A Republican Case for Climate Action

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down

Re: A Republican Case for Climate Action

Post by Sir Pun on Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:03 am

When it comes to energy and economics in the climate-change era, nothing is what it seems. Most of us believe (or want to believe) that the second carbon era, the Age of Oil, will soon be superseded by the Age of Renewables, just as oil had long since superseded the Age of Coal. President Obama offered exactly this vision in a much-praised June address on climate change. True, fossil fuels will be needed a little bit longer, he indicated, but soon enough they will be overtaken by renewable forms of energy.

Many other experts share this view, assuring us that increased reliance on “clean” natural gas combined with expanded investments in wind and solar power will permit a smooth transition to a green energy future in which humanity will no longer be pouring carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. All this sounds promising indeed. There is only one fly in the ointment: It is not, in fact, the path we are presently headed down. The energy industry is not investing in any significant way in renewables. Instead, it is pouring its historic profits into new fossil-fuel projects, mainly involving the exploitation of what are called “unconventional” oil and gas reserves.

The result is indisputable: Humanity is not entering a period that will be dominated by renewables. Instead, it is pioneering the third great carbon era, the Age of Unconventional Oil and Gas.

That we are embarking on a new carbon era is increasingly evident and should unnerve us all. Hydro-fracking – the use of high-pressure water columns to shatter underground shale formations and liberate the oil and natural gas supplies trapped within them — is being undertaken in ever more regions of the United States and in a growing number of foreign countries. In the meantime, the exploitation of carbon-dirty heavy oil and tar-sands formations is accelerating in Canada, Venezuela, and elsewhere.

It’s true that ever more wind farms and solar arrays are being built, but here’s the kicker: Investment in unconventional fossil-fuel extraction and distribution is now expected to outpace spending on renewables by a ratio of at least 3-to-1 in the decades ahead.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an inter-governmental research organization based in Paris, cumulative worldwide investment in new fossil-fuel extraction and processing will total an estimated $22.87 trillion between 2012 and 2035, while investment in renewables, hydropower, and nuclear energy will amount to only $7.32 trillion. In these years, investment in oil alone, at an estimated $10.32 trillion, is expected to exceed spending on wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, hydro, nuclear, and every other form of renewable energy combined.

In addition, as the IEA explains, an ever-increasing share of that staggering investment in fossil fuels will be devoted to unconventional forms of oil and gas: Canadian tar sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy crude, shale oil and gas, Arctic and deep-offshore energy deposits, and other hydrocarbons derived from previously inaccessible reserves of energy. The explanation for this is simple enough. The world’s supply of conventional oil and gas — fuels derived from easily accessible reservoirs and requiring a minimum of processing — is rapidly disappearing. With global demand for fossil fuels expected to rise by 26 percent between now and 2035, more and more of the world’s energy supply will have to be provided by unconventional fuels.

In such a world, one thing is guaranteed: Global carbon emissions will soar far beyond our current worst-case assumptions, meaning intense heat waves will become commonplace and our few remaining wilderness areas will be eviscerated. Planet Earth will be a far — possibly unimaginably — harsher and more blistering place.

So between all the gloom and doom, one fact pops out. We are still going to need fossil fuels for generations to come.

Sir Pun

Posts : 1621
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Republican Case for Climate Action

Post by Sir Pun on Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:15 am

Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, President Obama is on a mission. With the Environmental Protection Agency as his sidekick, he is launching an all-out offensive to drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions.
His weapon of choice is the alarmism that dominates the national climate-change dialogue. According to the president’s June 25 speech at Georgetown University, warming is to blame for contradictory disasters, including droughts and heavy rains as well as forest fires and flooded crops. In his view, there is no longer a question whether the planet is warming, but whether we “will have the courage to act before it’s too late.”
The problem with the president’s anti-carbon fervor is that several scientists disagree with his climate assessment. In a recent Wall Street Journal column, sixteen of the world’s most renowned environmental scientists wrote that the world has not warmed “for more than a decade,” indicating “that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.” Further they warn, "there is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy."
Other scientists also say the costs of further reducing air pollution often outweigh the benefits. The United States has cut air toxics by as much as 96 percent since 1980, and additional reductions can be prohibitively damaging to the economy.
The EPA’s plan to tighten ground-level ozone standards was delayed by the White House a couple of years ago because it would have destroyed an estimated 7.3 million U.S. jobs and led to compliance costs of more than $1 trillion. A more recent rule aimed at reducing mercury emissions from power plants is expected to cost $10 billion by 2015 but will generate only $6 million in benefits.
But these inconvenient facts aren’t hindering the President’s climate campaign. He has found a way to get around the cost-benefit problem by slipping a little noticed increase in the “social cost of carbon” into a regulation on microwave ovens, raising the government’s estimate for carbon from $23.80 per ton to $38.00 per ton in 2015.
The administration did not allow public comment on the carbon-cost change. Rather it buried the new cost estimate on page 409 in Appendix 16A in a technical support document. Why elevate carbon’s cost under the radar? Because the higher cost of carbon will make environmental rules appear more cost-effective in cost-benefit analyses, justify a raft of new anti-carbon regulations, and true to Candidate Obama’s 2008 pledge, help “make electricity rates necessarily skyrocket.”
One of the president’s key carbon-combatting initiatives that could be helped by the new carbon-cost figure is the so-called War on Coal which could have a major impact on family budgets and the economy. A new Heritage Foundation study found it would raise electricity costs by 20 percent, destroy 500,000 jobs, and reduce the average American family’s income by $1,000 per year from 2015-2030. It also would sharply raise the cost of natural gas because it would become the new fuel-of-choice for power generators. As a result, the manufacturing renaissance made possible by abundant and affordable U.S. natural gas supplies would be cut short.
The War on Coal also will have little impact on carbon emissions. China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, now accounts for 47 percent of the world’s coal consumption and has no plans to cut back. While the leader of the free world moves forward with a unilateral carbon reduction plan, China patiently waits for the opportunity to replace the United States as an economic superpower.
President Obama says he wants to reduce carbon emissions “for our children, and our children’s children.” But reckless regulations would slow job creation, harm the economy, reduce U.S. competitiveness, and hinder the next generations’ opportunities to experience the American Dream.
American humorist and author Mark Twain once said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” In his zeal to save the planet, President Obama seems to be ignoring the facts and has changed the statistics to fit his political agenda. No matter how he calculates the value of combating climate change, it will pale in comparison to the damage.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/314147-obamas-mistaken-mission-against-emissions#ixzz2bes4OszK
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Sir Pun

Posts : 1621
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Republican Case for Climate Action

Post by Bryant on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:18 pm

Sir Pun wrote:Guess who has the largest carbon footprint in history. Our own barrack obama
Him as an individual? How do you figure?
avatar
Bryant
Admin

Posts : 1452
Join date : 2012-01-28
Age : 29
Location : John Day, Oregon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Republican Case for Climate Action

Post by Bryant on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:19 pm

Sir Pun wrote:Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, President Obama is on a mission. With the Environmental Protection Agency as his sidekick, he is launching  an all-out offensive to drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions.
His weapon of choice is the alarmism that dominates the national climate-change dialogue. According to the president’s June 25 speech at Georgetown University, warming is to blame for contradictory disasters, including droughts and heavy rains as well as forest fires and flooded crops. In his view, there is no longer a question whether the planet is warming, but whether we “will have the courage to act before it’s too late.”
The problem with the president’s anti-carbon fervor is that several scientists disagree with his climate assessment. In a recent Wall Street Journal column, sixteen of the world’s most renowned environmental scientists wrote that the world has not warmed “for more than a decade,” indicating “that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.” Further they warn, "there is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy."
Other scientists also say the costs of further reducing air pollution often outweigh the benefits. The United States has cut air toxics by as much as 96 percent since 1980, and additional reductions can be prohibitively damaging to the economy.
The EPA’s plan to tighten ground-level ozone standards was delayed by the White House a couple of years ago because it would have destroyed an estimated 7.3 million U.S. jobs and led to compliance costs of more than $1 trillion. A more recent rule aimed at reducing mercury emissions from power plants is expected to cost $10 billion by 2015 but will generate only $6 million in benefits.
But these inconvenient facts aren’t hindering the President’s climate campaign. He has found a way to get around the cost-benefit problem by slipping a little noticed increase in the “social cost of carbon” into a regulation on microwave ovens, raising the government’s estimate for carbon from $23.80 per ton to $38.00 per ton in 2015.  
The administration did not allow public comment on the carbon-cost change. Rather it buried the new cost estimate on page 409 in Appendix 16A in a technical support document. Why elevate carbon’s cost under the radar? Because the higher cost of carbon will make environmental rules appear more cost-effective in cost-benefit analyses, justify a raft of new anti-carbon regulations, and true to Candidate Obama’s 2008 pledge, help “make electricity rates necessarily skyrocket.”  
One of the president’s key carbon-combatting initiatives that could be helped by the new carbon-cost figure is the so-called War on Coal which could have a major impact on family budgets and the economy. A new Heritage Foundation study found it would raise electricity costs by 20 percent, destroy 500,000 jobs, and reduce the average American family’s income by $1,000 per year from 2015-2030. It also would sharply raise the cost of natural gas because it would become the new fuel-of-choice for power generators. As a result, the manufacturing renaissance made possible by abundant and affordable U.S. natural gas supplies would be cut short.
The War on Coal also will have little impact on carbon emissions. China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, now accounts for 47 percent of the world’s coal consumption and has no plans to cut back. While the leader of the free world moves forward with a unilateral carbon reduction plan, China patiently waits for the opportunity to replace the United States as an economic superpower.
President Obama says he wants to reduce carbon emissions “for our children, and our children’s children.” But reckless regulations would slow job creation, harm the economy, reduce U.S. competitiveness, and hinder the next generations’ opportunities to experience the American Dream.
American humorist and author Mark Twain once said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” In his zeal to save the planet, President Obama seems to be ignoring the facts and has changed the statistics to fit his political agenda. No matter how he calculates the value of combating climate change, it will pale in comparison to the damage.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/314147-obamas-mistaken-mission-against-emissions#ixzz2bes4OszK
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
This demonstrates a great deal of ignorance of the science behind climate change. I'd recommend that the author look into the peer reviewed literature before spouting off nonsense.
avatar
Bryant
Admin

Posts : 1452
Join date : 2012-01-28
Age : 29
Location : John Day, Oregon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Republican Case for Climate Action

Post by Bryant on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:23 pm

Dennis324 wrote:
Bryant wrote:
Sir Pun wrote:I love how they say that global temperatures are the highest ever recorded....oh you mean over the last 100 years or so that we've actually been keeping temperature data?
There are many other thermometers than Hg.  Oxygen isotopes is one common thermometer used to examine paleo temperatures.
You guys are talking above my paygrade.  scratch
Its defiantly not basic knowledge. This article goes over some basics of paleothermometers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleothermometer
avatar
Bryant
Admin

Posts : 1452
Join date : 2012-01-28
Age : 29
Location : John Day, Oregon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Republican Case for Climate Action

Post by Sir Pun on Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:40 am

Shit man, i kist jad this long reply about obamas footprint, with 3 sources, and lost it.

Sir Pun

Posts : 1621
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Republican Case for Climate Action

Post by Sir Pun on Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:53 am

But heres a good example of why. Apparently the first dog needs its own plane and security too.



Yet again it is the British press doing the job the American mainstream media chooses not to. The Telegraph has a story (prominently headlined on the highly influential Drudge Report) about the US president’s dog Bo, being specially airlifted to the exclusive Massachusetts resort of Martha’s Vineyard to join the First Family for their summer vacation. As The Telegraph’s Nick Allen reports:
Rooms have to be found for dozens of Secret Service agents, someone has to carry a selection of presidential basketballs, and of course the family dog needs his own state-of-the-art aircraft.
Arriving in the idyllic coastal retreat of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, Mr Obama left behind him in Washington DC high profile debates over the budget, government surveillance and his health care reforms. Instead, he will spend the next eight days playing golf, going to the beach, and buying books from the Bunch of Grapes bookstore.
… Bo, the president's Portuguese Water Dog, arrived separately on one of two MV-22 Ospreys, a hybrid aircraft which takes off like a helicopter but flies like a plane. It was the first time the Ospreys have been taken on holiday by a US president.

Why does a story about the White House dog being taken on holiday matter? Because the airlifting of Bo costs taxpayers money, as does the huge security operation for the Obamas’ extravagant vacation at Martha’s Vineyard, playground for America’s uber-wealthy liberal elites. Significantly President Obama chose not to vacation in Martha’s Vineyard last summer. Why? Because the optics would have looked terrible during an election year, and could have hurt him at the ballot box. This year, Obama doesn’t need to worry about re-election, and is this week flaunting a “let them eat cake” image. He’s also aided by a docile liberal mainstream media that prefers not to make an issue out of profligate spending by the White House, even when the United States is nearly $17 trillion in debt. You can be sure that if a British prime minister airlifted his dog at taxpayers’ expense for his summer holiday there would be hell to pay in terms of negative media coverage in the UK.
President Obama’s lavish August vacation, the latest of several high cost holidays during his presidency (which have cost taxpayers over $20 million for the Hawaii trips alone), shows not only a lack of concern for the national debt, but also sheer contempt for America’s middle class. Barack Obama is taking a break from a series of speeches across the country boasting about his plans to help “the middle class.” From Tennessee to Illinois he’s been preaching about his commitment to “the middle class” and helping the ordinary American family, currently struggling to make ends meet, pay the mortgage and send their children to college. The president is conducting this feel-good tour because his White House advisers know that a majority of Americans don’t approve of his handling of the economy, and most Americans think the nation is on the wrong track. However it’s hard to see how an Elysium-like vacation in a multi-million dollar idyll, subsidised by the taxpayer, with his pet airlifted in for good measure, is going to improve the president’s standing with the American people. Mr. Obama has just slumped to a two-year low of 41 percent in the latest Gallup poll. Thumbing his nose at America’s middle class can only send that rating even lower.

Sir Pun

Posts : 1621
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Republican Case for Climate Action

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum