges that are disconcerting at best, with high degrees of likelihood. ..."

A mark of an intelligent person is that they understand what they don't know. Without that knowledge of your own shortcomings, your pace of self directed learning is abysmal. You don't know what you are talking about and you seem to have no inclination to learn, so repetition is called for.

You wrote this paragraph,

You cannot deny that we are not on track to stem emissions before 2.0C, indeed, you, being the big expert you are, won't even touch it when I ask you what you think. You "won't speculate." It's not speculation to look at emissions, count how long we have until we guarantee ourselves 2.0C, and then determine what level of phaseout is necessary to get us there. Indeed, the status quo lives by the mantra "reduce some now, do the rest later." But reports that look at this strategy determine that it simply isn't enough."

Actually that is exactly what it would be - speculation. First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be. Second, the pace of our response is tied to human systems and a whole host of concerns that the humans in those systems are prey to. It isn't some kit that you put together in your garage, it is a restructuring of the entire way civilization functions.

You can argue with me all day and all night about it and your opinion isn't going to make some magic change in human behavior suddenly materialize. It doesn't matter that you are so scared you're wetting your pants about 2C; it isn't going to alter the pace of change by one minute.

Trying to shift the discussion from the human sphere and what actions are possible to the consequences you fear is nothing more than a dishonest diversion from the topic. I suspect it is diversion you feel compelled to make because you know I'm correct.

You also wrote,

"All of the corporations in the world could be 100% zero emissions for in-house CO2 utilization (Wal-Mart could buy all clean energy, for instance; coal power companies could have solar panels powering the lights inside the power plant, etc), and it would simply not make a dent in all of the consumer-related CO2 that is emitted."

This, together with your headline "If consumers do not take the brunt of the costs, then nothing will be achieved" shows that serious gaps exist in your knowledge of how the economics of the problem are shaped and how they will or will not be able to help.

Let's define costs. To me, that has two related but distinct meanings - one is a monetary burden, the other is a non-monetary burden.

Since ultimately all monetary costs are laid on the backs of consumers, it is an obvious truism that they will pay for the power they receive from noncarbon sources - and that payment will, as always, include the costs of construction.

What you are referring to is a bit ambiguous. It could either be money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay or it could be costs such as lack of services, degradation in lifestyle etc. In other words, you are saying that the onerous part of dealing with climate change belongs to the consumer.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It isn't correct to say that the consumer will have to pay money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay. The current dependence on declining fossil fuel supplies coupled with the emergence of China and India as energy consumers and competitors for finite fossil fuel resources means that the energy security outlook for consumers is bleak.

There is very little doubt that over the course of however long the transition to renewables takes, energy sources that do not require constant inputs of fuel will act as a stabilizing influence on energy prices. The reason is simple - the costs are virtually all front loaded. You know from day one what the costs of the energy produced will be for the next several decades - it isn't subject to competition based on limited resources. If competition for the output puts upward pressure on the price the power, it is cheaper to build more renewable generation than to get into a bidding war.

So from the consumer perspective what they should see is continued service at rates comparable to today's rates. They will support the transition financially but it will not be a lump sum, it will be a redirecting of the funds they currently spend for energy from one set of energy sources to a different set of energy sources - from one set of actors on the energy stage to a different set of actors. All the consumer will see is the end result.

I can't think of a non-financial burden related to consumers that would be of any significance. There are some lifestyle changes that we could expect will probably happen, but there is little reason to think these would be considered a burden. Most non-financial burdens are associated with the present system and will be largely eliminated through the transition to renewables.

Read this carefully because it's the crux of the entire problem: the group that will suffer the "brunt of the costs" isn't the consumer, it is the owners of fossil fuel resources and the industries that will disappear when they are replaced.

The idea that the costs will fall to the consumer is a lie spread by this group to encourage the public to oppose action on climate change.

******************************
Page 2

Let me summarize your beliefs as I see them and put them in context.

You believe the problem of climate change is real, of human origin, and urgent.
I agree.

You believe that action - strong action - should have taken place decades ago and that we are now on the cusp of being too late.
I agree.

You believe that the survival of not only human civilization is at stake, but perhaps even the survival of the species.
I agree.

You believe that the above justifies any measures necessary to effect change in the most rapid manner possible.
I agree.

Now here is where we disagree.

You believe there is some way to immediately impose your list of priorities on the rest of the country; that there is some mechanism by which it is possible to make everyone abandon their priorities and adopt yours.
I disagree.

You believe that the government has the authority to act on the scale that would allay your fears without having public support.
I disagree.

When we discuss whether the profit motive or massive direct government action is best, we are really talking about these two points - what is possible.

If we had strong public support, either method would solve the problem. In the case of strong public support, I'd advocate for an approach where there was a massive public works effort that was dedicated to the goal of eliminating at least 75% of fossil fuel use within 15 years. In that time we'd be able to harness the profit motive to improve on the basic framework and infrastructure laid down by government.

But we don't have that support and those who have ownership of property that is destined to be worthless are trying their hardest to make sure we never have the avenue of direct government action available to use. They are largely succeeding.

What does that leave?

We have to fight them. That option involves creating a competing class of property owners that will fight the fossil fuel interests in their own, economic arena.

That's what Diamond and many others are working to make happen. I don't know if it will be soon enough, but I know with virtual certainty that it is the only game in town that stands any chance at all of working.

*******************************
Page 3

Finally, you wrote this bit of nonsense,
"Hansen is correct that 2.0C is upon us unless we make dramatic moves today. Saying he is not is ignorance and stupidity.


I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change.

Please stop using that kind of poor logic. You're better than that; it is an example of letting your pride overpower your ethics.

Of course I could be wrong on that pride thing; it could be that you're just an internet centered alarmist that has no true grip on the issues you are opining about and no real interest in learning. Yes, it's possible that instead of just getting carried away, you could be 30% zeal, 30% bombast, 30% panic and 10% knowledge. But hey, even then if you'd change that ratio you'd accomplish a lot more than you would by being one of those who run around like a chicken with its head cut off.

But I'd rather believe you just got carried away and that you'll curb such impulses in the future.

[joshcryer]

17. You're right, people need to be aware of your denialist nonsense:

I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change.

First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be.

[kristopher]

18. Seriously, do you not know how to read for meaning?

"I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change."

"First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be."

You provide these statements of mine and preface them with accusations that I'm engaging in "denialist nonsense"? No substantive remark, just name calling and innuendo. You are clearly afraid to make explicit your intent because you know it is empty and hollow of real meaning.

I'm guessing (I must because of your fear to commit your thoughts to words) that you intend this as support for the assertion that I didn't address "what you wrote"?

Going on that I would guess (again because of your fear of me) that since these are both my statements, that you are suggesting that one is a conflict with the other?

You aren't James Hansen are you?

I didn't think so.

Do you understand that saying Hanson's opinion about the the pace of warming is irrelevant is totally, hell and gone different than saying the degree of conviction YOU hold on the matter is not an indicator of the accuracy of the timeline, right?

That is, unless you actually believe you are Hansen, in which case I'll humor you.





I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change.

First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be.

[joshcryer]

19. "the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be" denialist nonsense

You use the same argument that they use, but people who know basic math can see how easily that is refuted.

[kristopher]

20. You admitted it yourself, Ralph. I guess that makes you a denier too.

You wrote "We know from climate science that one doubling is one degree C. We double in 17 or so years. Assuming no emissions reductions whatsoever, and given that India and China are bringing online hundreds of GW of coal in that time frame, world reductions will not occur. So why you say this stuff about "temperature (not being) clear" is peculiar to me, since I have heard similar stuff before from denialists every day this month practically.

No, we don't know the exact values, but we know ranges that are disconcerting at best, with high degrees of likelihood. And we're putting out a fucking shitton of CO2 every year. Shitton."


Now if you had originally approached the topic with the "ranges" phrasing it would have been a different discussion, but instead you had to run off at the mouth and, as usual, over reach in your panic. You wrote

"You cannot deny that we are not on track to stem emissions before 2.0C, indeed, you, being the big expert you are, won't even touch it when I ask you what you think. You "won't speculate." It's not speculation to look at emissions, count how long we have until we guarantee ourselves 2.0C, and then determine what level of phaseout is necessary to get us there. Indeed, the status quo lives by the mantra "reduce some now, do the rest later." But reports that look at this strategy determine that it simply isn't enough.

All of the corporations in the world could be 100% zero emissions for in-house CO2 utilization (Wal-Mart could buy all clean energy, for instance; coal power companies could have solar panels powering the lights inside the power plant, etc), and it would simply not make a dent in all of the consumer-related CO2 that is emitted.

Hansen is correct that 2.0C is upon us unless we make dramatic moves today. Saying he is not is ignorance and stupidity.

Do you see the absolutism in those statements that is not supported by the concept that there are, in fact, ranges of estimates that make such pronouncements foolishly naive?

You are wrong about virtually every damned thing you write except that there is a very real and urgent problem facing us and we need to act to address the problem.

For that constancy I forgive all your other antics.

[joshcryer]

21. You clearly have *no clue* about AGW. 2.0C is the *lowest end* *most likely*...

...temperature. With a degree of certainty essentially guaranteed. Again, you use denialist bullshit, because science is not absolute, to dumb down scientific understanding.

Hansen doesn't express his urgency because the science "is unclear." Hansen expresses his urgency because he knows how fucking correct the science is.

And so do I.

In that vein I am an expert on AGW, compared to the ignorance you have displayed on the subject in the past.

[kristopher]

22. Sure you are.

You've demonstrated well that you have panic down pat.

Panic is an inappropriate response to danger.

[joshcryer]

23. Not panic, you are projecting. I am simply stating facts.

I want to finger point and blame someone else for the mess that they got us in to. ;)

[kristopher]

24. Look in the mirror and see homo sapien

Think about it a bit, Josh.

You wrote this paragraph,

You cannot deny that we are not on track to stem emissions before 2.0C, indeed, you, being the big expert you are, won't even touch it when I ask you what you think. You "won't speculate." It's not speculation to look at emissions, count how long we have until we guarantee ourselves 2.0C, and then determine what level of phaseout is necessary to get us there. Indeed, the status quo lives by the mantra "reduce some now, do the rest later." But reports that look at this strategy determine that it simply isn't enough."

Actually that is exactly what it would be - speculation. First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be. Second, the pace of our response is tied to human systems and a whole host of concerns that the humans in those systems are prey to. It isn't some kit that you put together in your garage, it is a restructuring of the entire way civilization functions.

You can argue with me all day and all night about it and your opinion isn't going to make some magic change in human behavior suddenly materialize. It doesn't matter that you are so scared you're wetting your pants about 2C; it isn't going to alter the pace of change by one minute.

Trying to shift the discussion from the human sphere and what actions are possible to the consequences you fear is nothing more than a dishonest diversion from the topic. I suspect it is diversion you feel compelled to make because you know I'm correct.

You also wrote,

"All of the corporations in the world could be 100% zero emissions for in-house CO2 utilization (Wal-Mart could buy all clean energy, for instance; coal power companies could have solar panels powering the lights inside the power plant, etc), and it would simply not make a dent in all of the consumer-related CO2 that is emitted."

This, together with your headline "If consumers do not take the brunt of the costs, then nothing will be achieved" shows that serious gaps exist in your knowledge of how the economics of the problem are shaped and how they will or will not be able to help.

Let's define costs. To me, that has two related but distinct meanings - one is a monetary burden, the other is a non-monetary burden.

Since ultimately all monetary costs are laid on the backs of consumers, it is an obvious truism that they will pay for the power they receive from noncarbon sources - and that payment will, as always, include the costs of construction.

What you are referring to is a bit ambiguous. It could either be money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay or it could be costs such as lack of services, degradation in lifestyle etc. In other words, you are saying that the onerous part of dealing with climate change belongs to the consumer.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It isn't correct to say that the consumer will have to pay money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay. The current dependence on declining fossil fuel supplies coupled with the emergence of China and India as energy consumers and competitors for finite fossil fuel resources means that the energy security outlook for consumers is bleak.

There is very little doubt that over the course of however long the transition to renewables takes, energy sources that do not require constant inputs of fuel will act as a stabilizing influence on energy prices. The reason is simple - the costs are virtually all front loaded. You know from day one what the costs of the energy produced will be for the next several decades - it isn't subject to competition based on limited resources. If competition for the output puts upward pressure on the price the power, it is cheaper to build more renewable generation than to get into a bidding war.

So from the consumer perspective what they should see is continued service at rates comparable to today's rates. They will support the transition financially but it will not be a lump sum, it will be a redirecting of the funds they currently spend for energy from one set of energy sources to a different set of energy sources - from one set of actors on the energy stage to a different set of actors. All the consumer will see is the end result.

I can't think of a non-financial burden related to consumers that would be of any significance. There are some lifestyle changes that we could expect will probably happen, but there is little reason to think these would be considered a burden. Most non-financial burdens are associated with the present system and will be largely eliminated through the transition to renewables.

Read this carefully because it's the crux of the entire problem: the group that will suffer the "brunt of the costs" isn't the consumer, it is the owners of fossil fuel resources and the industries that will disappear when they are replaced.

The idea that the costs will fall to the consumer is a lie spread by this group to encourage the public to oppose action on climate change.

******************************
Page 2

Let me summarize your beliefs as I see them and put them in context.

You believe the problem of climate change is real, of human origin, and urgent.
I agree.

You believe that action - strong action - should have taken place decades ago and that we are now on the cusp of being too late.
I agree.

You believe that the survival of not only human civilization is at stake, but perhaps even the survival of the species.
I agree.

You believe that the above justifies any measures necessary to effect change in the most rapid manner possible.
I agree.

Now here is where we disagree.

You believe there is some way to immediately impose your list of priorities on the rest of the country; that there is some mechanism by which it is possible to make everyone abandon their priorities and adopt yours.
I disagree.

You believe that the government has the authority to act on the scale that would allay your fears without having public support.
I disagree.

When we discuss whether the profit motive or massive direct government action is best, we are really talking about these two points - what is possible.

If we had strong public support, either method would solve the problem. In the case of strong public support, I'd advocate for an approach where there was a massive public works effort that was dedicated to the goal of eliminating at least 75% of fossil fuel use within 15 years. In that time we'd be able to harness the profit motive to improve on the basic framework and infrastructure laid down by government.

But we don't have that support and those who have ownership of property that is destined to be worthless are trying their hardest to make sure we never have the avenue of direct government action available to use. They are largely succeeding.

What does that leave?

We have to fight them. That option involves creating a competing class of property owners that will fight the fossil fuel interests in their own, economic arena.

That's what Diamond and many others are working to make happen. I don't know if it will be soon enough, but I know with virtual certainty that it is the only game in town that stands any chance at all of working.

*******************************
Page 3

Finally, you wrote this bit of nonsense,

"Hansen is correct that 2.0C is upon us unless we make dramatic moves today. Saying he is not is ignorance and stupidity.

I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change.

Please stop using that kind of poor logic. You're better than that; it is an example of letting your pride overpower your ethics.

Of course I could be wrong on that pride thing; it could be that you're just an internet centered alarmist that has no true grip on the issues you are opining about and no real interest in learning. Yes, it's possible that instead of just getting carried away, you could be 30% zeal, 30% bombast, 30% panic and 10% knowledge. But hey, even then if you'd change that ratio you'd accomplish a lot more than you would by being one of those who run around like a chicken with its head cut off.

But I'd rather believe you just got carried away and that you'll curb such impulses in the future.

[joshcryer]

25. I didn't write that non-sense. And I blame your generation for pretending there is no problem.

And pragmatists for pretending that the problems that did exist couldn't be fixed quickly.

edit: oh, you messed up your quoting thing, I did write some of that, though you are just copy-pasting non-sense anyway...

[kristopher]

26. Quit whining and DO something.

Think about it a bit, Josh.

You wrote this paragraph,

You cannot deny that we are not on track to stem emissions before 2.0C, indeed, you, being the big expert you are, won't even touch it when I ask you what you think. You "won't speculate." It's not speculation to look at emissions, count how long we have until we guarantee ourselves 2.0C, and then determine what level of phaseout is necessary to get us there. Indeed, the status quo lives by the mantra "reduce some now, do the rest later." But reports that look at this strategy determine that it simply isn't enough."

Actually that is exactly what it would be - speculation. First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be. Second, the pace of our response is tied to human systems and a whole host of concerns that the humans in those systems are prey to. It isn't some kit that you put together in your garage, it is a restructuring of the entire way civilization functions.

You can argue with me all day and all night about it and your opinion isn't going to make some magic change in human behavior suddenly materialize. It doesn't matter that you are so scared you're wetting your pants about 2C; it isn't going to alter the pace of change by one minute.

Trying to shift the discussion from the human sphere and what actions are possible to the consequences you fear is nothing more than a dishonest diversion from the topic. I suspect it is diversion you feel compelled to make because you know I'm correct.

You also wrote,

"All of the corporations in the world could be 100% zero emissions for in-house CO2 utilization (Wal-Mart could buy all clean energy, for instance; coal power companies could have solar panels powering the lights inside the power plant, etc), and it would simply not make a dent in all of the consumer-related CO2 that is emitted."

This, together with your headline "If consumers do not take the brunt of the costs, then nothing will be achieved" shows that serious gaps exist in your knowledge of how the economics of the problem are shaped and how they will or will not be able to help.

Let's define costs. To me, that has two related but distinct meanings - one is a monetary burden, the other is a non-monetary burden.

Since ultimately all monetary costs are laid on the backs of consumers, it is an obvious truism that they will pay for the power they receive from noncarbon sources - and that payment will, as always, include the costs of construction.

What you are referring to is a bit ambiguous. It could either be money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay or it could be costs such as lack of services, degradation in lifestyle etc. In other words, you are saying that the onerous part of dealing with climate change belongs to the consumer.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It isn't correct to say that the consumer will have to pay money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay. The current dependence on declining fossil fuel supplies coupled with the emergence of China and India as energy consumers and competitors for finite fossil fuel resources means that the energy security outlook for consumers is bleak.

There is very little doubt that over the course of however long the transition to renewables takes, energy sources that do not require constant inputs of fuel will act as a stabilizing influence on energy prices. The reason is simple - the costs are virtually all front loaded. You know from day one what the costs of the energy produced will be for the next several decades - it isn't subject to competition based on limited resources. If competition for the output puts upward pressure on the price the power, it is cheaper to build more renewable generation than to get into a bidding war.

So from the consumer perspective what they should see is continued service at rates comparable to today's rates. They will support the transition financially but it will not be a lump sum, it will be a redirecting of the funds they currently spend for energy from one set of energy sources to a different set of energy sources - from one set of actors on the energy stage to a different set of actors. All the consumer will see is the end result.

I can't think of a non-financial burden related to consumers that would be of any significance. There are some lifestyle changes that we could expect will probably happen, but there is little reason to think these would be considered a burden. Most non-financial burdens are associated with the present system and will be largely eliminated through the transition to renewables.

Read this carefully because it's the crux of the entire problem: the group that will suffer the "brunt of the costs" isn't the consumer, it is the owners of fossil fuel resources and the industries that will disappear when they are replaced.

The idea that the costs will fall to the consumer is a lie spread by this group to encourage the public to oppose action on climate change.

******************************
Page 2

Let me summarize your beliefs as I see them and put them in context.

You believe the problem of climate change is real, of human origin, and urgent.
I agree.

You believe that action - strong action - should have taken place decades ago and that we are now on the cusp of being too late.
I agree.

You believe that the survival of not only human civilization is at stake, but perhaps even the survival of the species.
I agree.

You believe that the above justifies any measures necessary to effect change in the most rapid manner possible.
I agree.

Now here is where we disagree.

You believe there is some way to immediately impose your list of priorities on the rest of the country; that there is some mechanism by which it is possible to make everyone abandon their priorities and adopt yours.
I disagree.

You believe that the government has the authority to act on the scale that would allay your fears without having public support.
I disagree.

When we discuss whether the profit motive or massive direct government action is best, we are really talking about these two points - what is possible.

If we had strong public support, either method would solve the problem. In the case of strong public support, I'd advocate for an approach where there was a massive public works effort that was dedicated to the goal of eliminating at least 75% of fossil fuel use within 15 years. In that time we'd be able to harness the profit motive to improve on the basic framework and infrastructure laid down by government.

But we don't have that support and those who have ownership of property that is destined to be worthless are trying their hardest to make sure we never have the avenue of direct government action available to use. They are largely succeeding.

What does that leave?

We have to fight them. That option involves creating a competing class of property owners that will fight the fossil fuel interests in their own, economic arena.

That's what Diamond and many others are working to make happen. I don't know if it will be soon enough, but I know with virtual certainty that it is the only game in town that stands any chance at all of working.

*******************************
Page 3

Finally, you wrote this bit of nonsense,

"Hansen is correct that 2.0C is upon us unless we make dramatic moves today. Saying he is not is ignorance and stupidity.

I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change.

Please stop using that kind of poor logic. You're better than that; it is an example of letting your pride overpower your ethics.

Of course I could be wrong on that pride thing; it could be that you're just an internet centered alarmist that has no true grip on the issues you are opining about and no real interest in learning. Yes, it's possible that instead of just getting carried away, you could be 30% zeal, 30% bombast, 30% panic and 10% knowledge. But hey, even then if you'd change that ratio you'd accomplish a lot more than you would by being one of those who run around like a chicken with its head cut off.

But I'd rather believe you just got carried away and that you'll curb such impulses in the future.

[TxRider]

10. There is no way to avoid that I don't think.

No matter how we do this the cost is going to be passed down to consumers.

No matter what energy producers have to pay or under what scheme it will be passed down to consumers, if not they will just have to shut down and we have no replacement ready.

At the point alternative energy become cheaper to the consumer than carbon based energy consumers will switch en masse as fast as the new technology and infrastructure can allow. That's the tipping point IMO.

Carbon trading schemes are not the way to go though, that will enrich traders and speculators and bankers ala Enron.

Straight up carbon tax per ton of carbon is simpler, easier, and more direct IMO. It can also be adjusted more easily up or down and regulated better.

One of the reasons I want to get off grid asap, the price of energy will only be going up.

[joshcryer]

11. Fee and dividend, only way to save us from an emissions explosion.

What people who believe in the almighty markets don't realize is that China and India are building (GW) coal plants at around 2-3 a week. This is precisely why they aren't committing to CO2 reductions, and use weasel language like "CO2 intensity reductions."

[Nihil]

14. Now *that* was a true subject line! (n/t)

:P

[kristopher]

16. Lol. nt

[IrateCitizen]

2. I think that Astyk hits several important points, but she's off on Diamond

I've read both of his popular books -- Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse, and although it may look as if Diamond is suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance with his support for big business to solve climate change, if you look at both of these works in their entirety, it actually makes some kind of sense.

Diamond has absolutely no problem with centralization. In fact, it could be said that in GG&S he made the argument that the more centralized and specialized a society becomes, the more it advanced it becomes. There was one part in the epilogue in which this line of thought came through, in which he was comparing the beer industry in the United States and the beer industry in Germany.

The former is highly centralized, while the latter is certainly diffuse by design. And if you've ever had a real German beer in Germany, there's really no comparison between the two. American beer is piss compared to a good German dunkel weiss. However, Diamond portrayed the German industry as inefficient -- and actually put forth the idea that it needed to make its operations more like American beer companies.

:wtf:

Given this, it's really little surprise that Diamond has taken this line of thought. Not that I, personally, agree with it -- but it's not surprising that he's taken it.

[glitch]

8. Efficiency is over-rated in some fields, and doesn't begin to apply in others

ecosystems, human rights, art, beer (and wine) spring to mind.

And I say this as a fan (of efficiency, ecosystems, human rights, art and both beer and wine).

edit: but is very appropriate in the field of energy production and consumption.