Cap and trade - who benefits?

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:34:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You would probably suggest that people shouldn't eat beef...

I wouldn't suggest any such thing. In fact, we run cattle on our ranch.
If people didn't eat beef, I'd lose a source of revenue! g

And even quite a pessimistic estimate of CO2 emissions from beef gives
40kg CO2 per kg beef; at a remediation cost of $50/ton that doesn't
add that much to the price of beef cuts worth the eating.

Some do. Many don't. One problem is that things are set up in a way that
hides true costs. For instance, energy generated from coal and oil is
quite a bit more expensive than energy generated from wind or solar. But
since the true costs of the former are hidden, and not paid by the users
in any obvious way, these seem economical.

Again, remediation costs just aren't that big; 1kWh from coal is about
a kilo of CO2, about five cents to remediate, which is I think a good
deal smaller than the differential between the pricing of coal and
wind power now. Wind and solar power are likely to get cheaper, and
the convenience of not needing fuel is a great one.

It's possible that I'm committing the fallacy of scale with my
discussions of remediation: if I want an 8" SCT tomorrow, it costs
only money, whilst I can't get a million 8" SCTs tomorrow for any sum
of money because it takes longer than that to make them and there
aren't that many in stock, or an 80" SCT tomorrow for any sum of money
because there's only the one in the world, it would take some time to
negotiate with the Karl Schwarzchild Observatory to buy it, and some
time to move it.

If the remediation requires a forest of quick-growing trees larger
than Earth's arable land area, it's not going to work.

Tom

On Oct 14, 7:43*pm, "S. Caro" wrote:
wrote:
Your use of firewood represents what some might call an externality.
Large scale use of wood for energy would cause massive deforestation,
increase the CO2 and reduce the amount of greenery that might
counteract that CO2. *You just choose not to notice that.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...od-power_N.htm

QUOTE: "One of the world's oldest energy sources is making a comeback.

Across the USA, power plants are turning to wood to make electricity.
The move is spurred by state mandates to encourage renewable power and
by bills moving through Congress that require more renewable electricity
nationwide.

Wood power's rise is "meteoric," says William Perritt, editor of Wood
Biomass Market Report. One wood-burning plant started up in 2007, seven
in 2008 and a dozen in 2009, he says".

There is considerable interest in growing Willow as a source of heat
energy with regular harvesting of saplings followed by rapid regrowth
and multiplication from the living crown. There is no need to grow
large trees for large split logs over several decades. I believe the
willow is chopped and used in pelleted form with screw-fed automatic
boilers much like commercially available, compressed sawdust pellets.
Our own Willow cuttings planted as an ornamental hedge are multi-
stemmed and over ten metres high after only a few short years.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:28:32 -0500, "S. Caro" wrote:

The United Nations (Home of the IPCC) isn't very happy about beef production.

Yes, it's a problem on multiple fronts. The solution is similar to that
for fossil fuels: tax beef production to reflect its true cost. There's
no need to tell people what they can or cannot eat; if beef cost $15 per
pound, consumption would drop to sustainable levels.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 14, 8:36*pm, "S. Caro" wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
if beef cost $15 per
pound, consumption would drop to sustainable levels.

Of course it would.. *The wealthy elite, (like Al Gore and Michael Moore)
could continue to fatten up on cheese burgers, and the President could
keep serving $100 per lb Kobe beef at his functions while the poor folk
grew leaner eating turnips.

How many farmers and auxiliary industries (like beef processors)
would go out of business if beef were $15 per Lb? * What effect would that
have on the economy? *(Not just the US but the world economy).

I say again... *The average American (or world citizen) has NO idea
what's coming down the pike and what they will ultimately have to sacrifice
in order to "stop" global warming.

If they did, they might show more interested in the growing evidence that
AGW has not only stopped, but is in retreat.

How's your Danish? As bad as your science?
Then just look at the pictures. Comic style. ;-)

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/jordens_store_...varmere_verden

On Oct 14, 8:00*pm, "S. Caro" wrote:
Chris.B wrote:
How's your Danish? As bad as your science?
Then just look at the pictures. Comic style. ;-)

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/jordens_store_...varmere_verden

My science? * I'm looking at established science from credible
sources. *Credible sources like those used by the IPCC.

Here's a set of recent graphs from the Hadley Climatic Research
Unit. *These graphs shows the average world temperature. * *

Note the downward hook at the end of all the graphs.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif

This downward trend is occurring despite the fact that CO2
continues to rise. *The unproven computer models don't seem
to be working out.

I'll throw in a BBC article if you're interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

.

You might read what the UK Met office has to say
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec.../slowdown.html

The first paragraph reads

… trends over the past 10 years show only a 0.07 °C increase in global
average temperature. Although this is only a small increase, it
indicates that there has been no global cooling over this period. In
fact, over the past decade, most years have remained much closer to
the record global average temperature reached in 1998 than to
temperatures before the 1970s. All the years from 2000 to 2008 have
been in the top 14 warmest years on record.


Several key points: 1) The last ten years have shown a 0.07 °C
INCREASE NOT COOLING. 2) the eight year period 2000-2008 have been in
the top 14 warmest years on record.

The BBC reporter who wrote the story (Paul Hudson) cann't even copy
word for word what he claims is a UK Met Office report.

On Oct 14, 8:00*pm, "S. Caro" wrote:
Chris.B wrote:
How's your Danish? As bad as your science?
Then just look at the pictures. Comic style. ;-)

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/jordens_store_...varmere_verden

My science? * I'm looking at established science from credible
sources. *Credible sources like those used by the IPCC.

Here's a set of recent graphs from the Hadley Climatic Research
Unit. *These graphs shows the average world temperature. * *

Note the downward hook at the end of all the graphs.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif

This downward trend is occurring despite the fact that CO2
continues to rise. *The unproven computer models don't seem
to be working out.

I'll throw in a BBC article if you're interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

.

At least try to learn how to read graphs.

On Oct 14, 4:15*pm, "Ed Holden" wrote:
wrote:

Most people use some sort of fossil fuel to keep warm, because they don't have
their own personal source of renewable energy.

Funny irony: *Last month I received a letter from the government, offering to pay up
to $3,000 to switch my electric heating to natural gas heating, as they said gas is
less carbon-intensive than coal, wood, or electric heating. *The irony is that I buy
my electricity from a supplier that generates energy using 100% renewables...

Ya, I got mine[1] this morning. Replace my silent, efficient,
maintenance-free panel heaters with a noisy, CO and CO2-producing
apparatus that requires annual servicing? Ya right. Mind, only 3% of
my energy is non-fossil. Maybe I switch to green energy supplier and
stay maintenance-free, yes?


[1] http://www.npower.com/web/fuelswitching/index.htm

On Oct 17, 7:45*pm, Linus Das wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:15*pm, "Ed Holden" wrote:

wrote:

Most people use some sort of fossil fuel to keep warm, because they don't have
their own personal source of renewable energy.

Funny irony: *Last month I received a letter from the government, offering to pay up
to $3,000 to switch my electric heating to natural gas heating, as they said gas is
less carbon-intensive than coal, wood, or electric heating. *The irony is that I buy
my electricity from a supplier that generates energy using 100% renewables...

Ya, I got mine[1] this morning. Replace my silent, efficient,
maintenance-free panel heaters with a noisy, CO and CO2-producing
apparatus that requires annual servicing? *Ya right. Mind, only 3% of
my energy is non-fossil. Maybe I switch to green energy supplier and
stay maintenance-free, yes?

[1]http://www.npower.com/web/fuelswitching/index.htm

The reason you are getting these solicitations linking carbon dioxide
with global temperature levels is due to the absence of
astronomers,nothing more or less.

The job of an astronomer is not just to make sense of celestial
observations as we look out into the celestial arena and as these
observations from a moving Earth apply to solar system structure or
something larger but also apply planetary dynamics to terrestrial
effects and unfortunately this is not happening.There is even a
severe aversion to the normal relationship between daily rotation and
orbital motion as it applies to the current seasonal temperature drop
seen in place like New England as 'tilt' does not cause the seasons
but rather a simple additional orbital specific which can be
demonstrated easily and observed dramatically (Uranus) satisfies the
difference between seasonal weather patterns and global climate which
encompasses it.

It is extremely agonizing to see people actually gloat that they can
simply ignore the two basic motions which are responsible for not just
the daylight/darkness cycle but also variations in daylight/darkness
that follow seasonal temperature drops so they can discuss global
climate from the point of view of what comes out of a chimney or a
tailpipe instead of the magnificent astronomical principles which
create global climate in the first place.