Exon calls for Carbon tax

[we_are_toast]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Although pointing to science to support a position is a favoured tactic on all sides, at this point in time the debate has devolved to something that appears more political than scientific. Reason enough in my view to maintain a Janus-like posture along with a healthy scepticism of positions at the extremes on either side.

With all due respect GRG55, but your statement is incorrect.

ALL of the science, and I do mean ALL of the science is on one side and one side only. The deniers have ONLY politics on their side. There is NO, NONE, 0, ZILCH science to support the denier claims. I have repeatedly asked for 1 article from a peer reviewed journal (where science is done) to support the denialists claims and they have come up with nothing.

To try to paint both sides with the political nonsense of the deniers is to reject a mountain of scientific evidence and to reject the process of reasonable thinking itself. To try to play neutral is to say those who claim we had a depression in the 1930's and those who claim we had robust growth are both on the extremes and I will take the neutral position and say we had normal growth.

The only purpose this discussion serves on a forum like iTulip is to expose the thought processes of some of the posters. People come to iTulip for economic information and opinions, in which to make important decisions that will impact their future. They'd better think twice about the information or opinions presented by people who reach conclusions by rejecting overwhelming evidence supporting a position while accepting the opposing position with virtually NO evidence.

I do wish we could get back to a discussion of the serious economic problems confronting us all.

[GRG55]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

With all due respect GRG55, but your statement is incorrect.

ALL of the science, and I do mean ALL of the science is on one side and one side only. The deniers have ONLY politics on their side. There is NO, NONE, 0, ZILCH science to support the denier claims. I have repeatedly asked for 1 article from a peer reviewed journal (where science is done) to support the denialists claims and they have come up with nothing.

To try to paint both sides with the political nonsense of the deniers is to reject a mountain of scientific evidence and to reject the process of reasonable thinking itself. To try to play neutral is to say those who claim we had a depression in the 1930's and those who claim we had robust growth are both on the extremes and I will take the neutral position and say we had normal growth.

The only purpose this discussion serves on a forum like iTulip is to expose the thought processes of some of the posters. People come to iTulip for economic information and opinions, in which to make important decisions that will impact their future. They'd better think twice about the information or opinions presented by people who reach conclusions by rejecting overwhelming evidence supporting a position while accepting the opposing position with virtually NO evidence.

I do wish we could get back to a discussion of the serious economic problems confronting us all.

I rest my case...;)

P.S. If you think this is not an economic issue, you're in for an epiphany one day

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

ALL of the science, and I do mean ALL of the science is on one side and one side only. The deniers have ONLY politics on their side. There is NO, NONE, 0, ZILCH science to support the denier claims. I have repeatedly asked for 1 article from a peer reviewed journal (where science is done) to support the denialists claims and they have come up with nothing.

So ... your defining characteristic of "science" is what is in "peer reviewed journal" articles.

I suspect that 600 years ago, we could have demonstrated that the earth was flat by such means.

I tend to treat such journals as I do Wiki pages. For non-controversial subjects such as the mundane computer or mathematical subjects I sometimes take interest in, Wiki pages are an excellent source of information. For actual research results in non-controversial areas, peer reviewed research papers are usually trustworthy.

For stuff on the hot seat, such as medical practice, drugs (medicinal and recreational) and nutrition, climate changes, politics, public policy, who killed JFK, who was behind 9/11, biographies of controversial or very powerful people, ..., Wiki pages, think-tank reports, public statements and peer reviewed articles are under enormous stresses, to which they frequently buckle.

When I observe that the net affect of the global warming alarmists is much the same as has been the affect of the environmental whackos for decades now, which is to seek government regulatory and bureacratic control over and weakening of the strength of Western economies, while leaving third world, Communist and other tyrannical economies untouched, I "follow the money", and suspect more efforts to socialize and weaken America are behind this.

"Concensus", which you emphasize in your post, is not "science". For that matter, neither are peer reviewed journals the defining characteristic of the scientific method.

I have not located, nor sought, peer reviewed articles correlating sun spot activity with temperatures on several of the planets in the solar system, including earth. My understanding is that the correlation is positive and substantial. Do you have any links to peer reviewed journal articles, confirming or denying this?

[acric5]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

just so you get the Exxon perspective correct, spend the next hour and listen to what was actually said.

Exxon is suggesting revenue neutral carbon tax in lieu of Cap and Trade.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/common/dsp_popup.cfm?media_link=DIR/DIR_20090108.wmv&title=Video%20of%20Event%20(Windows%20Media%20Play er)

there are some good Q&A at the end.

[santafe2]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I have problems even with normal publications giving co2 too much credit

This chart serves only to mis-inform iTulip readers. It completely ignores the fact that green house gases created naturally had been in balance for 800,000 years - Probably longer, but ice core studies have confirmed back this far, (~180-~280ppm). That is, the earth had balanced build-up and discharge of CO2 prior to our industrial age. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the earth's atmosphere are rising, (up from 280ppm to 385ppm), and they have been rising since precisely the beginning of the industrial revolution. The rate of rise is increasing exponentially. In the first 120 years the change was about 10ppm to 290ppm, but by 1900 we were adding 10ppm every 25 years. In the last 50 years we added about 10ppm every decade. Now it's 10ppm every 5 years. Care to guess where where we'll be by the end of this century?

NOAA link:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

If you or GRG or c1ue want to support the argument that these concentrations don't matter, can grow to 1000 ppm without consequence, make that argument. Personally, I think it's nothing more than foolhardy and irresponsible. As I said before, I've no respect for this, well gosh we just don't know enough yet, position.

[c1ue]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

Why is it that 5 year solutions are necessary for 90 year problems (or 200 year problems)?

If there is a smoking gun and it is CO2, it should not be so circuitous to create a link.

Ozone and CFCs - very clear.

Smog and factories spewing smoke - very clear.

Mercury contamination making its way up the food chain - very clear.

DDT causing eagles to not have babies - very clear.

CO2 causing climate change - circumstantial and yet to be demonstrated otherwise.

[GRG55]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

This chart serves only to mis-inform iTulip readers. It completely ignores the fact that green house gases created naturally had been in balance for 800,000 years - Probably longer, but ice core studies have confirmed back this far, (~180-~280ppm). That is, the earth had balanced build-up and discharge of CO2 prior to our industrial age. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the earth's atmosphere are rising, (up from 280ppm to 385ppm), and they have been rising since precisely the beginning of the industrial revolution. The rate of rise is increasing exponentially. In the first 120 years the change was about 10ppm to 290ppm, but by 1900 we were adding 10ppm every 25 years. In the last 50 years we added about 10ppm every decade. Now it's 10ppm every 5 years. Care to guess where where we'll be by the end of this century?

NOAA link:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

If you or GRG or c1ue want to support the argument that these concentrations don't matter, can grow to 1000 ppm without consequence, make that argument. Personally, I think it's nothing more than foolhardy and irresponsible. As I said before, I've no respect for this, well gosh we just don't know enough yet, position.

I don't know if these concentrations do or don't matter. You don't either.

It's one variable in an infinitely complex system.

[Then again, maybe I am just cranky because it's minus 25 deg C outside, I have had to shut down my bunker construction for the third time since mid-December due to the temperature, and the notable absence of global warming around here right now is pissing me off . To paraphrase Mega: "You guys promised me disaster!!!!!! Where is it?????]

[santafe2]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon taxice

Why is it that 5 year solutions are necessary for 90 year problems (or 200 year problems)?

If there is a smoking gun and it is CO2, it should not be so circuitous to create a link.

Ozone and CFCs - very clear.

Smog and factories spewing smoke - very clear.

Mercury contamination making its way up the food chain - very clear.

DDT causing eagles to not have babies - very clear.

CO2 causing climate change - circumstantial and yet to be demonstrated otherwise.

I'm not sure where you've come up with the idea of 5 year solutions. I was suggesting that the exponential nature of the issue is causing a shortening of the timeframe to 5 years for an additional 10ppm of CO2 and that waiting to see the results as you've pointed out with the issues sited above would be foolhardy.

My post made a simple statement; CO2 in the atmosphere is climbing higher than it has ever been recorded. I did not extrapolate from that, the idea of climate change. But since you bring it up, I'll dive further into my thesis.

Those of us, and I'm sure that would include you, with a fundamental background in science know that CO2 is by far the most abundant, long lived gas in the atmosphere that has the capacity to absorb infrared radiation. That is, to hold in heat. Nitrogen and oxygen comprise about 99% of the atmosphere but they are light neutral no matter its form.

The heating effect of an additional 105ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere can be calculated with complete confidence. It is effectively creating about 1% additional solar radiation. You'll notice I'm not talking about outcomes, only about the documented changes and the science which extrapolates the measurable change.

As Einstein famously said; God does not play dice. That is, events that occur are causal in nature. With our injection of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are playing dice and the event we cause could be catastrophic be it global warming or a new ice age or something not even on our radar. When it's obvious, it will be too late.

Here's a bad scenario. CO2 climbs enough to cause global warming which causes a fall in precipitation world wide. The lack of cloud cover completely overrides the effect of CO2 and heat leaves the planet at a rate twice as fast as the additional CO2 causes it to reflect. Temperatures drop quickly and precipitously. Welcome to Mars.

[santafe2]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I don't know if these concentrations do or don't matter. You don't either.

It's one variable in an infinitely complex system.

[Then again, maybe I am just cranky because it's minus 25 deg C outside, I have had to shut down my bunker construction for the third time since mid-December due to the temperature, and the notable absence of global warming around here right now is pissing me off . To paraphrase Mega: "You guys promised me disaster!!!!!! Where is it?????]

It's not complex. You're argument is that of a patient diagnosed with cancer. Hey, I feel fine, why would I let you operate or treat me with chemo therapy? I'll wait to see how this works out next year. Of course, once you feel sick, you're dead.

I may not know if these concentrations matter, but I do know they are way out of spec for the earth. And I do know that by the time we know the effects, it will be too late.

Global warming is only one proposed effect. While we're watching for the right to the chin the left hook may take us out.

Fossil fuels are causing a rise in CO2. That is clear. The outcome is in doubt but it's an absolutely foolish experiment undertaken for near term economic and political gain.

[c1ue]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I'm not sure where you've come up with the idea of 5 year solutions. I was suggesting that the exponential nature of the issue is causing a shortening of the timeframe to 5 years for an additional 10ppm of CO2 and that waiting to see the results as you've pointed out with the issues sited above would be foolhardy.

Kyoto - 5 year solution.

As for the exponential nature - again the difficulty is exactly in the supposed science.

I have not yet seen a convincing experimental result which shows CO2 is a non-linear insulator and heat-reradiator - especially not one for which its effects override the thousands and millions of other changes in the earth such as urbanization and conversion of forests/prairies to farms.

And I've pointed out that if the effects are indeed true, that there are decades left before unsustainable levels are achieved.

If indeed there is a smoking gun and we have clear proof in 10 years, there's still more than enough time to both cease most existing CO2 production and begin sequestration activities. For that matter, even clear proof in 30 years.

As Einstein famously said; God does not play dice. That is, events that occur are causal in nature. With our injection of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are playing dice and the event we cause could be catastrophic be it global warming or a new ice age or something not even on our radar. When it's obvious, it will be too late.

When is it too late? And why has it been so difficult and opaque as to CO2 being the primary cause? As for injection of CO2 playing dice - what about changes in the Earth's reflection coefficient due to urbanization/suburbanization/deforestation? What about the still increasing population of people? Cows?

The difficulty I have with this CO2 doomsday scenario is that it is the latest in a long line of excuses thought up by the Gaia nature huggers to stop everyone else from doing what is 'wrong'.

Here's a bad scenario. CO2 climbs enough to cause global warming which causes a fall in precipitation world wide. The lack of cloud cover completely overrides the effect of CO2 and heat leaves the planet at a rate twice as fast as the additional CO2 causes it to reflect. Temperatures drop quickly and precipitously. Welcome to Mars.

Here's another scenario: Due to hysteria over CO2 levels, the world's governments are taken over by ultra green socialists.

In the ensuring decades, personal liberties are completely removed in favor of 'save the planet' acceptable behavior routines.

The 'Great Leader's and 'Dear Leader's in their pristine wilderness retreats dictate acceptable near starvation food consumption and semi-naked clothing allotments for the unenlightened.

Health care is relegated to the most inexpensive holistic treatments as unenlightened mankind is a blight on the earth anyway.

Roads and other forms of transport cease as they are a waste of Gaia's limited resources; only a few are privileged enough to afford the ornithopters flitting from one tree- or mountain- top aerie to another.

Semiconductors, mineral extraction, and many other industries are outlawed as being extremely wasteful of Gaia's water resources and a blight upon the land.

[santafe2]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I have not yet seen a convincing experimental result which shows CO2 is a non-linear insulator and heat-reradiator - especially not one for which its effects override the thousands and millions of other changes in the earth such as urbanization and conversion of forests/prairies to farms.

I understand you're not convinced but it's not my intention to convince you, only offer a completely different point of view. That you wish to argue that the physical properties of CO2 may not have a warming effect, is curious but not too interesting unless you've found a different molecule than the one scientists have been studying for the last 300 years.

Greenhouse gas source contributions are well known. About 75% come from energy production and use, ~12% from farming/urbanization, ~10% from deforestation and ~3% from landfill/waste.

Good source for research:
http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/

And I've pointed out that if the effects are indeed true, that there are decades left before unsustainable levels are achieved.

If indeed there is a smoking gun and we have clear proof in 10 years, there's still more than enough time to both cease most existing CO2 production and begin sequestration activities. For that matter, even clear proof in 30 years.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Sequestering multiple giga-tons of CO2 will not only be difficult in the extreme, it assumes we've not reached a tipping point buy the time we're done studying the situation.

When is it too late? And why has it been so difficult and opaque as to CO2 being the primary cause? As for injection of CO2 playing dice - what about changes in the Earth's reflection coefficient due to urbanization/suburbanization/deforestation? What about the still increasing population of people? Cows?

Addressed above. A billion cows are not ideal but they're not the primary source of GHG.

We should soon have more detailed information regarding CO2.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7769619.stm

[GRG55]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

It's not complex. You're argument is that of a patient diagnosed with cancer. Hey, I feel fine, why would I let you operate or treat me with chemo therapy? I'll wait to see how this works out next year. Of course, once you feel sick, you're dead.

I may not know if these concentrations matter, but I do know they are way out of spec for the earth. And I do know that by the time we know the effects, it will be too late.

Global warming is only one proposed effect. While we're watching for the right to the chin the left hook may take us out.

Fossil fuels are causing a rise in CO2. That is clear. The outcome is in doubt but it's an absolutely foolish experiment undertaken for near term economic and political gain.

Fine. Let's ban the use of fossil fuels and see what happens.

Seriously, I have no argument with the data that shows CO2 levels increasing. I also have no argument with the view that this just might be a very serious problem that deserves attention and action.

I have a problem with the absolutes that are presented as the source of the problem, and therefore question the effectiveness of the equally absolute solutions that follow. I have a particular problem with those that declare such absolutes with secular evangelical fervor, often followed by a not-so-subtle contemporary version of the message "convert ye heathen, or be burned at the stake" [and no, thankfully you and most other iTulipers debating this do not fit that description]. I'm always deeply suspicious of anything, on any topic, presented with excessive histrionics, and the climate change debate certainly suffers from no shortage of that.

If we trace this problem to the start of the Industrial Revolution, as you indicated earlier, is the increasing use of fossil fuels the only source of the problem...and therefore the only thing that needs to be addressed to solve it?

In 1800 the population of the world was less than 1 Billion; today our population of human CO2 emitters is 7 times larger. Since 1800 we've mowed down huge swaths of the globe's forests [I understand photosynthesis is one of our most effective carbon sinks?], dramatically increased the aggregate size of the domestic animal herd, covered enormous amounts of developed nation territory with heat reflecting asphalt and concrete, materially reduced the flow of fresh water into our oceans [CO2 absorption in our oceans is, I've been told, the other great carbon sink on our planet. Does changing salinity levels improve or degrade that capability?], and who knows what else that contributes to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

So although restricting fossil fuels might be a good start, would even an outright ban on them really be enough to sufficiently reverse the effects of 200 years of human impact?

Perhaps we also need to consider things that are in the realm of politically incorrect? Ways of discouraging human population growth [or even reversing it?], removal of subsidies and restricting agriculture concentration that depend on CO2 emitting methods and technologies [certain fertilizers, long distance transportation of food to market, eliminating discretionary agricultural products like air freighted fresh-cut flowers...], banning agricultural and other practices that artifically support excess population in fundamentally hostile-to-life regions [irrigated forage crops in the Saudi desert comes immediately to mind, but there's plenty of other similar examples], returning large amounts of marginal agricultural land to more permanent carbon sinks [grassland, boreal forest, rainforest, whatever], and getting away from concentrating commerce in cities [it makes little more sense to move tens of millions of people twice every day into and out of the city centres by train than it does by automobile - save the energy and spend the money on something more useful to humanity like education]

Right now is a perfect opportunity to impose taxes on fossil fuel usage [nobody can argue that increasing its cost won't reduce consumption], with the eventual goal of eliminating all discretionary consumption of such fuels. However, if one accepts the premise that CO2 induced climate change is a problem, given its scale, magnitude and the two-century time period over which it has developed, I have very grave doubts that fiddling around with carbon taxes, solar panels, wind turbines, and electric trains and hybrid cars is going to make any real difference to materially reversing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would intuitively seem that it will take much more drastic behaviour changes than what's being spoken about today.

Thus the cynic in me concludes that the calls for carbon taxes, subsidies, and so forth are motivated more by the potential for great financial gains and increased political power for the few, than they are by any real interest in improving the human condition.

[c1ue]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

SF,

I have been watching the ongoing evolution of evidence, and it is simply malodorous with assumptions and assumptive closes.

Tipping point? What is this tipping point? The Earth, unlike Mars or Venus, has living organisms in it. These organisms - among them Man - constitute a number of feedback loops.

Man may or may not be the major factor since the biomass of bacteria is many times larger and more ubiquitous.

In any case, the existence of a tipping point is not proven.

The effects before and after the tipping point are not known.

There are some ostensibly plausible theories, but again these theories are not validated by any form of back testing. And we have plenty of examples of back testing.

From my view, even assuming CO2 is a "heat retention multiplier", the ultimate effect is some 'X' amount of extra solar energy retained.

Well, we have plenty of historical examples where the ambient solar energy was evidently high enough to raise global temperatures. The Northern Passage has been open a number of times in the past. The Sahara once had rivers. Global temperatures have likely been in the present range.

So why can't any of these so called doomsday models replicate this past behavior?

To me it seems like a postulated problem looking for an explanation, not an explanation of a problem.

I also have equally great amounts of disdain for the so-called 'prophets' of climate change. Since when does a so called scientist start interfering with areas outside of their own expertise? Since when does consensus agreement with your own thesis require political action through your explicit support? And since when is a poorly modeled and understood field to be the basis for societal wide change?

I have an example of that: it is called Eugenics. The Eugenics Council and its sister organizations took the idea of Darwinism/natural selection and used it to justify any number of ridiculous and ultimately very wrong policies. Because the field they chose to build justification from even today is still discovering significant new wrinkles - 80 years later.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

A billion cows are not ideal but ...

I don't know ... lotsa cows sounds pretty good to me ;).

[raja]

Re: Exon calls for Carbon tax

I may not know if these concentrations matter, but I do know they are way out of spec for the earth. And I do know that by the time we know the effects, it will be too late.

Way out of spec . . . .

Considering the sudden rise in the CO2 level (looks like Fred's federal spending chart), it's hard to believe this isn't caused by human industrial activity.

We're gambling here, right?
The consequence is unknown; nobody knows.
So, IMO the question is, do we continue to gamble or try to lessen the risk?

What we need is a whopping big depression to slow down global CO2-creating activity. Oh, right, we've got that already . . . how convenient


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html