Comment Re:Isn't that anti-science? (Score 1) 1055
"I'd say 10C is more the limit and I'm probably setting it a bit low."
Well, I'm reassured. Tell me, do you have any reason for believing that number, rather than the numbers being given by people who actually study the issue?
"Remember that most of the current and forecast warming is in the upper northern hemisphere which doesn't have a lot of biological diversity (both because of the arduous environment and because most of it used to be ice-covered ten thousand years ago). Also, your "mass extinctions" do not include humans or species we depend on."
So you don't care about mass extinctions, as long as it doesn't directly lead to human extinction? Wow. I'm constantly impressed by the selfishness of global warming deniers like you. Do you care about anything beyond your immediate personal comfort? Screw other people, screw other species, screw other generations, screw the people downwind and downriver from the coal plants, because I think light from CFLs looks a little weird.
You think climate is unpredictable? Well, take a look at the whole frakking ecosystem, where millions of species living in tense, fluctuating equilibrium with all the others, each with very specific habitat requirements. Do you really think we have a shot in hell at fixing it once it's broken? Do you really think we can choose where the dominos stop falling? Do you really prefer testing the limits of evolution's adaptability in order to avoid "crippling the economy" by ratcheting growth back by 8% over a couple of decades?
In short, are you completely, suicidally insane? Somehow I doubt that. And yet the path you're proposing sounds that way.
"So what is it? Is solar going to vastly reduce costs or not? If it does, then the whole argument about reducing carbon dioxide emissions can be tossed. Because it will happen anyway as solar replaces fossil fuel burning for more and more applications."
I believe it will happen eventually. There are only two questions in my mind:
1) Whether we'll be buying solar panels from China, or China will be buying solar panels from us. Judging by what's happened to American solar companies this last year, I fully expect the former.
2) Whether the transition will happen soon enough or completely enough to make a difference. There is a lot we could do to accelerate the trend, but frankly you typify the sort of attitudes that could delay it for crucial decades.
We're already well above the 350ppm "safe zone", and 2011 was the biggest year ever for CO2 emissions. The transition needs to happen a lot faster than the free market will support. Consider that the capital investments in coal are for the most part already paid off, and the oldest plants aren't even compliant with 1970's era air quality standards (they were grandfathered in under the misguided assumption that they'd be shut down soon).
It's also got an uphill battle because coal is more expensive than your power bill would indicate. By hundreds of billions of dollars.
Here's what the study included: "government coal subsidies, increased illness and mortality due to mining pollution, climate change from greenhouse gas emissions, particulates causing air pollution, loss of biodiversity, cost to taxpayers of environmental monitoring and cleanup, decreased property values, infrastructure damages from mudslides resulting from mountaintop removal, infrastructure damage from mine blasting, impacts of acid rain resulting from coal combustion byproducts, water pollution." All this must be paid for, but none of these costs are charged back to the electricity users.
Force coal companies to pay the full costs of their product, and solar would be cost-competitive right now.
We could also accelerate the changeover by increasing funding for research in alternative energies. For example, home solar would be much cheaper if we could get the price of the non-panel parts down (batteries, grid tie in, regulators, etc.). There's a DOE project working on that right now, but it doesn't have all the funding it needs. What's standing in the way of more funding? People like you who object to the government doing pretty much anything, and who claim despite mountains of evidence that solar and other alternative energies will never be cost-competitive. Oh, and using doomsday rhetoric about "crippling the economy" to justify the status quo doesn't help matters.
"There are plenty of ways we can reduce energy consumption, but so what? No one has demonstrated a need to do so. Energy cost is cheap which means right there, that there's no reason to waste a lot of effort conserving energy."
So, you don't want $4M a year? You keep structuring your arguments to imply that large reductions in CO2 would negatively impact national wealth. It would not. Especially in the first 25-50% or so, cutting emissions would save us money. There are literally trillions of dollars worth of energy efficiency projects that we could start right now, that would result in positive long-term growth, practically risk free.
The energy you don't use is far cheaper than the energy you get from your utility companies.
As I said before, fossil energy is artificially cheap right now. Take the subsidies we're now giving to fossil fuel companies (including the de facto subsidy of not charging them for the pollution that we don't regulate) and put it into energy efficiency projects, and it would create a small economic renaissance. Require all new buildings to attain something comparable to LEED Silver certification, and the small addition to the mortgage will be more than offset by long-term savings on their energy bills. Raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks (as has just been done) and save consumers hundreds of billions a year, money that can go somewhere other than the gas tank.
Of course, you believe none of this. Since you believe in the free market, and you seem to believe that we have a free market, it's hard to imagine trillions worth of lucrative investments just being ignored by the markets.
From the first paragraph of the link: There is an old joke in which two economists are walking down the street when one of them spies a $20 bill lying on the ground. He says to his friend, “Hey, there’s a $20 bill on the ground!” To which the other economist replies, “That’s impossible. If there were a $20 bill on the ground, someone would have already picked it up.”
Markets aren't perfect, and even a small increase in energy costs could make these energy-saving opportunities much more stark. Which is why I don't think that the Republican "drill baby drill" plan makes any sense. It just means we're using a finite resource more quickly and less efficiently, to an ultimately smaller economic effect.