Climate Solutions Discussion

This is from a discussion on the now defunct collide-a-scape blog

Michael Tobis is a warmist with some solutions to offer that I think are worse than the problem, even if I believed in AGW.   Gary explains why he disagrees with those solutions

#41; Michael Tobis Says:
39 [answering a question by Tom Fuller] – What good are you doing? (the broad brush)

“My objective is to increase understanding in the hopes that people will get serious about developing a policy.

As for the rest of it, my expectation is about even split (30%/30%) between total disaster and nuclear power, with a smaller slice for solar supplemented by wind, another one for sequestration and coal, and still a shred of hope for space-based solar, or possibly some combination. My preferred policy is to ramp up a carbon tax at the mine or well, starting small and increasing rapidly, including a negative tax for sequestration, until we get to zero, and let the market prevail. But I am not expert enough in those things to advocate for any of them. I just want people to understand the problem….”

#47: GaryM Says:
My preferred policy is to ramp up a carbon tax at the mine or well, starting small and increasing rapidly, including a negative tax for sequestration, until we get to zero, and let the market prevail.”

That kind of statement just makes me want to pound my head on the desk. When the government taxes a central segment of the economy into oblivion, that is not a market, free or otherwise. Let me paraphrase MT’s comment: Let’s destroy the energy economy as we know it and hope for the best. Screw the billions mired in poverty who will never get out of it, let alone the billions more who will almost certainly join them. Nobody on the face of this Earth has a clue as to what the consequences of such a policy would be.

#50: GaryM Says:
Want some answers to the mitigation and adaptation issues that won’t destroy the economy? Here’s an idiot’s guide to conservative climate solutions:

1) Get the government out of the way of nuclear power;
2) Stop government subsidies of ethanol;
3) Stop government subsidies of all energy products (including oil), leaving only the same tax relief available for other industries;
4) Stop the government from blocking drilling with proper environmental protections (we just aren’t going to get rid of oil in the next 20 years, so the less money poured down the toilet on expensive, dangerous drilling, the more available to search for alternatives);
5) Stop the government moratorium on building new refineries;
6) Stop government subsidies of pseudo-government boondoggles like the new $48,500 Government Motors Volt;
7) Get the government’s boot off the neck of the economy, in the form of the massive new transfer payments and unfunded liabilities, so that industry can invest in the technologies we will need in the future.
(See a pattern here?)

The last point may be the most important. Solutions to the energy and climate issues of the future will not come from the government directing research dollars to favored recipients/technologies. They will come from the same place as the vast majority of innovation in other industries. Private investment, by multitudes of researchers each following their own instincts, funded by investors who lose if their products do not prove successful. It works in technology, pharmaceuticals, almost any industry where it is allowed. It will work with energy. The only question is when the government will get out of the way.

Meanwhile, global warming is still ‘paused.’


MIT Scientists Confirm Antarctica Is Cooling – ‘Antarctica has cooled and has gained some ice recently’

Abstract excerpt: ‘The eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and Patagonia . Moreover, sea-ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased.’

Analysis: ‘What we seem to be left with is a paper that uses computer simulations to find that global warming has managed to cool Antarctica, and lead to an increase in sea ice there. This is despite the fact that, according to the IPCC, the vast majority of models predict the opposite.’

Here is a list of 29 excuses so far for the 18 year pause.

It might last 30 years.  Or it might not, because nobody really knows why there is a pause, which indicates something about the models is fundamentally wrong since there predictions, once measured against reality, always lose to reality.

These excuses are a good illustrtion of why we should not let these people put forward economy destroying solutions- which is what almost all their solutions are- a way to make life harder for poorer people, a way to keep the poor in poverty, a way to make life in general work less well than it does without them, a way to put a regulatory stranglehold on all of us without any real world perceived benefit (imagining that they are stopping global warming is an imagined benefit, not a real one).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Amazon: Buy our Kindle Books

  • Search Amazon

    Try Audible and Get Two Free Audiobooks

  • Brainy Fridays Recommends:

  • Search: