Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7602
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » November 17, 2019, 10:39 pm

greeneyed wrote:
November 17, 2019, 5:06 pm
RedRaider wrote:
November 17, 2019, 1:56 pm
I can't see anywhere in what I've written that says we should 'throw up our hands'. In fact I have written that I support the 'Battery of the Nation' in Tasmania and Snowy 2.0 and the $1billion given to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in October 2019 and the Development of the National Hydrogen Strategy. There are further feasibility studies taking place now to supply solar electric power to Singapore from the Northern Territory. An export market like this makes a lot of sense to me from both an economic and emissions sense. I hope it happens. I also hope it leads to more advanced power storage systems which will make intermittent renewable energy far more practical.

Carbon Pricing has its advantages if everyone is playing by the same rules. ie if all nations were using the same carbon price. However we can't get agreement on emission reductions let alone a world carbon price. For a lone nation to introduce a carbon tax simply raises the cost of production/services in that nation and transfers jobs to nations with lower input costs. It looks fine in theory but unless everyone is applying a similar carbon price then it is a job exporter system.
Red Raider... I'd actually say a lot of the alternative interventions being mentioned don't make any economic sense whatsoever. The aim is to reduce carbon emissions from Australia by a specified amount. Whatever Australia's commitments are, that's the thing to directly target with government policy... and with a carbon price. That's going to be the most efficient thing to do... and it's the only thing government needs to do. If you get the carbon price/tax mechanism right, all of the rest follows. You allow the market, the private sector, to determine what they do in response to reduce the emissions... and they'll find the least cost way.

That's right GE and the most least cost way is to take operations overseas which have lower input costs. Earlier in this thread I provided the actual unemployment levels which rose with a lag (unemployment being a lagging indicator) when the Carbon Tax was introduced and declined when it was repealed. While not saying the carbon tax was the sole factor there were clearly correlation in the timeline.

It's actually to Australia's advantage to use a carbon price, because that's the cheapest thing to do ie it involves the least cost economic adjustment. If others choose not to have a carbon price... to reach their targets, fine, so long as they reach them... but they'll be paying a lot more for it and hampering their economy more.

I agree there is concern if every country doesn't pull their weight and reduce emissions... that is the biggest problem. But then I can see the point of some developing countries, that they are well behind other countries in the process of economic advancement. The best thing to do is for developed countries to help the developing more... but that's a very complicated process.

If the Global aim is to reduce CO2 emissions (as it should be) then everyone has to be on board. Australia will need to change its laws if there was a plan to go with a nuclear alternative. There would then have to be a referendum to gain popular approval. This technology faces no such barriers in China, the worlds largest CO2 emitter (interesting that they drew level with the USA around 2006 and are now more than double the USA emissions level). China is currently building coal fired power stations not only in their own country but in many other places around the world eg Vietnam and Pakistan. Interesting about Pakistan in that prior to 2016 they had a single coal fired power plant and now with Chinese aid they have 9 with more under construction. But the position for Australia is not as bleak as some would suggest. From Australian Financial Review 30 August 2019 "Electricity sector emissions, the biggest single contributor to the national total, fell 2.1 per cent in the year to March and are down 15.7 per cent from their peak in 2008-09." The figures quoted are actual declines in emissions in this sector in Australia. A 2.1% reduction in emissions in a single year to March 2019 while we are supposedly 'doing nothing' is a positive outcome imo.

In any event, if we take our international obligations seriously, whatever they are, the economics tells us the most certain and cheapest way of getting to the emission reduction targets is a carbon price. All the alternatives of getting the target are going to cost us more. More probably we won't achieve the emissions reductions through these "alternative" policies. A lot of people actually push those alternatives, because fundamentally, they want to avoid the emission reductions, but want to appear to be doing something.
I doubt a carbon price will ever be an attractive option in Australia without a World carbon price. The Coalition won't put it up and Labor have been burnt once by it. The transition to Electric Vehicles (EVs) is well underway in other locations around the world. The 2017 tally of 3 million EVs in the world is expected to grow to 125 million by 2030 according to International Energy Agency forecasts. EVs include both cars and trucks. Australia's sheer size means we will always be heavily reliant on transport industries to move goods and people around the continent. Petrol/diesel power is a significant factor in Australia's overall emissions. I thought Labor clearly had the more proactive policy in the transition to EVs at the last election. Governments could lead the way on this by transitioning their fleets into EVs and creating, over time, a used vehicle market which will lower the cost for EV availability to the general public.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 128234
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed » November 17, 2019, 10:55 pm

Red Raider... this is the very sad thing about the debate. This is what so many people don’t understand. A carbon price is a market mechanism. It’s the purest form of market mechanism to deliver emission reductions. This is what it’s doing... leaving the private sector to decide what to do to achieve the emissions reductions Australia has committed to (whatever level we as a nation chooses). That’s the great thing about a carbon price. It leaves ALL the decisions in the hands of the private sector as to how the targets achieved. If I know something about the private sector... they’ll pick the cheapest way of doing it. They will find the cheapest way.

This is the other thing to understand. It doesn’t matter a zot if other countries don’t have a carbon price. Because we would be choosing to meet our national target via the cheapest mechanism. If set up properly, we might actually get that by paying for initiatives for reductions in other countries.

All the other things are actually smoke and mirrors. Electric vehicles might be the cheapest... but they might not. The market should decide that, not governments. It’s sad that one side of politics is actually rejecting the market mechanism to reduce emissions... but that’s fundamentally because there are people who don’t want to do it. So much so they’re prepared to spend taxpayer dollars on less effective ways of reducing emissions.
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7602
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » November 17, 2019, 11:06 pm

gangrenous wrote:
November 17, 2019, 7:31 pm
RedRaider wrote: I've belittled no one. If your kids or wife or workmates ask you a question does that mean they are belittling you?
Asking a question to gain understanding is fine. Challenging someone on reasonable grounds, go for it.

You called into question the accuracy of the work of almost all climate scientists on the basis that they were using linear models, when everything else you write suggests you have no idea of what the models are or how they work. So what right do you have to “question” in that fashion?

Let’s talk about your work RR. I actually suspect that all your career’s work should be questioned because you used linear models.
RedRaider wrote: I agree you have been doing a lot of tossing in this thread. Enjoy.
I’ve had a couple of legitimate attempts at explaining why failing to predict a weather event does not preclude predicting climate. Do you still disagree? If so, why?
RedRaider wrote: It would also fit perfectly with the lived experience of the people of Australia who have recorded such events.
“Just a 1C temperature rise has meant the extremes are far more extreme, and it is placing lives at risk, including firefighters,” said Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue. “Climate change has supercharged the bushfire problem.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ate-change
RedRaider wrote: I have come to the belief that you will question nothing, ever. The IPCC will always be correct. Even when they admitted to error in 2014 that the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035. I know you won't like facts that disagree with your closed mind narrative, but the IPCC are human and admitted, to their credit, error.
No the IPCC are not going to be perfect. They will make mistakes, and the scientific process should see them fixed. What is the likelihood that the central thesis is completely flawed? Not high. I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but it’s not very likely. And in the meantime what should we base our decisions off? The findings of decades of work by experts, or the long shot hope of an error of a random guy on the internet?
RedRaider wrote: I am not in the denier camp. It does not mean I do not reserve the ability to question what has been put forward
I’m noticing this a bit recently. “I’m not in the denier camp” seems like it’s used now outright denial is socially unacceptable, so you’ll be allowed to participate in the conversation without having any questionable arguments against further action challenged.
There you go again 'label man' you find it so hard to admit you may have made an error with your labeling, that you deny the obvious answer. You won't know so I'll tell you, what was written was the truth. Oh, how your arrogant, elitist, 'I'm never wrong', machiavelli mind must struggle with such a concept. Thank you exalted one for me being "allowed to participate in the conversation". Having engaged with the great unwashed I'm sure you will now need a Cup of Tea, Bex and a good lie down. Have your maids prepare the bed chamber. Drongo.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7602
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » November 17, 2019, 11:49 pm

greeneyed wrote:
November 17, 2019, 10:55 pm
Red Raider... this is the very sad thing about the debate. This is what so many people don’t understand. A carbon price is a market mechanism. It’s the purest form of market mechanism to deliver emission reductions. This is what it’s doing... leaving the private sector to decide what to do to achieve the emissions reductions Australia has committed to (whatever level we as a nation chooses). That’s the great thing about a carbon price. It leaves ALL the decisions in the hands of the private sector as to how the targets achieved. If I know something about the private sector... they’ll pick the cheapest way of doing it. They will find the cheapest way.

GE - companies haven't signed up to these emissions reductions targets, Governments have. Companies will move off shore to 'escape' the tax. The jobs of Australians will go with them. Reduction in jobs was in evidence during the 2 year Carbon tax period.

This is the other thing to understand. It doesn’t matter a zot if other countries don’t have a carbon price. Because we would be choosing to meet our national target via the cheapest mechanism. If set up properly, we might actually get that by paying for initiatives for reductions in other countries.

GE - I just don't see an appetite to go down the Carbon Tax path again.

All the other things are actually smoke and mirrors. Electric vehicles might be the cheapest... but they might not. The market should decide that, not governments. It’s sad that one side of politics is actually rejecting the market mechanism to reduce emissions... but that’s fundamentally because there are people who don’t want to do it. So much so they’re prepared to spend taxpayer dollars on less effective ways of reducing emissions.
The issue with EVs at present is the up front cost per vehicle and consumer range anxiety. Production levels are relatively low compared with diesel/petrol powered vehicles. This keeps the unit price per vehicle high. Companies like Toyota have previously planned to have half their world wide vehicle sales as EVs by 2030 and are looking at options for that to happen by 2025. Toyota is the Worlds largest producer of vehicles and turned out 8 million in 2018. Those types of volumes for EVs rapidly bring down the cost for the consumer. We need to get the charger infrastructure in place and as now, that will be done by private industry. As mentioned in an earlier post NRMA will have 40 EV fast chargers in operatiion around NSW by the middle of next year. There is no cost for a consumer to use an NRMA fast charger. Other companies like Tesla have even more and a signal from Governments by buying EVs for their fleets would raise demand for EV chargers to be put in place by other companies. SUVs are also part of the EV plans. In future farmers will be able to have Solar panels on their sheds and charge their vehicles without the need for diesel. But it all depends on getting the upfront cost down to comparable diesel/petrol vehicles. Volkswagen plan to sell one million EVs per year between 2025 and 2030. The evolution will happen. Time Oz got on board.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 128234
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed » November 18, 2019, 12:36 am

Red Raider... I suspect you might be missing the point with electric vehicles. It’s tempting to start thinking about the engineering and what that does to save carbon emissions from burning petroleum fuels. How many charging stations you might need etc.

But the aim is to reduce carbon emissions overall. If the electric vehicles depend on power sources that produce as much or more carbon as internal combustion engines (accounting for the set up costs for electric vehicles and batteries)... that option won’t help... or maybe won’t help much.

I’m aware that reducing vehicle emissions are a relatively cheap way of reducing carbon emissions (probably negative)... but I’m not sure electric vehicles do that. Some studies suggest electric vehicles are efficient in reducing carbon emissions... some not so much. I suspect it depends on which vested interests produce the studies... but it depends critically on how much of the power is generated by “clean or cleaner carbon” sources to recharge them.

I’m not that interested in working it all out, actually... because if we have a carbon price, the market will very quickly tell us. I don’t have to work out all the carbon abatement cost curves if I have a carbon price mechanism. The market will then very quickly reveal the cost curves.

If electric vehicles are part of the answer, great. But a carbon price is the first key step.

We keep focussing on selecting those ‘winners’... the things that governments, the ‘authorities’ should select to reduce emissions. But they can never choose the right things to achieve the target emission reductions at least cost. Only the private sector can do it properly. All the government should do is price the carbon pollution... so as to hit the emission reduction targets.

And if they don’t... well it’s not going to happen.
Image

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 128234
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed » November 18, 2019, 1:16 am

Red Raider... on the other points you seem to have incorporated into my post...

Of course companies haven’t signed up to carbon reduction emissions. They haven’t in any country. Most of the countries in the world have committed to doing something.

There is a cost to carbon emission abatement that every country has signed up to.

The question now is this... having signed up to those emission reduction targets, what’s the cheapest way of reducing the emissions, to hit the targets? The economics tells us that a carbon price is the cheapest way of doing it. It doesn’t matter much if other countries don’t choose to (it’s helpful for an international market to exist)... it’s still going to be the cheapest way to take action.

Think of it this way.

No carbon price. Either governments pay the private sector, one way or another, for the emission reduction targets to be reached... or they regulate to reduce them.

So that means governments choose what to tax us for, and they pay for various “initiatives” to reduce the emissions. That means paying the private sector to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. Still costs you and I. No one is doing this for free, really. Otherwise the government regulates and tells private sector to stop doing what they’re now doing so as to reduce the emissions. That’s pretty heavy handed. Or they cross their fingers and hope.

Should we be confident that governments are going to select the cheapest, most effective options to reduce emissions... or regulate sensibly? I’m not.

If we introduce a carbon price, then we leave it up to the private sector to decide how to deal with the costs of their carbon pollution (which they’ve been avoiding up to now) and reduce emissions so we meet our national commitments under the international agreements.

This will always be better than governments picking initiatives, funded by our taxpayer dollars, or heavy handed regulation. That’s because the private sector will find the cheapest and most efficient way to reduce the emissions. It will always be the lowest cost.

If we are smart, as a nation we don’t rule out the option of reducing emissions in other countries. That might be cheaper than doing it in Australia. That’s the sensible thing to do, if you’re concerned about activity shifting between countries. A very sensible thing to do.

You don’t implement a carbon price and expect zero transition costs. But the point is this. NO policy to reduce emissions will have zero transition costs. It’s just that some will have more than others. A carbon price is the least cost way of doing it... the least disruptive to the economy and employment.

Remember this... every time the government funds an “initiative”, it needs to be funded by taxes. There’s no free lunch in this. Those taxes are a dead weight loss on the economy, on growth, on employment. Every regulation to stop emissions... that’s going to constrain the economy, growth, employment. Those policies are more costly and disruptive to the economy, growth, employment than a carbon price.

This is all basic economics, but sadly much of the political debate has been designed to confuse, obfuscate and avoid any action.

To the extent these “alternative” policies might involve less transition cost and disruption... it’s only because they’re not reducing emissions to the extent they claim. There’s no golden pudding in all this.

Sadly, governments and others use these alternative policies purely as window dressing.
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10161
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » November 18, 2019, 5:46 am

RedRaider wrote: There you go again 'label man' you find it so hard to admit you may have made an error with your labeling, that you deny the obvious answer.
RR you seem very upset here that I called you a denier... except... I don’t recall that I ever did across all these posts? Perhaps you can quote me?

I’ve responded to your arguments, I don’t care what you label yourself. That was my point.
RedRaider wrote: You won't know so I'll tell you, what was written was the truth. Oh, how your arrogant, elitist, 'I'm never wrong', machiavelli mind must struggle with such a concept. Thank you exalted one for me being "allowed to participate in the conversation". Having engaged with the great unwashed I'm sure you will now need a Cup of Tea, Bex and a good lie down. Have your maids prepare the bed chamber. Drongo.
I was speaking generally about people having a social license to be part of the Climate Change discussion. I’m not the one that needs to settle down.


RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7602
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » November 19, 2019, 5:44 am

greeneyed wrote:
November 18, 2019, 1:16 am
Red Raider... on the other points you seem to have incorporated into my post...

Of course companies haven’t signed up to carbon reduction emissions. They haven’t in any country. Most of the countries in the world have committed to doing something.

There is a cost to carbon emission abatement that every country has signed up to.

The question now is this... having signed up to those emission reduction targets, what’s the cheapest way of reducing the emissions, to hit the targets? The economics tells us that a carbon price is the cheapest way of doing it. It doesn’t matter much if other countries don’t choose to (it’s helpful for an international market to exist)... it’s still going to be the cheapest way to take action.

Think of it this way.

No carbon price. Either governments pay the private sector, one way or another, for the emission reduction targets to be reached... or they regulate to reduce them.

So that means governments choose what to tax us for, and they pay for various “initiatives” to reduce the emissions. That means paying the private sector to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. Still costs you and I. No one is doing this for free, really. Otherwise the government regulates and tells private sector to stop doing what they’re now doing so as to reduce the emissions. That’s pretty heavy handed. Or they cross their fingers and hope.

Should we be confident that governments are going to select the cheapest, most effective options to reduce emissions... or regulate sensibly? I’m not.

If we introduce a carbon price, then we leave it up to the private sector to decide how to deal with the costs of their carbon pollution (which they’ve been avoiding up to now) and reduce emissions so we meet our national commitments under the international agreements.

This will always be better than governments picking initiatives, funded by our taxpayer dollars, or heavy handed regulation. That’s because the private sector will find the cheapest and most efficient way to reduce the emissions. It will always be the lowest cost.

If we are smart, as a nation we don’t rule out the option of reducing emissions in other countries. That might be cheaper than doing it in Australia. That’s the sensible thing to do, if you’re concerned about activity shifting between countries. A very sensible thing to do.

You don’t implement a carbon price and expect zero transition costs. But the point is this. NO policy to reduce emissions will have zero transition costs. It’s just that some will have more than others. A carbon price is the least cost way of doing it... the least disruptive to the economy and employment.

Remember this... every time the government funds an “initiative”, it needs to be funded by taxes. There’s no free lunch in this. Those taxes are a dead weight loss on the economy, on growth, on employment. Every regulation to stop emissions... that’s going to constrain the economy, growth, employment. Those policies are more costly and disruptive to the economy, growth, employment than a carbon price.

This is all basic economics, but sadly much of the political debate has been designed to confuse, obfuscate and avoid any action.

To the extent these “alternative” policies might involve less transition cost and disruption... it’s only because they’re not reducing emissions to the extent they claim. There’s no golden pudding in all this.

Sadly, governments and others use these alternative policies purely as window dressing.
GE - While the Private Sector is good at some things, there is clear evidence of Market Failure in relation to the privatization of the production of electricity in NSW. It was advertised to lower costs and did the opposite. Yes the framework within which the power companies work can be questioned but the fact the profit motive outweighed the 'public good' of lower prices could have been reasonably predicted. The same motive will apply, imo, with a carbon price. 1. Think of it as an additional cost to business. It will be passed on to consumers. 2. It can also be thought of as a penalty to business. While lowering the amount of emissions will lower the penalty it will not eliminate it. The profit motive will kick in to move the business to a place where there is no penalty. Jobs will go imo.

The current Coalition Government just won an election on the basis of lower taxes. I don't see them introducing a Carbon Price/Tax.
Labor announced they would not introduce a Carbon Tax and then did. The hypocrisy was one of the reasons they were voted from office. A Carbon Tax would have to be part of a Labor platform to be elected on. It would be an easy target for Labor = higher taxes in an election campaign. It is for these reasons I don't see Carbon pricing/taxes happening.

So with Carbon taxes off the table what should any Government be doing? (I had previously quoted the better known list). There are also landcare and reforestation programs etc which are longer term and don't create headlines. Direct action is about paying companies to reduce emissions. Ie no Carbon tax 'penalty' passed on to consumers. Whichever way a Government chooses to meet emissions reduction targets, it will be costly but absolutely necessary.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7602
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » November 19, 2019, 6:57 am

gangrenous wrote:
November 18, 2019, 5:46 am
RedRaider wrote: There you go again 'label man' you find it so hard to admit you may have made an error with your labeling, that you deny the obvious answer.
RR you seem very upset here that I called you a denier... except... I don’t recall that I ever did across all these posts? Perhaps you can quote me? You were replying directly to me when you made the statement:

I’m noticing this a bit recently. “I’m not in the denier camp” seems like it’s used now outright denial is socially unacceptable, so you’ll be allowed to participate in the conversation without having any questionable arguments against further action challenged. (you didn't say 'a person will' you said 'you'll' it was directed clearly at me and once again was a dismissive from a person, who's writing shows possible signs of being afflicted with self appointed, sanctimonious, superiority complex)



I’ve responded to your arguments, I don’t care what you label yourself. That was my point.
RedRaider wrote: You won't know so I'll tell you, what was written was the truth. Oh, how your arrogant, elitist, 'I'm never wrong', machiavelli mind must struggle with such a concept. Thank you exalted one for me being "allowed to participate in the conversation". Having engaged with the great unwashed I'm sure you will now need a Cup of Tea, Bex and a good lie down. Have your maids prepare the bed chamber. Drongo.
I was speaking generally about people having a social license to be part of the Climate Change discussion. I’m not the one that needs to settle down.
Your main response is to 'accuse, criticise and abuse'. In a country of free speech I don't need a social licence to state my views. But I'll give it one more shot. The below is from the IPCC report of 2007. Chapter 8 - Climate models and their evaluation.

Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although
these are generally greater at smaller scales, important largescale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El NiñoSouthern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an
observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time
scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such
errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be
represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in
approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features.
This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also
results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the
availability of detailed observations of some physical processes.
Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the
representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses
to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a
substantial range of global temperature change in response to
specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such
uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with
independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from
observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.

Since confidence in the changes projected by global models
decreases at smaller scales, other techniques, such as the use of
regional climate models, or downscaling methods, have been
specifically developed for the study of regional- and local-scale
climate change (see FAQ 11.1). However, as global models continue to develop, and their resolution continues to improve,
they are becoming increasingly useful for investigating important smaller-scale features, such as changes in extreme weather
events, and further improvements in regional-scale representation are expected with increased computing power. Models are
also becoming more comprehensive in their treatment of the
climate system, thus explicitly representing more physical and
biophysical processes and interactions considered potentially
important for climate change, particularly at longer time scales.
Examples are the recent inclusion of plant responses, ocean
biological and chemical interactions, and ice sheet dynamics in
some global climate models.
In summary, confidence in models comes from their physical
basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past
climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important
tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is
considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible
quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at
larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations,
such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details,
of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades
of model development, they have consistently provided a robust
and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

The first bolded section is why I believe that human activity has contributed to the empirical evidence of warming climate over the past 50 years. The second bolded section is why I question some of the previous modelling. The IPCC, to their credit, admit to the limitations of some of the modelling. It is why I first made the comment 'It could be predicting too hot or too cold and none of us will really know until we live through it.' The previous and current models are not infallible largely because 'we don't know what we don't know'. Or as is attributed to Aristotle: "The more you know the more you know you don't know". That is not belittling anyone or their work.

I find is refreshing and reassuring that a body like the IPCC can admit there are limitations and indeed 'errors' (their word) in some of the modelling but that they are working to correct it.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10161
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » November 19, 2019, 7:28 am

RedRaider wrote: Your main response is to 'accuse, criticise and abuse'. In a country of free speech I don't need a social licence to state my views.
Of course you’re allowed to state your views. Just as I am free to criticise them.

I notice you didn’t quote where I’d called you a denier? Is it possible you also mistake valid criticism for accusations and abuse?

What I mean by social license is that people have stopped engaging with people who claim the climate is not changing.

Regarding your IPCC from over a decade ago. Of course the earth is an extremely complex system. Some components will have to be approximated. However you glossed over the most important paragraph:

“Despite such
uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with
independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from
observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.”

I mean what’s your plan RR? Wait until there’s irreversible destruction of our only ecosystem? Because you’re not happy that the models are perfect? Models are never perfect! Despite the imperfections they’re saying we’re in trouble with high probability. Use the future generations lives as your empirical guinea pigs, with high probability that they get serious problems?

RedRaider wrote: I find is refreshing and reassuring that a body like the IPCC can admit there are limitations and indeed 'errors' (their word) in some of the modelling but that they are working to correct it.


It is refreshing to have someone acknowledge their limitations...

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 128234
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed » November 19, 2019, 7:30 am

Red Raider...

The national electricity market certainly has had problems. The issue with power generation is that there are certain aspects of that industry which have features of natural monopoly (for example, it doesn’t make economic sense to duplicate transmission or distribution). So it’s not the easiest of industries to establish a competitive, efficiently operating market. There’s no doubt there might be flaws in how that’s done... and it’s most likely to be in running the parts of the sector which are genuine natural monopolies, and how that is regulated. But it’s a whole lot better than what we had.

I don’t think there’s a public good in “lower prices” for electricity for consumers per se. Under the old public delivery of electricity, state governments controlled prices... at artificially low levels. They also ran the business very inefficiently. The true costs of provision were not taken into account. Privatisation and commercialisation of the industry, in this case, wasn’t necessarily going to result in lower consumer prices. But what it would do is open up aspects of the industry to as much competition as possible... and that involves properly recognising costs. The competition drives efficient production and lowest possible commercial price for consumers.

A carbon price mechanism, is of course, separate to that. That recognises that we have a problem with carbon pollution. Pollution is a genuine case of market failure, but a different one to natural monopolies. With any pollution, the costs are not factored in by business in their production activities. So the costs and the prices they charge don’t reflect the true economic costs. So a carbon price will change how companies do business, by design... it’s correcting the market failure. It will see costs passed onto consumers. Will that cause economic transition costs, disrupt what we currently do and impact employment? Yes it will.

But so will any other alternative policies to reduce carbon emissions... if they’re genuinely reducing the carbon emissions. Unfortunately, they come at a higher overall cost for taxpayers. The costs for taxpayers might have a different initial incidence than a carbon price, but it will cost the community more overall.

I’m aware some have ruled out a carbon price. I’m just pointing out it would have been the cheapest, most efficient and effective way of reducing the carbon emissions. “Direct action” costs the community in higher taxes. The policies still have to be paid for.

I’ll let the “direct action” advocates worry about what actions they decide on. But as I’ve pointed out, they won’t be as good as finding the cheapest abatement opportunities as businesses.
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7602
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » November 19, 2019, 1:01 pm

greeneyed wrote:
November 18, 2019, 12:36 am
Red Raider... I suspect you might be missing the point with electric vehicles. It’s tempting to start thinking about the engineering and what that does to save carbon emissions from burning petroleum fuels. How many charging stations you might need etc.

But the aim is to reduce carbon emissions overall. If the electric vehicles depend on power sources that produce as much or more carbon as internal combustion engines (accounting for the set up costs for electric vehicles and batteries)... that option won’t help... or maybe won’t help much.

I’m aware that reducing vehicle emissions are a relatively cheap way of reducing carbon emissions (probably negative)... but I’m not sure electric vehicles do that. Some studies suggest electric vehicles are efficient in reducing carbon emissions... some not so much. I suspect it depends on which vested interests produce the studies... but it depends critically on how much of the power is generated by “clean or cleaner carbon” sources to recharge them.

I’m not that interested in working it all out, actually... because if we have a carbon price, the market will very quickly tell us. I don’t have to work out all the carbon abatement cost curves if I have a carbon price mechanism. The market will then very quickly reveal the cost curves.

If electric vehicles are part of the answer, great. But a carbon price is the first key step.

We keep focussing on selecting those ‘winners’... the things that governments, the ‘authorities’ should select to reduce emissions. But they can never choose the right things to achieve the target emission reductions at least cost. Only the private sector can do it properly. All the government should do is price the carbon pollution... so as to hit the emission reduction targets.

And if they don’t... well it’s not going to happen.
GE - I don't doubt that the mass introduction of electric vehicles will see the demand for electricity increase at least initially. Not only that but the 'off peak' times will be shortened as people returning from work and play choose to charge their vehicles at irregular hours. But when the World's largest car maker says that half of their production will be EVs by 2030 I think it is highly likely that it is going to happen. This is business making the 'lowest cost' decisions you were talking about in another post. EV's are relatively simple technology in that there are fewer moving parts. Yes battery technology needs to improve but as more and more manufactures turn their engineering skills to the issues I'm sure plenty of innovative solutions will come forward. EVs are the private sector version of Government 'picking winners' only they have to do it with their own/share holders money.

Just back to the issue of batteries. EV's depend on batteries and will need to have longer life and ability to extend the range of EV's. The technology investment in such batteries will not only be good for vehicles. There will be technology transfer to electric storage systems for farms and homes and businesses. Renewable power produced when the sun shines or wind blows will be able to be economically and safely stored. Imagine making electricity from renewable sources reliable rather than intermittent. The potential is a game changer for reducing emissions. The Government doesn't have to fund it. The private sector and consumers will drive the change. Billions of dollars in preparation has already begun. The largest vehicle manufacturers in the world are making these investments. Many plan to not make any more diesel/petrol powered vehicles by 2040 or before.

Then possibly on to Hydrogen which Toyota also is investing in.
Last edited by RedRaider on November 19, 2019, 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7602
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » November 19, 2019, 1:10 pm

gangrenous wrote:
November 19, 2019, 7:28 am
RedRaider wrote: Your main response is to 'accuse, criticise and abuse'. In a country of free speech I don't need a social licence to state my views.
Of course you’re allowed to state your views. Just as I am free to criticise them.

I notice you didn’t quote where I’d called you a denier? Is it possible you also mistake valid criticism for accusations and abuse?

What I mean by social license is that people have stopped engaging with people who claim the climate is not changing.

Regarding your IPCC from over a decade ago. Of course the earth is an extremely complex system. Some components will have to be approximated. However you glossed over the most important paragraph:

“Despite such
uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with
independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from
observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.”

I mean what’s your plan RR? Wait until there’s irreversible destruction of our only ecosystem? Because you’re not happy that the models are perfect? Models are never perfect! Despite the imperfections they’re saying we’re in trouble with high probability. Use the future generations lives as your empirical guinea pigs, with high probability that they get serious problems?

RedRaider wrote: I find is refreshing and reassuring that a body like the IPCC can admit there are limitations and indeed 'errors' (their word) in some of the modelling but that they are working to correct it.


It is refreshing to have someone acknowledge their limitations...


Until now I did not realise the extent of your reading difficulties. I don't think there is a single solution, but my most recent post to GE may give you some insight into a highly likely part of where the business sector will be heading. I wish you well in your world Gangers.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10161
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » November 20, 2019, 6:53 am

RedRaider wrote: Until now I did not realise the extent of your reading difficulties. I don't think there is a single solution, but my most recent post to GE may give you some insight into a highly likely part of where the business sector will be heading.
We’re going to have to disagree on your hope that the market relatively alone is equipped to appropriately price in future costs and respond adequately.

But in the meantime you keep fighting the good fight casting unfounded doubt at the experts and talking about how climate change is business as usual to help progress the conversation.


User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10161
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » December 7, 2019, 11:56 am

Really enjoying the leadership of the government on the Climate Change front right now. How are they getting away with silence through this?

Post Reply