The Social “Cost” of Carbon is Positive

Letter to the editor, by Viv Forbes

smokestack-dollars1

Obligatory smokestack image from ARStechnica

Dear Editor,

Nothing better illustrates the stupidity and evil intent of Green philosophy than their promotion of a mythical guestimate called the “social cost of carbon” (SCC).

They use this bureaucratic weapon to demonise the fabulous fossil fuels that deliver food, heat, light and power to the modern world.

Let’s consider life before coal, oil and gas were harnessed.

There was no steel and no cars, tractors, trucks, trains, planes or electric power. It was a world of sulkies, sailing boats and sun-dried food. Hunters used bows and spears, farmers used oxen and wooden ploughs and threshed grain with wooden flails. Half of all crops grown went to feed draft animals. Forests surrounding towns were felled for firewood, charcoal, shingles, houses, ships, wagons and bridges. Whalers scoured the oceans to produce whale oil for lamps, and dung was collected for fuel. For most people, life was one of hunger and toil.

Fossil fuels changed all this and also brought many other social benefits.

Greens seem unaware that “carbon” coming from man-made CO2 is beneficial plant food supporting all life on Earth including polar bears, cane toads, prickly pear, rain forests and wheat.

Moreover, in those countries which use the most hydro-carbons (such as USA, UK and Australia) we see prosperous people, trees protected, whales revered, arts thriving, cleaner air and water, and agriculture producing more food and oxygen from less land.

The SCC is a fraud – carbon fuels have produced immense social benefits and will continue to do so.


vforbes@clexit.net
Rosevale   Qld Australia

Advertisements

124 thoughts on “The Social “Cost” of Carbon is Positive

    • I got that too. If the social cost is “positive”, there’s a real cost to additiona CO2. A “negative” cost on the other hand, implies a net benefit from increased CO2.
      I suppose when Anthony Watts wrote “positive” he was thinking of the positive benefits from added CO2 rather than thinking mathematically.

      • Depends on how you look at the concept, whether you are a buyer or a seller, ask any hooker, they’ll tell you the social cost of carbon(based man) is definitely positive.

      • CO 2 levels in various circumstances:
        40,000 ppm – exhaled breath of normal healthy people
        8,000 ppm – standard concentration in US submarines
        2,500 ppm – level in small hot crowded bar
        1,000 – 2,000 ppm – historical norms for earth’s atmosphere over past 550 million years
        1,000 ppm – average level in lecture hall or auditorium
        1,000 – 2,000 ppm preferred level plant growers like for their greenhouses
        150 ppm – level below which plants die
        Winery workers have died from asphyxiation in fermentation vats unflushed of 100 pct .CO2
        No idea at what level it becomes dangerous. At 50,000 ppm it would be 5 pct of the atmosphere. It is not toxic like carbon monoxide
        “A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness (NIOSH 1996; Tox. Review 2005). Additionally, acute toxicity data show the lethal concentration low (LCLo) for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes (NIOSH 1996).”

        https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf

      • @Tom Andersen
        200PPM Plant growth Stasis the point at which the biosphere can’t expand.
        40,000 PPM is the CO2 we breathe out AND therefore apply in CPR

        I Think the toxic level of CO2 may well have a lot to do with the oxygen level,, if 9% CO2 is removed only from the Oxygen concentration then I’d imagine it would be quite toxic, however in the case where the CO2 replaces Nitrogen I am not so sure.

      • the main thing is that you accept, uncritically, the notion of a ‘social cost’.
        once you do you’ll be ripe for all kinds of pluckin’

      • CO2 at high concentration lowers to ph of blood and can cause rapid loss of consciousness and death. The gas is heavy and can pool in fermenters, mine shafts and caves. When a person descends into this invisible layer it takes as little as three breaths to lose consciousness.

        [??? This is because the CO2 in closed spaces at such high levels as you describe displaces oxygen, NOT because the CO2 is inherently or intrinsically poisonous. (CO IS poisonous at low levels!) But that is at CO2 “levels” of 10+% (to lower oxygen levels from 20% to below the 8-10% needed for consciousness.) This is equivalent to raising CO2 from its current 400 ppm to 100,000 ppm. Which cannot be done for this planet’s atmosphere. .mod]

      • Welcome to the Canberra Royal Association of Pedants (CRAP). Or do I mean the Canberra Association of Royal Pedants (CARP) ?

        You know what she meant. Stop it with the pedantry & get on with constructive comments.

      • brians356 December 22, 2016 at 1:56 pm

        That’s right, thanks God. …

        I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about the headline.

        The Social “Cost” of Carbon is Positive

        In double-entry accounting, if a cost is positive, that means the total cost increases. link

    • brian356,

      You missed the ” ” around the word cost.

      The social “cost” of carbon is positive. “Cost” (with quotes) meaning benefit.

      The social benefit of carbon is positive.

      Picture the monkeys in the trees taking turns picking the lice/nits off each other. brian356 scrambles up the tree and ambles across the branch; and the monkeys turn to him “No thanks Bri, we don’t want your help, you are not very good at it.”

    • Well the social costs are positive; the economic costs are something else.

      Most sane people believe CO2 is a net benefit; in that it enables us to continue living on planet earth.

      The financial or economic cost is perhaps debatable.

      G

  1. You can calculate the social cost of carbon using the EPA method:

    1. Pick a number, not so small as to be irrelevant and large enough to justify collecting the money to subsidise boondoggles that have a net negative return on energy: $35.00 per ton of CO2 (the SCC)
    2. Estimate the number of tons of CO2 emitted from all sources (not just fossil fuels, everything).
    3. Multiply the $ amount by the number of tons to see if it is a large number. Round it to the nearest $250 billion.
    4. Ignore all beneficial results of the application of the energy produced by releasing that CO2.
    5. Check with aspirant recipients to see if ‘this will be enough’ to run the world of development and wealth transfer to bring the entire global population to a reasonable Gini Coefficient. Adjust Step 1 as necessary.
    6. Publish the SCC attended by reams of commentary.
    7. Suppress all discussion of the social benefits of carbon (SBC).
    8. Declare the debate is over.

    • Crispin,,, I believe you are entirely correct. The Progressives first determined what the SCC of carbon needed to be to achieve the objective they desired. Then they proceeded to fiddle with the numbers and parameters until their calculation gave them the number they wanted. There really was nothing more to it than that. Just like it appears for any rational assessment of mainstream climate scientists. They have already decided what the minimum number for the CO2 feedback parameter is. Now the goal is to find plausible mechanisms and institute a multitude of adjustments to the data so they can at least get to the minimum desired CO2 feedback (which is >3C per doubling) and preferably even higher.

    • Well Crispin, think you’re right.

      But you won’t await the politicians we vote for working through the 9 points list you introduce, will you.

      It all depends on the state’s secretaries we already have; and their willingness ‘to switch’ to the ‘new agenda’.

  2. Consider one fat target of Scott Pruitt, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This mandates an increasing percentage of renewable fuel (ethanol) in gasoline, impossibly high (according to the GSA) targets in fact by 2022. It’s why EPA are ramming E15 and E85 down our throats. But RFS will be almost impossible to repeal since it was actually created by Congress as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That’s right, under George W. Bush! (Here, let me help you stand back up again.) And then consider how many Republican senators from Big Corn states would have to vote against their constituencies in order to kill it. And Trump promised not to scuttle RFS when he campaigned in the Midwest, but we weren’t paying attention.

    • Former Indiana farm boy here, and relative to several current Indiana farmers.

      What makes you thing we weren’t paying attention to what Trump promised? Or did you forget that the ‘Rust Belt’ and the ‘Corn Belt’ overlap?

      ^_^

      • I’m sure you were paying attention. Now tell your relatives to get their hands out of my pockets.

  3. Until humans are made of something OTHER than hydrocarbons, I shall consider the “social cost” of carbon to be completely positive!

  4. I think the idea is like Vitamin A. A little is good, too much will kill you, however nobody knows how much CO2 in the atmosphere is ‘too much’ before it starts to become a net negative, 350ppm? 1,000ppm? 25,000ppm?.

    There isn’t enough verifiable evidence to make a conclusion, however life on earth has apparently thrived at around 1000-2000ppm CO2.

    It’s also a very typical case of lack of proportion within academic research; those whose job is too monitor the health of markets and people sometimes inflate their field out of all proportion to its’ relevance. This is a common problem within academic research. Research is both a competitive and sometimes political game, and balance is not one of its strong points.

    The idea that carbon has a significant social cost is basically a theory, until more evidence comes in on exactly if and when it becomes dangerous.

    • Oh it is way less than a theory. It is a quasi-religious pseudo-scientific tenet. It isn’t even based on science, though it pretends to be.

    • The SCC is an enforcement method a way to edict that certain companies be given an advantage over others, sort of like affirmative action for energy. Take a look at what Affirmative action does for majorities and you see what SCC will do for energy. Both achieve getting “less for more” as the PC options get chosen over the best option. Look at the total failure of Ivanpah 16 square km of environmental destruction and 2.2Bn for under 1/3rd the power generation capacity of just one Boeing 777.

      • bobl, a GE90 produces 75 MW of power, so the two engines on the 777 will produce 150 MW. Ivanpah is rated at 392 MW. So in fact you would need two and a half 777’s to equal the power of Ivanpah. You are incorrect to say Ivanpah generates 1/3rd the power of a 777

      • Richard,
        What does Ivanpah ACTUALLY generate, as opposed to what it is “rated” at? Let us know when you have that data.

      • Nope. A 777 produces rated power for the duration of,its fuel capacity. Ivanpah produces rated power for a few hours at cloudless mid-day. Hence it is consuming 4x the originallynpermitted natural gas boiler heat in the morning, and with that producing only~2/3 of contracted output.
        If Ivanpah were a jet airplane with you on it, you would be dead already.

      • I fly from Brisbane, Australia, to LAX every year in a Virgin 777. 14 hours in the dark of night and the 777 never looked stopping.

      • ristvan, you seem to misunderstand the difference between “power” as measured in watts, and “energy” which is measured in watts multiplied by time. When you say: “produces rated power for the duration of,its fuel capacity” you are incorrect. The GE90 is operated with throttle, and is not running at full power at all times.
        .
        Paul, July 2016: 98,849 MWh which works out to 132 MW per hour for 744 hours (31×24).
        http://helioscsp.com/ivanpah-concentrated-solar-thermal-power-sets-record/

      • ristvan, do the math. July 2016 98,849 MWh. The plant is rated at 320 MW. So, the plant produced 3188 MWh per day in July which has 31 days. If you divide 3188 by 320, it looks like every day in July was cloudless, and the plant was running at full power output for just under 10 hours.

      • @ Richard B
        If Ivanpah were a conventional gas plant with a name plate of 320MW, in that same month it could have been expected to generate 238,080 MWh. Who in their right mind invests in capital equipment that’s productive only 50% of the time, or less? Not to mention that based on the natural gas it burns, if it were a more conventional power plant it would be required to participate in California’s cap and trade scam; I mean, scheme.

      • Both of these aircraft use the latest, greatest high tech fiber composites and avionics.
        One uses the best available solar power tech.
        The other uses the best available hydrocarbon power tech.
        Which one of these is a commercial economic success?
        Which one is just a novelty toy?

        Solar Impulse 2

        Boeing 787

      • “Richard Baguley December 22, 2016 at 3:13 pm”

        Multiple false representations, analogies, comparisons and just plain bafflegab.

        New England July 2015 wholesale cost of electricity, (some of the highest rates in the country), $0.02KWh
        Ivanpah: SEC filings and FERC reports: $0.162KWh

        Ivanpah’s electricity during the plant’s most productive time of the year is eight times nuclear and fossil fuel electricity costs.

        All for $2.2 billion of Federal loan guarantees and tax credits.

        Built upon 4300 acres of land with another 7,000 acres of land for ‘mitigation’.
        Uses 100 Acre feet of water per year.
        Fried a known 535 birds during a five month period 10/29/2013 – 3/21/2014;
        –though this amount is not official as there is not a serious data tracking effort for wildlife kills.
        –Note that this is winter in a stark desert environment where wildlife is not abundant.

        Requires significant use of Natural Gas, a number that is difficult to establish.

        “But Ivanpah uses natural gas as a supplementary fuel, and data from the California Energy Commission show the plant burned enough of it in 2014 – its first year of operation – to emit more than 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

        That’s nearly twice the pollution threshold at which power plants and factories in California are required to participate in the state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions.

        The same amount of natural gas burned at a conventional power plant would have produced enough electricity to meet the annual needs of 17,000 California homes – roughly a quarter of the Ivanpah plant’s total electricity projection for 2014.”

        Ivanpah, now appears to be burning twice the natural gas used in 2014.

        “Under state law, alternative energy plants can’t use more than 5 percent “nonrenewable” fuel for electricity generation. If a plant goes over that threshold, its electricity can’t count toward the state’s renewable energy goals.

        In California, utilities must get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and 50 percent by 2030.

        Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric apply the amount of electricity they buy from Ivanpah toward their alternative energy quotas.

        On Wednesday, Michael Ward, a spokesman for the state energy commission, said electricity produced at Ivanpah still appears to qualify as renewable energy because natural gas burned at night to maintain the system “does not count against the facility’s fossil fuel allowance of 5 percent.”

        Isn’t it amazing how laws just fall away for those in the green environment cozy companies?
        No fines or jail time for killing protected birds.
        No fines or jail time for missing, assumed dead desert tortoises that were living where Ivanpah is now.
        No fines or honesty for Ivanpah’s constant direct reliance on fossil fuels; not forgetting Ivanpah’s constant reliance on indirect fossil fuel energy backup electrical generation.
        And California’s biased tracking of fossil fuel use by green energy sources, a lie from all other viewpoints.

        Honesty, that is lacking in virtually all the CAGW and green blob ventures.

        As far as value and the $.02 per KWh griffiepoo is always whining about:

        “The 2200 million dollars per 120 million watts represents an 18 dollars per watt ($/W) investment. By way of comparison, another nonpolluting source of electricity, nuclear power plant, the Millstone reactor No. 2 in Connecticut, operating at 880 MW since 1975, cost 0.5 $/W, making Ivanpah is thus 36 times more expensive (inflation excluded).

        With about 1000 employees receiving salary and benefits, the annual outlay for that alone is roughly $100 million. Selling the annual 3.8 EJ at the projected 0.028 $/MJ yields $106 million. Ouch — only $6 million is left for other expenses, notably for natural gas whose burning produces 8 percent or more of the total output.

        For comparison again, the Millstone nuclear plant complex employs also about 1000, and its two reactors have been producing 1870 MW actual electrical output. Assuming the same salaries, benefits, and the electricity selling price, the operating expense is 15 times higher at Ivanpah.

        Note that the above two outlays are 35 and 15 times higher, and that this huge discrepancy exists in an industry where a difference of a few percent means the difference between success and bankruptcy. The magnitude of the discrepancy hints also at the reason why the “free” solar electricity is so expensive. [1]

        As for the occupied land comparison, those 120 MW spread over 13 km2 represents 9.2 W/m2. In contrast, ground based nuclear plants produce some 2000 W/m2 thus utilizing the land area some 200 times more effectively. And they can be erected in any climate and in proximity to users.”

        Bad value.
        Bad investment.
        Bad performance.
        Inconvenient and irregular power cycles.
        Inconsistency electrical frequency and power.
        Expensive by all standards.
        Excessive Land requirements.
        Excessive wildlife damage and deaths.
        Requires fossil fuels to run the plant and for plant maintenance.
        A blinding eyesore to all viewers.

        Add to all those negatives, Richard baguley, your reading comprehension issues with ristvan’s excellent correction of your improper attempt at power comparison.

      • “Richard Baguley December 22, 2016 at 3:13 pm”

        Multiple false representations, analogies, comparisons and just plain bafflegab.

        New England July 2015 wholesale cost of electricity, (some of the highest rates in the country), $0.02KWh
        Ivanpah: SEC filings and FERC reports: $0.162KWh

        Ivanpah’s electricity during the plant’s most productive time of the year is eight times nuclear and fossil fuel electricity costs.

        All for $2.2 billion of Federal loan guarantees and tax credits.

        Built upon 4300 acres of land with another 7,000 acres of land for ‘mitigation’.
        Uses 100 Acre feet of water per year.
        Fried a known 535 birds during a five month period 10/29/2013 – 3/21/2014;
        –though this amount is not official as there is not a serious data tracking effort for wildlife kills.
        –Note that this is winter in a stark desert environment where wildlife is not abundant.

        Requires significant use of Natural Gas, a number that is difficult to establish.

        “But Ivanpah uses natural gas as a supplementary fuel, and data from the California Energy Commission show the plant burned enough of it in 2014 – its first year of operation – to emit more than 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

        That’s nearly twice the pollution threshold at which power plants and factories in California are required to participate in the state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions.

        The same amount of natural gas burned at a conventional power plant would have produced enough electricity to meet the annual needs of 17,000 California homes – roughly a quarter of the Ivanpah plant’s total electricity projection for 2014.”

        Ivanpah, now appears to be burning twice the natural gas used in 2014.

        “Under state law, alternative energy plants can’t use more than 5 percent “nonrenewable” fuel for electricity generation. If a plant goes over that threshold, its electricity can’t count toward the state’s renewable energy goals.

        In California, utilities must get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and 50 percent by 2030.

        Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric apply the amount of electricity they buy from Ivanpah toward their alternative energy quotas.

        On Wednesday, Michael Ward, a spokesman for the state energy commission, said electricity produced at Ivanpah still appears to qualify as renewable energy because natural gas burned at night to maintain the system “does not count against the facility’s fossil fuel allowance of 5 percent.”

        Isn’t it amazing how laws just fall away for those in the green environment cozy companies?
        No fines or jail time for killing protected birds.
        No fines or jail time for missing, assumed dead desert tortoises that were living where Ivanpah is now.
        No fines or honesty for Ivanpah’s constant direct reliance on fossil fuels; not forgetting Ivanpah’s constant reliance on indirect fossil fuel energy backup electrical generation.
        And California’s biased tracking of fossil fuel use by green energy sources, a lie from all other viewpoints.

        Honesty, that is lacking in virtually all the CAGW and green blob ventures.

        As far as value and the $.02 per KWh griffiepoo is always whining about:

        “The 2200 million dollars per 120 million watts represents an 18 dollars per watt ($/W) investment. By way of comparison, another nonpolluting source of electricity, nuclear power plant, the Millstone reactor No. 2 in Connecticut, operating at 880 MW since 1975, cost 0.5 $/W, making Ivanpah is thus 36 times more expensive (inflation excluded).

        With about 1000 employees receiving salary and benefits, the annual outlay for that alone is roughly $100 million. Selling the annual 3.8 EJ at the projected 0.028 $/MJ yields $106 million. Ouch — only $6 million is left for other expenses, notably for natural gas whose burning produces 8 percent or more of the total output.

        For comparison again, the Millstone nuclear plant complex employs also about 1000, and its two reactors have been producing 1870 MW actual electrical output. Assuming the same salaries, benefits, and the electricity selling price, the operating expense is 15 times higher at Ivanpah.

        Note that the above two outlays are 35 and 15 times higher, and that this huge discrepancy exists in an industry where a difference of a few percent means the difference between success and bankruptcy. The magnitude of the discrepancy hints also at the reason why the “free” solar electricity is so expensive. [1]

        As for the occupied land comparison, those 120 MW spread over 13 km2 represents 9.2 W/m2. In contrast, ground based nuclear plants produce some 2000 W/m2 thus utilizing the land area some 200 times more effectively. And they can be erected in any climate and in proximity to users.”

        Bad value.
        Bad investment.
        Bad performance.
        Inconvenient and irregular power cycles.
        Inconsistency electrical frequency and power.
        Expensive by all standards.
        Excessive Land requirements.
        Excessive wildlife damage and deaths.
        Requires fossil fuels to run the plant and for plant maintenance.
        A blinding eyesore to all viewers.

        Add to all those negatives, Richard baguley, your reading comprehension issues with ristvan’s excellent correction of your improper attempt at power comparison.

    • once you accept, uncritically, the notion of a ‘social cost
      then your social scientists will show how from that derives ‘social sin’
      and then meet your new god
      omniscient, omnipotent and merciful provider of all authorized needs.
      for you are but a mere cell in the organism – and not one of the braincells.
      be grateful Society suffered you to live, eater.

  5. It’s what modern civilization is based upon. If it we’re up to environmentalists, we’d be living to twenty-five and would have never discovered fire. Or evolved thumbs.

    • Not true about the thumbs. You need opposable thumbs to effectively attack a Mastodon with a spear, or scrawl on cave walls. We will be allowed to keep ’em.

      • Oh no you don’t. You won’t be allowed to make tools in the new Green Utopia. If you want to eat mastodon, you will have to wait for it to die of old age.

      • Are mastodons coming back from extinction? Also, you don’t need to wait for one to die of old age…just herd it off a cliff. :)

  6. The social costs of CO2 are all the money that has been spend on harebrained schemes like windmills and solar thermal. The money spent on these things could actually have been spent on something useful to people, instead of restricting the action and options and opportunities of people.

    And what are the costs of treating the poor people who have been driven insane with fear by these false claims of human-caused global warming/climate change. That’s got to be a huge amount of money.

  7. Of course the social cost of ‘carbon’ is positive. It is hugely positive.

    Everything we have (and take for granted) in the developed world has been built on the back of ‘carbon’. It is why we are not toiling in the fields 17 hours a day 6.5 days a week, why we do not die in our late 30s/early 40s, why women rarely die in childbirth, and why there is no longer high rates of infant mortality etc..

    One only has to carry out the most cursory comparison of life in a developed world country and compare it to the poor undeveloped world countries to see what a huge positive is brought about by ‘carbon’

      • Hence the desire to avoid the difficult cost vs benefit analysis. The benefits are real, measureable, and critically important to the vast majority of voters. The costs are buried in theoretical possibilities, and require ad hominem attacks on any, that question the faith.
        Not the analysis you want to have, if you have already determined the solution, and you are trying to create a problem that the “Intergovernmental community” can address.

  8. The CO2 level on nuclear submarines is between 2,500-5,000 ppm with no medical detriment. Relax, people.

    • I would double that. 1,500ppm (0.15%) was the average for the late Phanerozoic. It fed lots of dinosaurs.

    • Maybe in part – but fossil CO2 delivers tremendous social gains as well…

      Or does the production of enough food or the greening of Earth not count as a social gain?

      Not to speek of the fact that every carbon atom our body was in a CO2 molecule before it went into the biochemical cycle of life. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better…

      • Sorry – the last sentence should be:

        Not to speek of the fact that every carbon atom IN our body was in a CO2 molecule before it went into the biochemical cycle of life. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better…

    • send me the bill. i want mr social’s address so i can send him a bigger one.
      i suspect it’s the same address where you get 60 virgins.

    • private benefit
      ===========
      what about public (social) benefit? or does society only have costs without benefits? surely if the health and wealth of society in aggregate is improved, then this is a social benefit.

      there is a saying, you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. everything in life is like this. It has positive and negative aspects. antibiotics for example. they have saved many lives, but every now and then they kill someone. should we only look at the people killed by antibiotics and ignore the very large number saved?

    • Viv Forbes mixes up the private benefit with the social cost.

      There is no specific mention in the article of the doubling of life expectancy. That is a social benefit.

  9. Through the benefit of Co2 I just notice this on yahoo.news: Mann — known for the famous “hockey stick” graph showing that modern climate change is unprecedented in human history — by making false claims about his work, and comparing him to a notorious child molester. ” A prominent climate scientist just won a major court battle” https://www.yahoo.com/tech/m/405b8d2f-e952-3c6e-a08f-f160a70aaed6/a-prominent-climate-scientist.html
    I just bought a nice Hockey Stick mug from Mark Steyn.

    • Is Mann Article has lots of spin in it, but,one thing is for sure… Whether the claims are false will now be subject to evidentiary examination in the lower court trial. The ‘major victory’ is the court saying… ‘Maybe there is, maybe there is not a case. We do not know. So, go litigate it’.

      • And, as to the defamation claim… How is comparing Mann to Sandusky any different than comparing Trump to Hitler?

    • I was under the impression that Mann was trying to delay things to prevent discovery. Why would he do something that would essentially obligate him to proceed with a trial? I guess I’m confused.

  10. No steel? Well, we have a great many uses for coal and steel making is one, but we made steel long before there was any systematic use of coke in steel production.

    • Um no, you are wrong, Steel is an alloy of Iron and carbon, so the carbon bit is somewhat essential, what you are thinking is iron production is still possible without coke, but iron is far less useful than steel.

      • Bobl, all steel is a lower carbon form of iron. High carbon steels are still less than or equal to 6% C. The carbon content was not inherent in the iron ore. It entered via the smelting oxide reduction process of iron ore (mainly Fe2O3) to iron (mainly Fe).

      • Modern steels are usually less than 1% carbon. Coke is still used in the steel making process but it’s purpose is to increase the temperature of the melt, usually in a BOF (Basic Oxygen Furnace).

    • Yes. We made little bits of steel from iron in Europe, Arabia, and Japan using charcoal and much hammering since the middle ages. Enough for swords and armor. Not enough for anything else until Henry Bessemer came along with his Bessemer converter invention (precursor to modern blast furnaces), and then Andrew Carnegie put the new steel industry based on Bessemer’s invention on a sound industrial basis.

    • Didn’t early blacksmiths use coke? Either made from coal, or else made from the partial burning of wood.

  11. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are so dramatically beneficial that Scientific American once, long ago, called anthropogenic carbon dioxide the “precious air fertilizer.” From this photograph in their article, it’s easy to see why:

    CO2Science.org has compiled a massive database of scientific studies, showing the extent to which extra CO2 benefits various plants:
    http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

    America’s most illustrious living scientist, Freeman Dyson, has said that “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.” In private email, he agreed with me that that’s a conservative estimate.

    • daveburton-

      “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere.”

      That is a useful starting point to calculate one component of the social benefit of carbon. Assuming that corresponds to 15% of the food that feeds about 7.4 Billion people, anthro carbon emissions are keeping 1.11 billion people alive. Using EPA’s estimate of the value of a human life at $9.7 Million, that comes to $1.067 x 10^16, or $10,670 Trillion!

      Spread over an 80 year life expectancy, that gives $133 Trillion per year.

      In other words, the Social Benefit of Carbon (SBC) is at least $133 Trillion per year.

      In 2015, the global CO2 emissions were about 36.3 GTonnes.

      That gives an SBC of $3664 per tonne CO2, roughly 100 times larger than the estimated SCC of $36/tonne.

      • You’re right, there are upper limits to this, it can’t simply go up and up to bring more plant growth. Limits on soil moisture, other nutrients, stomate size, all slow CO2 uptake. I used to study this in my agriculture degree, we had sealed glasshouses, we calibrated CO2, to O2, temperature, species, stomate number, size, water uptake.

  12. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. But even is climate change could be stopped by reducing our adding of CO2 to the atmosphere, such would have no effect upon extreme weather events because extreme weather events are part of our current climate. There is no know human survivable climate under which extreme weather events will not happen. Sea level rise is part of our current climate as it has been over most of the Holocene for the past 10k years. The beginning of the next ice age will cause sea levels to lower as new ice sheets form on land. In the past ice ages have happened when CO2 levels were much higher than today.

  13. Whenever I see the word evil used like this I know the person using it is a kook. Either a religious, ideological or philosophical but a kook all the same. This one is a particular breed of mining industry kook.

    • “Whenever I see the word evil used like this I know the person using it is a kook.”

      Because . ? . . No one ever fakes good intent? How old are you?

    • Tony Mcleod
      So you are anti-mining. Think about that. It’s very high school, or high school teacher. Did you know that mankind’s use of minerals, rocks and metals is so strongly associated with our evolution and development that we name these periods after them: paleolithic (lithic means rock/mineral material ), neolithic, copper-bronze age, iron age. The only way we can identify early man’s activities is by artifacts of such materials. If a beaver building a dam is instinctive, then mankind working earth materials is arguably instinctive too and essential for survival.

      I always tell anti mining types to look out the window at a city street and also consider the window glass too. Wooden products are also cut, sanded, painted, nailed… Everything we eat wear or use has required minerals and metals in its making and usage. Only kooks are anti mining.

      • Not against mining Gary and not all miners are kooks, just ones who think those who disagree are “evil”.
        What kind of evil is he talking about? Demonic, biblical evil, spawn of satan evil? Only nutters talk like that.

  14. CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.

    What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
    A sinister, evil collusion?
    CO2, it is clean,
    Makes for growth, makes it green,
    A transfer of wealth, a solution.

    Let me first state I am serious about this Limerick. It is not even tongue in cheek. I am an engineer with a degree in technical physics and look at the earth as a “living” organism that responds to changes in its environment.

    First, the increase in CO2 concentration itself and how nature responds to it.

    Second, the effect it has on the earth’s temperature and all its consequences, and finally

    Third, the acidification of the oceans.

    CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 400 ppm today, and is increasing at a rate of 2 ppm per year. We are way past the point of no return, 350 ppm which would lead to a temperature catastrophe. (1) But instead, something rather interesting is occurring. The earth is getting greener! (2) This 40 % increase in CO2 the last 250 years has led to a more than 30 % increase in agricultural production all by itself without adding fertilizer or using higher yielding seeds. (3) Thanks to this we can now feed an additional two billion people on earth without starvation. The news are so good, that the per capita food production is increasing, even as the population is increasing. (4)

    more https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/

  15. The biggest malfeasance the EPA engaged in WRT their SCC fraud with the use of too low a Discount rate in their assessment of future cost of CO2 emitted today. Standard Accounting practices in by the OMB in their Circular A-94 guidelines dictate a 7% discount rate.

    The best example I tell regular folks comes from the Austin Powers movie where he assumes $1million ransom for the world from destruction is a lot of money. It was (kinda) in 1960’s when he was frozen, but by 1999, it was not much due to high inflation in the 70’s – 80’s. And EPA wants us to believe their 3.5% discount rate in the SCC is realistic.

    I can imagine Gina McCarthy freezing herself and then coming back, finding herself in 2100 CE, telling the then world that a $Trillion carbon damage is a massive amount of “carbon pollution” damage. By then it won’t be. By 2100 CE, $1Trillion will be worth about $120 Billion in today’s dollars at a 7% discount rate.

    • Also made a stupid mental math error.
      In 2100 CE (~80years) $1Trillion (then) at a 7% annual discount rate reduces to 1/(2^8) in present value or about $4Billion in today’s value.

  16. It is hard to deny the benefits of adding CO2 to our current atmosphere.
    But the “social cost” of carbon is a work of the “math is hard” crew, where predetermined conclusions will be reinforced by whatever means possible.

    We in the “West” live as Gods compared to our great grandparents.
    The social gains from modern energy forms are pretty hard to describe as “socially negative” unless you have a very depraved model of society.
    And so far the only measured consequence of liberating more CO2 into the air… better plant growth in the marginal regions..what a calamity?

  17. Already to find in the internet:

    Letter: Voice of the North – Tax will have nil effect on cutting emissions.

    Byline: DON HENDERSON

    ARE we being governed by a junta of gibbering idiots, or by a cynical gang grabbing cash to fund their own harebrained schemes?

    A tiny country with all heavy industry long gone, we are to take the lead in combating global warming by not leaving the TV on standby, while China switches on new solid-fuel power stations every month.

  18. The bottom line reform is to mandate that actual cost-benefit analysis be performed. The faux analysis that the climate extremists created with the so called SCC completely overstates the problem and ignores the benefits. The status quo is not rational, scientific or honest.

  19. it would have been better if the headline was something like “There is No Social Cost of Carbon”. Otherwise, she confuses the issue by redefining something that has a long history.

  20. Just from an idiot-first-impression standpoint, I think when people see the word “negative”, they reflexively think “bad”, and so knowing this and being a creative writer, one might opt to use the mathematically incorrect terminology in order to produce the desired first impression in readers.

    Mathematically, the cost is negative, yeah, but that’s a positive thing socially.

    That’s MY two cents added to the cost. (^_^)

  21. This is an ABSURD discussion.

    CO2 is plant food. Every CO2 molecule we put into the atmosphere feeds plants more and more. Plants are the food for animals including humans. Plants produce oxygen. If we could retract the 115ppm of CO2 we’ve put in the atmosphere since 1800 we would not. It would crush plants and starve hundreds of millions of people and animals.

    Amazingly to produce this incredibly beneficial substance we get energy also. This is a win win scenario that’s almost too good to be true. If you are a greenie like me who loves nature and plants and animals then one of the greatest things humans have done for both plants and animals has been to burn fossil fuels.

    Nothing is 100% positive. Yeah, burning carbon does produce some other byproducts which are dangerous. Mining, transporting and processing fossil fuels is dirty and does kill people.

    As to temperature we have a complex situation. It was proposed that the atmosphere has a strongly positive temperature feedback system in which a small input of energy into the atmosphere produces a multiplicative effect that increases the temperature more.

    Let’s assume this is true. Rising temperatures will produce some positive consequences and some negative effects. What specific effects is extremely hard to figure out, how to mitigate those effects is simple in most cases, maybe all. Nobody has really spent any serious time on that. I believe that the effects will be almost entirely positive. Rising energy = more life and higher living standard. Studies have shown over and over that warmer temperatures are healthier. Almost all the negative consequences are trivial or trivial to mitigate.

    Let’s look at one. Originally there was a guess that rising temperatures would trigger bigger storms and more storms. However, storms are something humans have a great ability to mitigate against. A combination of improving warning, better building codes, better transportation, rising wealth has reduced the impact of natural disaster by 99% of literally reduced by a factor of 100 the impact of storms on human life in the last century. In the next century similar rises may produce massive reduction again. The point is that even if storms were twice as often and twice as big the impact in 50 years will be so minimal as to be meaningless. On the other hand what we’ve found upon further examination is that storms are decreasing in both intensity and frequency. So, it really is entirely moot and almost pointless to talk about storms if it were not the case that alarmists keep bringing the stupid subject up again and again.

    Many of the “dangerous consequences” once thought for global warming have been similarly upon further examination found to be less than worrisome.

    So, does this mean that the tempeture of the world is a strongly positive feedback system that small inputs of energy cause the system to spiral upward or downward? The evidence for this is based on the ice ages which shows large variations in temperature from small input changes. However, we really don’t know why the ice ages happen however after pouring 90ppm into the atmosphere since 1945 or 70 years we have seen 0.3C change. It is clear that CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE massive spikes in temperature and it doesn’t seem the temperature is spiraling as predicted. The models are farther and farther off every year from the predicted temperature effectively disproving the theory.

    Therefore, given that the root worry of the only negative impact of co2 is pretty much disproven it means the co2 has been remarkably positive. The real story of co2 is the amazing positive “lucky” story that we have this tool that seems to affect virtually everything in a positive way except some climate religionists who seem to want to commit suicide on the planet.

  22. What is the value of gasoline or fossils fuels versus human-man-hours of labour or the horses and oxen we used to use or the days in the stone age where we walked everywhere.

    For $1 of gas …

    You can move you and your car all the way to the end of this road, in comfort, and over the ridge for another 10 kms. For $1 freaking dollar, which many people make in 1 minute at their cushy desk job.

    Or you can hook this car up to 2 draft horses (and fill you car with water and feed) and spend the next 20 hours getting you care pulled down the road.

    That is how much ENERGY there is the Carbon-Hydrogen molecules of gasoline. It is 1 minute of work for a human versus 20 hours of labour for three large animals (including you) and 5 more hours growing and storing feed and putting your draft horses to bed.

    We would be nothing without fossil fuels. All the forests on Earth would have cut-down for fire wood and all the Whales and Walrus would be gone if it were not for fossil fuels (and you would not be reading this on a computer).

    The ENERGY contained in these ready-made molecules is just so huge.

  23. The Social “Cost” of Carbon is Positive

    Not just positive, WAY positive. Only a complete moron/useful idiot would believe otherwise. Take away all the advantages fossil fuels provide, and you’d go back to humankind before fire was tamed…..

  24. Historically the argument that fossil fuels is beneficial to humankind is indisputable but any arguer about fossil fuels will bring up the basic fallacies of that.

    Today is not the past. While we can say without fossil fuels humankind would never have gotten to where it is we have substitute energy sources today including such things as nuclear and solar etc that produce energy and could replace carbon based fuels.

    Whether to replace carbon sources depends on the cost of the substitutes and the damage of carbon if any. For a short time I actually believed the high feedback theory of global warming but further examination has shown that the theory is false. Totally false. Indisputably false in my opinion. This means the need to rapidly replace our energy system with a non-carbon system is zero.

    On top of that however, is my understanding that CO2 has actually positive consequences TODAY that means even if we can reduce producing co2 there is some argument that we need to keep residual co2 production ability. A reduction in co2 in the atmosphere would have spectacular negative consequences which are not in doubt because we KNOW what those are since we actually experienced them.

    1) Lower co2 in the atmosphere will mean less plant life, lower food productivity and consequently a need to repaidly improve our agriculatural use of GMO plants and animals. CO2 is a natural fertilizer that is riskless.

    2) Lower co2 will mean marginal lower temperatures but probably lower temperatures. Every study has shown reduction in temperatures kills 20 times more than rising temperatures. We will experience massive loss of life if temperatures go down.

    Therefore, we may find that in 20 years if the cost of solar and 5th generation nuclear, wind and other non-co2 producing technologies fall below that of fossil fuel carbon based schemes we will still have to find some way to keep producing CO2 to keep the atmosphere loaded up with this food source and other beneficial properties.

  25. It truly is a social VALUE of carbon. Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., published a paper in October 2013 entitled, “The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production” (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change © 2013, http://www.co2science.org). The increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, from 280 ppm to 400 ppm over the time frame of 1961 to 2011, was responsible for an additional $3.17 trillion into the coffers of the agricultural industry, and with the forecasted increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, an additional $9.76 trillion from 2012 to 2050. That is approximately $13 trillion over 90 years, or over $4,500/second!

    We need higher crop yields, this is a given with global population increasing unabated. With the added benefit of reducing stress in plants in low water environments (put another way, we can grow crops in more arid areas), and with a more benign climate associated with a warmer climate (however in my opinion, CO2 is NOT the driving force behind the increasing atmospheric temperatures of the early 1980’s to the late 1990’s, and NO CHANGE for the past – almost – 20 years!), the wonderful politicians of the world have got it totally wrong, there is NO social cost of carbon, it is a social VALUE of carbon.

    However, the carbon taxes that are being implemented are merely another form of transfer of wealth, however in this case, yet again, those who cannot afford to pay the tax will suffer immensely.

  26. Oh yeah, although I cannot substantiate the statistic (will search for the paper/link), the earth can sustain a population of 1 billion to 1.5 billion without the hydrocarbon industry.

    Therefore, Grim Leapers (a Canadian radical wing who want to eliminate all hydrocarbon consumption by 2050 – okay, it is called the Leap Manifesto, I have plagiarized using the more apt nickname from an astute individual), only one out of five will live in your post-hydrocarbon world. I assume that you will be in the group of the “chosen one’s” to carry on, but in actuality, it will be a hard life, a shorter life, and not a life filled with very much happiness.

    But I would love to hear your process on whom gets to live, or not ……

  27. The Social BENEFITS of Carbon Far Exceed the Social COSTS of Carbon.” There, fixed it for you!

    Anyone talking about CO2 emissions as if they have a (net) “social cost” or as if they have (net) “negative externalities” are deluded morons who take for granted EVERYTHING THEY HAVE – the clothes they wear, the food they eat, the home they live in, the ability to heat that home when it is cold outside, and to air condition that home when it is hot outside, the TVs, phones, computers, tablets, cooking appliances, laundry appliances, refrigeration, running water, etc. ALL of it is thanks to fossil fuels, without which we would still be living in caves, chasing our dinner with pointy sticks, and wearing sun-dried animal skins to keep us warm assuming we actually caught anything and managed to kill it with our pointy sticks.

    And meanwhile, still NOT A SCRAP OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF that CO2 drives temperature – just the same old HYPOTHETICAL BS!

  28. And anyhow, it was always a bad idea to build New York City on an Island in the Atlantic Ocean.

    It needs moved inland. And New Orleans 10 feet below the Mississippi. No sound thinking as well,

  29. How well do ice cores hold the atmosphere’s CO2 ppm, for its time at surface. (1) Upon forming at the surface and (2) overtime under layers. I have heard of the ppm 150 or 5,000 years ago, but what is the ppm down about 15 years? If they are unmeasurable at 15 years deep they certainly are not going to give a better answer 150 years later.

    The Carbon Cycle calculations are about 1 part measurement (atmosphere today) 1 part re-calculated CO2 ppm from ice cores at a 150 year depth and about 21 estimates for all category of CO2 emissions and absorption points including the current sink. A 0.001% change in any of these estimates would negate the carbon cycle as myth-matics too high or too low to prove the upfront estimate.

    End measured point 400ppm start point 265ppm and divide by 150 years = #GT of CO2 required per year.

    The 3-major attempts I’ve see to “calculate” the CC; all 3-have widely different estimates of CO2 per category but all 3, ~agree with the 6GT/annual of human fossil fuel burned adding to the atmosphere’s sink.

  30. The Science that never discusses the uncertainties.
    The Science that hears a president state “the Science is settled.. the debate is over”… and says nothing.
    The Science at NOAA that cheers with each new Global temperature record even if its by 0.04 degrees C.
    The Science that will not release data to the US Congress upon request. A science of disrespect.
    The Science that makes soothsayer predictions as projected-science
    The Science circa 1925 that couldn’t relate the engine of the Sun to E=mC^2 yet condemned Cecilia Payne.
    “science advances…one funeral at a time”

    • The leader of the free world is no dummy. President Obama knows what the real science is, however he is way more interested in getting a spot at that $1.5 trillion/year trough of moolah, and gladly getting into the feeding frenzy for himself.

      He understands the science, however he also understands that the cult religion known as “The Church of Climate Change” cannot be overturned. Stay tuned ……

      • Darrell, the leader of the free world is profoundly innumerate. He certainly does not understand the science.

        He’s not even embarrassed by it. Watch him giggle as he admits to Leno that he doesn’t understand 9th grade “math stuff:”

        His supporters seem to think his ignorance is funny, maybe even cute. Maybe that’s because most of them are as innumerate as he is.

  31. Mods:
    My apologies for whining; some of my larger posts are disappearing.

    I’d like to think they were held and perhaps I am expecting too much for Dec 23rd, but after several hours I begin to worry they became spam.

    If it is because of Dec 23rd; don’t worry about it!
    The Holiday and Family are far more valuable than a few comments!!

    Have a wonderful Holiday!!

  32. Its a matter of misstating the mindset of the green blob. “Pollution” is evil, and CO2 is pollution, so no level of CO2 can be good. Bad theology that never considers economics.

  33. https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/david-swanson-how-will-trump-wield-obamas-modernized-nukes/

    Trump is talking up nuclear weapons, rearming! Anyone still worried about global warming is delusional, but we of all people know they are out there. We must get behind a unified effort to somehow get our news media to write about these stories that are deliberately hidden behind such narratives as the global warming hoax, the terrorism hoax, which like global warming, has now become a reality, precisely because of brainwashing by MSNS.

  34. Comparing the consumer-cost of fossil-fuelled power vs. renewables-power, it seems to me that the case is closed (slammed-shut?!) in favour of the former. The only device the Alarmists can contrive is that of [self-selected] Externalities, most particularly the AGW-Genie, the long-term effects thereof discounted back to a ‘Carbon-Tax’ to be enforced upon today’s consumers.
    It would come as no surprise if their math is ‘backwardated’ & simple: “What NPV of perceived [contrived??] negative costs of fossil-fuelled, CO2 producing , power do we need in order to formulate a Carbon Tax on fossil-powered power so as to make Renewables ‘competitive’?”
    The Externalities *they* conveniently ignore (as ‘Inconvenient Truths’ to their rhetoric) include:
    1. Decrease in Deliverabilty (e.g., lack of wind at night), with potentially huge costs to Society, both tangible & intangible.
    2. Decrease in 24/7 Reliability, ditto.
    3. The vagaries of 1. & 2. above which require ‘Spinning-Reserve’ from fossil-fired generation facilities (If it comes to ‘idling’ anything, all logic points to marginalizing Renewables, not making them Prime-Dispatchers.)
    3. Decrease in industrial competitiveness compared with the likes of India & China (who are insufficiently stupid to follow our lead backwards into 3rd. World status) with concomitant massive job-losses and unemployment benefits. (Will Gov’t next retrain workers to the subsistence agricultural lifestyle?)

Comments are closed.