Letter to the editor, by Viv Forbes
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.
Rosevale Qld Australia
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Glad to see the much maligned cane toads get a mention, Viv.
Change the title to: ‘The social “cost” of carbon is actually a benefit’
See the GWPF article: http://www.thegwpf.com/the-social-cost-of-carbon/
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.
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.
Viv is a “he”
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. (^_^)
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.
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.
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…..
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.
We need the Economic MATH of this!!!! C
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.
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 ……
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!
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,
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
Viv Forbes is a world leader in defence of civilisation
Or… he’s a two-bit ideologue with a vested interest.
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?)