Guest “just say no” by David Middleton
This is why they demanded a $240/gal tax on gasoline…
LIMITING GLOBAL WARMING COULD COST $122 TRILLION. THAT’S ‘NOT FEASIBLE,’ SAYS ONE ECONOMIST
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor 10/09/2018
- The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy infrastructure.
- One environmental economist said the UN’s goal is “not feasible.”
- Scientists have also called into question spending trillions based on flawed climate models.
The United Nations’ call for governments and companies to shift trillions of dollars into “low-carbon energy” systems to limit future global warming is “not feasible,” according to an environmental economist.
A new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report projects between $1.6 trillion and $3.8 trillion in “energy system supply-side investments” is needed every year through 2050 to have any chance of keeping future global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
That’s a price tag of between $51.2 trillion and $122 trillion by 2050 just for energy investments. Environmental economist Richard Tol said, given the high cost, the IPCC’s report is totally unrealistic.
“No, 1.5 degrees Celsius is not feasible,” Tol, an economics professor at the University of Sussex, told The Daily Caller News Foundation via email.
[…]
From SR15…
First, pursuing 1.5°C mitigation efforts requires a major reallocation of the investment portfolio, implying a financial system aligned to mitigation challenges.
[…]
The bulk of these investments are projected to be for clean electricity generation, particularly solar and wind power (0.09–1.0 trillion USD2010 yr–1 and 0.1–0.35 trillion USD2010 yr–1, respectively) as well as nuclear power (0.1–0.25 trillion USD2010 yr–1).
[…]
Furthermore, some fossil investments made over the next few years – or those made in the last few – will likely need to be retired prior to fully recovering their capital investment or before the end of their operational lifetime (Bertram et al., 2015a; Johnson et al., 2015; OECD/IEA and IRENA, 2017).
Not just “no”… But NO FRACKING WAY!!!
Every page is marked with “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”… That’s fracking hilarious. They must be so emabarrased by this stinking pile of schist that they don’t want it to be cited, quoted or distributed.
This is how a carbon tax would affect typical fuel prices:
| Carbon tax per ton of CO2 | ||||
| Recent price | $25.00 | $30.00 | $27,000 | |
| Gasoline per gallon (retail) | $2.50 | $0.22 | $0.27 | $240 |
| Natural gas per mcf (residential) | $10.91 | $1.33 | $1.59 | $1,434 |
| Propane per gallon (residential) | $2.50 | $0.14 | $0.17 | $152 |
| Heating oil per gallon (residenial) | $3.07 | $0.25 | $0.30 | $270 |
| Kerosene per gallon (retail) | $3.29 | $0.24 | $0.29 | $260 |
| Coal per short ton (Powder River Basin) | $12.10 | $52.52 | $63.02 | $56,720 |
Notice thatthe stock markets and bond markets did not moce on this report.
Nobody thinks that the impact of Global Warming will be sufficient to impact on 10-year Government bonds. And the report says we only have 12 years.
Nobody thinks that the report will lead to regulations that will impact any business. These requested fuel price hikes should impact on oil companies. But the experts have reviewed the report and decided it won’t happen.
In summary, AGW is over as an issue.
We Sceptics won.
No means no.
Excellent point M. Courtney. I think the $27,000/tC pushed credibility to zero as it should. If skittish financial and stock markets don’t respond (which means essentially almost all investors believe this to be fantasy), then it is game over for the clime syndicate (h/t to Mark Steyn for the term). They might just as well say Gazillions.
This is a rare opportunity to make a 100% certain forecast that something just won’t happen.
“We Sceptics won.”
I really REALLY hope you are correct. But I don’t see it, there is just too much money and momentum behind this push.
Call me when some professors are defrocked, jailed or asked for restitution. State pen instead of PennState. Ditto Algore on his part of the scams.
i’ve been waiting for the first head on a post for a long time.
i think that really would break the dam.
there have been a number of recent events that have brought my cup of optimism to half full.
I notice their price on natural gas, which is what I use for heating and cooking will go to $1,434/mcf . I’d assume that mcf is ‘metric cubic foot’. Is that right? I don’t know how therms translate to cubic feet, but there has to be a similarity.
Okay, where am I supposed to get that kind of money? My income does not come even close to something that would pay for that, and I have a small house. I pay $61/month, on a budgeted program, which means that in the summer. I build up a credit that makes my budget plan payment stretch further. That offsets the higher usage charge in January, when I use something like 145 to 155 therms for the month. Even so, that makes my January bill only $125.
These people want to destroy something that works to line their pockets with a bombastically fictitious “possibility” that will have people like me (and we are everywhere) unable to heat the home, have hot water, or cook food. And those are minimal usages.
Yeah, right. Those clowns can freeze their heines off first, and whine while it’s happening. They can rot in hell for all I care. I think it’s PAST time that the IPCC was dismantled and those Useless Idiots told to go play in high speed highway freight traffic.
Not just “NO” but “F—K THEM NO”.
Rant over, Mods.
Mcf = 1000 standard cubic feet.
M for 1000. Derived from the French word “mille” for thousand. See, French language I learnt in Belgium in the 80’s does have it’s uses.
M is also 1000 in roman numerals. (The year 1666 in roman is MDCLXVI 🙂 )
I try to stay away from Latin, reminds me too much of this;
Thanks. How does that translate into the term “therms”? Well, I looked it up.
The ‘therm’ refers to British Thermal Units (BTUs), and one ‘therm is about 96.7 cubic feet. So that means that my gas bill in January when measured at 125 therms is 12,087.5 cubic feet of natural gas, or 12.0875 Mcf, which, according to THEIR cost projection of $1,434/Mcf something on the order of $17,333.48 per month.
So tell me now, or I will keep hammering at this: how the hell is some ordinary citizen supposed to pay for that? Even with inflation bumping up paychecks, it is an impossible amount to ask or expect from anyone, just to keep a house warm in the winter and be able to cook. And like I said, I don’t have a BIG house at all.
I sincerely hope that someone has the good sense to shut these fools down and disband their so-called council permanently from existence. They are out to destroy everything. And you don’t have to be paranoid or delusional to understand that.
My latest post has a better explanation of natural gas nomenclature… But I didn’t cover therms… D’oh!
It’s okay, David. I’m only pointing out the obvious to anyone who doesn’t understand the true cost, which is that the average household everywhere on this planet will end up unable to pay any utility bill.
I did read your other article, too. You need to keep hammering away at this. Any politician who would knowingly vote in favor of the IPCC needs to be fired and sent packing, and the IPCC needs to be dismantled and defunded, permanently.
“IPCC Demands $122 Trillion to Fight the Global War on Weather”
or alternatively:
FOR A PALTRY $1 MILLION I WILL PROVE THAT THE IPCC IS FULL OF SH!T.
I can prove you are full of $hiT for $1,000.00
Sure you can David – your predictive track record is 100% .FALSE. – just like the IPCC’s.
Negative predictive track record = negative credibility = nobody should believe you, or the IPCC.
🙂
your predictive track record is 0% period.
Thank you David – you have just proven yourself a liar and an imbecile. Live with it.
THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The psychological phenomenon of illusory superiority was identified as a form of cognitive bias in Kruger and Dunning’s 1999 study “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”. The identification derived from the cognitive bias evident in the criminal case of McArthur Wheeler, who robbed banks with his face covered with lemon juice, which he believed would make it invisible to the surveillance cameras. This belief was based on his misunderstanding of the chemical properties of lemon juice as an invisible ink.
THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT – SIMPLIFIED
Stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid.
Smart people tend to assume, at least initially, that stupid people are as smart as they are.
THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT – DIAGNOSES AND ANTIDOTES
If someone says they believe in dangerous runaway manmade global warming, they are either deliberately lying or they are stupid.
If someone says they believe in dangerous manmade climate change, they are either deliberately lying or they are stupid.
If someone says that “the science is settled”, they are deliberately lying or they are stupid.
If someone says that “consensus makes science”, they are deliberately lying or they are stupid.
If someone just says “just believe the woman”, they are deliberately lying or they are stupid.
If some says that all women are good and all men are bad, they are deliberately lying or they are stupid.
If someone says they believe left-wing politics and all the left’s blatant falsehoods, they are deliberately lying or they are stupid.
ALLAN MACRAE: Sure you can David – your predictive track record is 100% .FALSE. – just like the IPCC’s.
Negative predictive track record = negative credibility = nobody should believe you, or the IPCC.
David Dirkse: your predictive track record is 0% period.
David, even it true that would still make his predictive track record better than yours (hint: his “0” is greater than your “negative predictive track record”). But since you are just spouting BS nonsense, the point is really moot anyway.
No money is needed to see that you are full of $hiT David, all the is needed is eyes to see and a mind to comprehend (something you appear to lack, as your eyes are willfully shut and you refuse to use your mind for comprehension).
Just a question, David, since you are such an abrasive soul:
I’ve calculated the monthly cost to keep my little house warm in the winter and cook food, based on the IPCC’s proposed $1,434.00 per MCF charge for natural gas, at $17,333.48.
If you have that kind of money, please let me know. I’ll send you my gas bill to pay, and those of my neighbors. We’d like to be warm in the wintertime, but your response to Allan’s joke indicates that you are one of those ZERO CLUE people who think that food, heat and such things are cost-free when they aren’t.
But today they did move on the prospect of higher interest rates. Financial markets care about that. CACA, not so much.
It takes hydrocarbons to fuel the machines of beings based on carbon and derived their own energy from carbohydrates; a carbon based energy source.
The UN is not fit for purpose and should be wound up before they commit the whole world to a third world state. They seem to live in a world of make-believe.
If it’s going to cost me 10 times current prices to heat my home with natural gas then I will switch to burning wood. I can see Pinecone Burke Provincial Park from my house 😉
Hey guys, you keep missing the point. It’s not about CO2, but money. Do those numbers look bad? Well have a look at the real numbers that are driving this incredible hysteria :
The International Monetary Fund just warned in its annual economic outlook that “large challenges loom for the global economy to prevent a second Great Depression.” The report was issued as part of the preparations for the IMF’s annual meeting, which will be held next week in Bali.
Speaking earlier this week, the IMF’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde also sounded the alarm, noting that the total value of global public and private debt has risen by 60% since the 2008 financial crisis. She warned that the long years of quantitative easing led to huge build-up of debt in so-called emerging markets, and that rising U.S. interest “could trigger a flight of funds and destabilize their economies,” the London {Guardian} reported. The daily wrote that the IMF report explained that “the huge rise in borrowing by corporates and government at cheap interest rates had not shown up in higher levels of research and development or more general investment in infrastructure.” Lagarde warned: “This should serve as a wake-up
call.”
The {Guardian} added: “With global debt levels well above those at the time of the last crash in 2008, the risk remains that unregulated parts of the financial system could trigger a global panic,” according to the IMF.
It should be noted that neither the IMF nor the {Guardian} mention what is an even larger explosive charge than debt, which is the derivatives bubble–now totaling over $1.5 quadrillion, or an order of magnitude greater than the debt.
Unless Trump deals with this before it crashes, with bank seperation, it will be out of the Paris fat and into the bailout Fire.
Bernie wants to break the banks based on size, but ignores too the $1.5 quadrillion fake debt.
There is no way to seperate a scam of this size from a scam of that size.
Don’t worry bonbon, there are no economists still alive outside of the USA so this report has it all wrong. The economic suicide pact in Europe evident in the terminal squandering of enormous wealth on CO2 mental illness, tilting with laughably cute windmills and the marxbrothers’ preparation for global governance by elites is the real worry. If there were economists extant in the old world they would be promulgating Trump policies.
…and yet, not one word about China
global warming will possibly destroy countries, economies and people. The only way to prevent this is to definitely destroy countries, economies and people.
Global warming won’t destroy anyone.
But the crash Lagarde is warning about would.
Bet on it – solving that $1.5 quadrillion derivative bubble would instantly send the carbon carpetbaggers to sing-sing.
they still have this weird faith that the scammers believe their rap.
(it couldn’t work without that)
but i don’t think trump does.
he keeps surprising me… i won’t bet against him now.
Global warming won’t destroy anyone.
no but all the scam plans for fighting global warming will.
You are looking at this wrongly. Indeed the cause is destroying economies. We’re going to neef another Marshall Plan to rescue incurable Europe.
Europe is lost. Germany now has 22.5% of their population 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. This would not be bad in itself, but for the fact that many of these immigrants have not assimilated into German society. Germany has over 40 no go zones as of Nov. 2016, where even the police are weary of intervening. Sweden has 62 no go zones with one city Malmo almost 50 % immigrant population. The largest Swedish music festival had to be shut down permanently because there were too many rapes. Holland has over 40 no go zones. France has over 80 no go zones . Every year on holiday weekends especially at New Years time, France has had over 1000 cars burned and this number is increasing every year.
Alan T wrote:
“France has over 80 no go zones . Every year on holiday weekends especially at New Years time, France has had over 1000 cars burned and this number is increasing every year.
… The largest Swedish music festival had to be shut down permanently because there were too many rapes.”
There have been many reports of multiple rapes of women in European cities by gangs of young Muslim immigrant men. The leftist European media and politicians have tried to suppress reports of these rapes. One has to ask WHY – what is the motivation of these leftists to conceal this extreme violence against women? They obviously do not care.
Last year when I was in Thailand, I met a firefighter from Paris at a party. He spoke no English or Thai, so was pleased to converse with me in French. He told me about the “no-go” zones where police and firefighters fear to enter, and said that France was finished. He intends to move to Thailand when he retires.
His story supports Alan T’s statements. The European politicians who let this happen will be remembered in infamy. The so-called “far-right” politicians like Le Pen in France will be remembered as prophets who correctly predicted this disaster. This is not about race or religion, it’s about utterly failed immigration policies.
When you invite violent criminals to live among you, this is the result. I personally believe that if we held these incompetent and corrupt politicians personally responsible for these crimes, then they might be more careful about importing rapists and terrorists.
I just hosted my friend Dr. Larry for a few days before he left for Thailand – for good this time. Larry is done with Canada – he will visit family and friends but will not live here in the future.
He feels that Canada is becoming a leftist cesspool, consisting of:
– too many stupid rules
– too much political correctness
– too much extreme left-wing idiocy
– lack of freedom of speech
– increasing costs due to government idiocy
– way too much government
– way too little freedom.
Larry is much more intelligent and accomplished than the average person, and he is “Done with Canada”.
I agree with him – we have allowed the lunatics to run the asylum, and it just isn’t any good anymore.
I would vote for anyone who promised “I will do a whole lot LESS for you!”
This report just confirmed that doing nothing and building sea defenses is a more cost effective way to deal with climate change. (That is giving them the point that 1. It is actually happening as described, and 2. Destroying western society would even have an effect – neither of which has been shown.)
Yabut, think of the children. You can’t put a price tag on the children.
I calculate that 2.9 trillion spent each year until 2050 at a 5% discount rate will end up costing $218 trillion.
Put that $2.9 T/yr into 30-yr Treasuries at 3.3%… Then pay for whatever the weather does.
A drop in the ocean – look at the derivative debt posted above. The crazies cannot possibly cover it even with the scam of the 21st century. They must be going nuts!
Nothing wrong with derivatives. Just because you don’t understand something is not evidence that it’s a scam.
They caused the unwind of 2008. Ask Deutsche Bank about their reported $46 trillion – even they do not understand what an unwind would look like. I do – it means stealing billions to bailout. The CO2 scam is part of this. Climate derivatives.
Solution – Glass-Steagall – and let them understand it, no bailout while the study their very own wreckage.
Bonbon, Even Obama solved this one, albeit badly by bailing out the financial pornstars. Check the date on the newspaper you are reading, or maybe we have to check the date on the one the IMF is reading.
The carbon tax will solve carbon pollution the same way that taxing poverty will make people richer. The only ones that get richer are those collecting the tax.
ferd, they go through the the litany of cataclysmic socioeconomic changes and unfathomable wealth destruction to save the planet and then tack on the non sequitur: and eleviate poverty! I guess this is a sign, at least, that critics of the clime syndicate’s plans are being acknowledged but in no way is it part of the real plan. They want us to think about our great great grandchildren’s wellbeing but are prepared to knock off the grandchildren we have now.
And there’s absolutely no mention of the fact that the datasets that they’ve used to come up with their warming figures are so totally riddled with errors and inaccuracies as to be hopelessly unusable as inputs to their models… garbage in, garbage out.
Unfortunately, the warmists think of it as “garbage in, gospel out”.
What would it cost to fund an as needed response to actual climate related damage through the usual process of insurance? Have rules like don’t build on flood plains etc.
Allow building on flood plains but don’t give the homeowners bailouts after the inevitable flooding occurs.
That rewards developers and penalises people who buy from them. Capitalism at its finest.
Uhhh … we don’t anticipate that.
Build on stilts. Imagination is the real meagre resource we need to build up.
In the book “Climate and Weather Explained”, by Bart Geerts and Edward Linacre , they say that the net effect of clouds is a 20 W/m^2 cooling effect on the earth surface. Just in case you don’t know who those authors are, the following is a partial resume of the 1st one.
Dr. Bart Geerts conducts research into cloud-scale to mesoscale atmospheric processes, mainly using aircraft measurements and radar. Much of his research builds on field campaign observations, starting with the GALE-1986, where he participated as a graduate student. He teaches several graduate-level and undergraduate-level courses in atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming (UW). Dr. Geerts received his PhD from the University of Washington (Atmospheric Science, 1990, advisor: Peter V. Hobbs), and MS (Irrigation Engineering, 1985) and BS (Physical Geography, 1984) from the University of Louvain in Belgium, his country of origin. He has taught on various campuses in the US as well as in Australia and Europe, co-authored one book (Weather and Climate Explained, Routledge, 1997), and (co)authored over 75 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, about half of which as first author. Since he has been a faculty at the UW, Dr. Geerts has advised 11 MSc and 4 PhD students. As PI he has received about $6.2M of external research funding, plus over $1.0M UW matching funds.
Dr. Geerts has chaired the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Radar Meteorology Conference, has served on the UCAR Unidata User Committee and on several AMS committees (Mesoscale Processes; Weather Modification; and Radar Meteorology), and has served on proposal review panels for NSF, NASA, and DOE, including NSF’s Observational Facilities Advisory Panel. He served as a lead PI on several recent field campaigns, including CuPIDO-06, ASCII-12/13, OWLeS-13/14, and PECAN-15. He is the recipient of the 2012 NIWR Program IMPACT Award, which recognizes the nation’s best federal research projects funded by the United States Water Resources Research Act. He received the 2013 Samuel D. Hakes Outstanding Graduate Research and Teaching Award in his College, and the UW 2014 Faculty Senate Speaker Award. He serves as an Editor of the AMS’s Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.
So as you can see Geerts is no novice.
So to take the Stefan Boltzmann equation, this translates to a 3.84 C cooling.
The reason is that Energy emitted from earth = Stefan Boltzmann constant * Temp^4 * 4pi * R^2 ; where R = radius of earth = 6.371 x 10 ^6 and Stefan Boltzmann constant = 5.67 x10^-8 and Temp is in kelvin
Solar input = solar constant * (1-albedo) * pi * R^2; where solar constant = 1361 W/m^2 and albedo = 31%
For equilbrium then
1361 * 0.69 * pi * R^2 = 5.67 x10^-8 * Temp^4 * 4pi * R^2
or 1361 * 0.69 = 5.67 x10^-8 * Temp^4 * 4
or T = 253.7K
For a 20 W/m^2 change from clouds we have to multiply the 20W by 4 , to represent the average surface insolation reduction then we get :
1281 * 0.69 = 5.67 x10^-8 * Temp^4 *4
T = 249.86K
Or a decreasing temperature of 3.84 K or C This represents a delta of 5.2 W/m^2 per degree C.
Other researchers have given delta C = delta 1.4 W/m^2 while others give 4.5W/m^2 per degree C, while Trenberth and others including Roger Pielke give 10W/m^2 per degree C while many others say the relationship isn’t linear , and many skeptics say there is no relationship. Climate models use 0.75 +/- 0.25 C per W/m^2 which is 1.33 W/m^2 per degree C but of course all climate models run too hot.
Willis Eschenbach in 2017 has shown that there is no short term relationship but there is a long term relationship but didnt provide a non linear equation.
You have to wonder what insane assumptions lay behind the insane $122 trillion
dollar cost of carbon reduction. After some calcuation using the cost of Moltex
Energy’s molten salt reactors,which will provide a gigawatt of power for less
than $5 billion, I find that 320 such reactors, added to the current reactor capacity
of roughly 90 Gigawatts of nuclear power, can provide 100% of current US electric
power demand. That would require $1.5 trillion. In Europe, another $1.5 trillion
for 305 GW of Moltex Energy reactors would , in addition to the existing nuclear
power, provide 100% of electric power required. In China, adding another 680GW
of power from Moltex reactors would cost roughly $3 trillion, and provide 100%
nuclear power. It should be added that Moltex reactors can be sited anywhere, since
they require no cooling water and are inherently safe, incapable of a meltdown or
of ejecting radioactive material into the environment to any significant extent.
They also can load follow and operate as either or both a base load plant and a
peak demand generator, eliminating the need for fossil fueled peak demand
generation capacity, unlike wind and solar, and can completely replace
existing capacity, again unlike wind/solar, even if those technologies utilize
battery or pumped storage.
Electric cars are the obvious future, for reasons that have nothing to do with
emissions. So how much electricity will they require, say in the U.S. ? The U.S.
consumes 380 million gallons of gasoline per day and vehicles average 24MPG.
That is 9120 million miles per day, which, if the vehicles were all electric,
assuming 4 miles per kWhr, the total electric capacity required would be 95 gigawatts,
or about $0.4 trillion worth of Moltex Energy reactors. That means that $2 trillion
could eliminate all emissions, carbon included, produced by vehicles or electric
power generation. Ditto for Europe and probably $4 trillion for China.
So it looks to me as though $8 trillion could reduce carbon emissions demanded
by the IPCC, not $122 trillion
So can you show us a 5-year operating record for a Moltex? A 1-year operating record. Can you show us one in operation?
Get Smart! If the nuclear estimate proved to be out by 75%, it still beats IPCCs $122T reqirement by about 400% to the good. You can always tell with you guys that actual solution to the problem isnt the goal.
With all the talk of trillions, look at quadrillions (above) – they desperately, hysterically, savagely want a world tax to bail themselves out. Kow-towing to their so-called co2 agenda is exactly the abject subservience they seem to have gotten from such comments.
Even with this seemingly nutty trillion demand, quadrillions cannot be bailed out.
The problem is City of London and WallStreet see another bailout x 10 from Trump is not possible. The crash the IMF’s Lagarde just warned about just wipes all the faux science off the table , on both sides.
The life cycle cost of a regular 1000 MW light water reactor is around $14 billion in the United States. We could replace the entire electric power capacity of the world (a tad more than 6,000 plants) for $86 trillion. And ending the insane Carter prohibition on reprocessing would extend the fuel supply, and help get rid of minor actinide waste.
The major problem with expansion of EV’s is the infrastructure to run them … poles and wires will need massive upgrade to deliver the required electricity to charge the EV’s … when home at night ! and domestic power usage will go through the roof . Not even considering the retro-upgrades to commercial property assets to accommodate EV’s
That also leads to the potential issue of competition for retail energy and lack of competition to keep prices in check.
The consumer will be wholly owned.
I have not read the full report, but this is what the Daily Caller actually says:
So, if we look at how much tax that would put on a gallon of gas in the 1.5C scenario, in 2030, it is somewhere between $135 and $5,500 per ton of carbon.
Just doing it with very rough numbers for this scenario, assume a gallon of motor fuel contains 20lbs of carbon, and lets round this to 10 kg. If we are taxing one metric ton at $135, that means we would be imposing a tax of roughly $1.35 a gallon at the low estimate, or at the high estimate, roughly $55.
Have I got this right?
There is no way the world is going to impose such a tax globally. But two things are striking about it (unless I have got the math totally screwed up). One is that at the high end, we would be closing down the auto and trucking industries, and everything consequently that depends on them. You simply could not drive and ship materials around if there was a tax of anything like $55 a gallon on fuel. You could not heat or air condition your house either for that matter.
The second is that the range of possibly necessary values is ridiculous and would be treated with ridicule in any other field.
Imagine saying that to tackle obesity would cost somewhere between 135 million and 5.5 trillion, so lets go. Or that a building would cost between 135k and 5.5 million, so clearly we should place the contract…..
They are not actually calling for a definite tax on gasoline, it seems from this. It would be better if they did. Then at least we could see what it is that they are proposing. With a range like this its meaningless.
Michel and David: I have been trying to track down the source mentioning a carbon tax of $27,000/ton. FWIW, as best I can tell, the passage Michel quoted and claimed came from the Daily Caller did not come from the Daily Caller article linked herein by David. Perhaps there is a second Daily Caller article.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/09/limiting-global-warming-cost/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push
However, if I go to the report itself, text searching for “carbon tax” turns up this phrase only twice: (“Carbon price” is used more frequently.)
“Furthermore, a mix of stringent energy efficiency policies (e.g., minimum performance standards, building codes) combined with a carbon tax (rising from 10 USD2010 tCO2–1 in 2020 to 27 USD2010 tCO2–1 in 2040) is more cost-effective than a carbon tax alone (from 20 to 53 USD2010 tCO2–1) to generate a 1.5 ̊C pathway for the U.S. electric sector (Brown and Li, 2018). Likewise, a policy mix encompassing a moderate carbon price (7 USD2010 tCO2–1 in 2015) combined with a ban on new coal-based power plants and dedicated policies addressing renewable electricity generation capacity and electric vehicles reduces efficiency losses compared with an optimal carbon pricing in 2030 (Bertram et al., 2015b). One study estimates the price of carbon in high energy- intensive pathways to be 25–50% higher than in low energy-intensive pathways …”
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter2.pdf p 2-81
If you look at Figure 2.26, there are some prices over $10,000, possible as high as $27,000. These are undiscounted prices for 2100. For NPV, a discount of 5% is used, meaning prices double every 14 years for a 52-fold increase in price. $240/gallon divided by 52 is $4.62 in today’s dollars. We were paying roughly that much a decade ago for gasoline.
I don’t claim to have studied this document carefully enough to make any definitive statements about it, but a carbon tax of $240 (in today’s $) appears to be a figment of someone’s imagination, at least until you properly document this claim.
The carbon tax is in 2010 US dollars.
A $27,000/ton tax on CO2 in 2100 would be a $240/gal tax on gasoline… In 2010 US dollars.
SR15 calls for a carbon tax of $135 to $5,500 in 2010… in 2010 US dollars. That’s $1.20 to $48.90/gal… 48% to 1956% of the current price of about $2.50/gal.
Seaborg.co by 2025 will have 20-foot 30-ton 250 MW Thermal Molten Salt reactor in a shipping container. Good for a city of 200,000. We should worry about sun cycles 24-27 global cooling, cheap heating energy and real climate change via asteroids impacting earth.
It is nice that they are finally telling the truth about their goals. As long as they were telling people that a $1000 per year per family was going to help, a lot of people were on board. But heating bills going up by $20,000 or more is a non-starter for most families. When they tell us the truth about what their climate models say must be done, it is suddenly more attractive to roll the dice and hope they are wrong, and attempt to mitigate the effects if they are right.
I sense you are on the fence on this one. Relax. Don’t worry. Your childrens’ children won’t drown because of rising sea levels and neither will they die of heat prostration. This whole mess is truly a scam as was the ozone hole scare. What is the link between the 2 of them? Both were started by UN agencies that were created out of nothing and both had a mandate to investigate why 2 different emissions by mankind (CO2 and freon) were causing climate problems. Note: both of those 2 UN agencies did not use the null hypothesis in their initial findings. In fact they never used the null hypothesis. So in effect both assumed that man was the problem from the beginning and this resulted in an agenda right from the beginning. So all scientists who worked on the reports that these agencies produced had to follow the agenda or else quit in frustration. Many did quit.
If you want a trillion dollars in climate reparations to sound like a bargain, you have to first quote even stoopider numbers.
bingo! everything after will seem like a bargain.
“Every page is marked with “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”… That’s fracking hilarious. They must be so embarrassed by this stinking pile of schist that they don’t want it to be cited, quoted or distributed.”
Yeah, I was wondering about that prohibition too. It seemed ridiculous at the time. My question is, “If it is not fit yet for final public distribution, then why publish it on the internet for the world to see now in its current form? Why not wait until it IS ready for formal public distribution?”
And why can it not be cited as what it is, when it is used? — cite it as a draft version vs a final version.
They obviously wanted people to see it, even in its current form. What other research not yet included in it could possibly change the major intended impact of the report?
If you don’t want it cited, then don’t put it up on the internet. Otherwise, it’s there, and fair use would seem to be in play, where public discussions and critiques or reviews are concerned.
Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute what I just wrote, as my final scathing commentary has not yet been accounted for, and I might be able to say it better, and THAT’s the copy I would want you to quote. [Yeah, right, like that’s gonna get any compliance]
The should have added “Do not believe”, too!
So now the IPCC/UN is determining the world’s economic policy? The UN has obviously abandoned their primary goal of keeping peace as there’s been more wars since their inception than before. Mission creep by design. They’ve grown into the largest quango in the world with absolutely no outside direction or accountability and outspoken biases towards Socialism/Marxism/Communism and against Capitalism/the West. Why the West keeps financing them is beyond me.
It seems that large chunks of the West are also biased towards Socialism/Communism/Marxism and against Capitalism and the West. Why *this* would be the case is beyond me.
(My best guess is that as we float on the inexorable biological and psychological tides that shift back and forth from “r” strategy to “K” strategy, we are currently shifting toward the “r” side due to the West’s great prosperity (resulting from successful deployment of capitalism). But “r” strategists are by definition Communists, which leads to the destruction and collapse of Capitalism, and the cycle begins again…)
All they need is globally coordinated lies and over reach. Those are rare storms but not impossible.
45 degrees below zero in Embarrass, Minnesota, early Sunday, 19 people dead…
https://weather.com/safety/winter/news/2018-01-02-early-january-arctic-chill-us
122 Trillion.
Can’t fault them for sheer self-serving gall.
That is an admission that renewable energy will never be self sustaining; at least with current and in the pipeline technology.
What these yahoos fail to address is how will quality energy be supplied for all industries that absolutely require high quality consistent electricity.
Nor do the yahoos address the fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro electricity sources that must backup unreliable renewable energy.
It’s the same sort of blitheness a child uses to explain how Santa got down the chimney – their thought processes do not go beyond their immediate, narrow-minded goals – larger consequences are simply not their problem or concern.
Scott Adam’s Dilbert cartoon needs to be noted again.
It’s not too late for key climate science fraudsters to admit their guilt before more policy and social damage ramps up again.
They will never admit it. Someone that believes in a God will never recant. They are hopeless to ever admit that their religion defies any reason, common sense, or logic..
perhaps you are taking it entirely on faith that they believe their own show?
this is a multibillion dollar industry.
why would they recant? it would spoil the magic!
This is good. Now even the most scientifically challenged among the populace can see that their claims are absurd.
The Intentional Propaganda Of Climate Criminals (IPCC ) relies on exaggerated and demonstrably false climate models to sell it’s crap . The IPCC was the Trojan Horse of UN globalists to transfer wealth to feed their agenda
of one world government and it routinely lies about a trace gas setting the earths temperature . Shut it down .
One thing the Democrats and the IPCC have in common is Trumps election blew apart their con-game .
If your waiting for the 80% off sale, be patient, they might get it down to $25 trillion.
Have to kill you to save you. Remind me of mercury as a magic cure. There guys are sooo funny.
David and Andy: The a carbon tax of $240/gallon or $27,000/ton in current $ appears to be a gross misleading.
A text search shows it doesn’t come from the Daily Caller article David linked. Perhaps there is a second Daily Caller article.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/09/limiting-global-warming-cost/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push
However, if I go to the report itself, text searching for “carbon tax” turns up this phrase only twice: (“Carbon price” is used more frequently.)
“Furthermore, a mix of stringent energy efficiency policies (e.g., minimum performance standards, building codes) combined with a carbon tax (rising from 10 USD2010 tCO2–1 in 2020 to 27 USD2010 tCO2–1 in 2040) is more cost-effective than a carbon tax alone (from 20 to 53 USD2010 tCO2–1) to generate a 1.5 ̊C pathway for the U.S. electric sector (Brown and Li, 2018). Likewise, a policy mix encompassing a moderate carbon price (7 USD2010 tCO2–1 in 2015) combined with a ban on new coal-based power plants and dedicated policies addressing renewable electricity generation capacity and electric vehicles reduces efficiency losses compared with an optimal carbon pricing in 2030 (Bertram et al., 2015b). One study estimates the price of carbon in high energy- intensive pathways to be 25–50% higher than in low energy-intensive pathways …”
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter2.pdf p 2-81
If you look at Figure 2.26, there are some prices over $10,000, possible as high as $27,000. These are undiscounted prices for 2100. For NPV, a discount of 5% is used, meaning prices double every 14 years for a 52-fold increase in price. $240/gallon divided by 52 is $4.62 in today’s dollars. We were paying roughly that much a decade ago for gasoline.
I don’t claim to have studied this document carefully enough to make any definitive statements about it, but a carbon tax of $240 (in today’s $) needs better documentation and explanation.
The carbon tax is in 2010 US dollars.
A $27,000/ton tax on CO2 in 2100 would be a $240/gal tax on gasoline… In 2010 US dollars.
SR15 calls for a carbon tax of $135 to $5,500 in 2010… in 2010 US dollars. That’s $1.20 to $48.90/gal now… 48% to 1956% of the current price of about $2.50/gal.
David wrote: SR15 calls for a carbon tax of $135 to $5,500 in 2010… in 2010 US dollars. That’s $1.20 to $48.90/gal now… 48% to 1956% of the current price of about $2.50/gal.
Frank replies: One what page can I find this information?
Frank your own maths gave you the answer its compounding at x2 every 14 years
You did the difficult bit and failed at the blinding obvious so lets put it in a simple step by step
$240 = $480 in 14 years .. now 2018 to 2032
$480 = $960 in 14 years .. 2032 to 2050
$960 = $1920 in 14 years .. 2050 to 2064
$1920=$3840 in 14 years .. 2064 to 2078
$3840=$7680 in 14 years .. 2078 to 2092
$7680=$16360 in 14 years .. 2092 to 2106
Now if you want there are any numbers of compound calculator on the net lets pick one
https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/finance/calculators/compoundinterestcalculator.php
So put in $240 annual interest rate 5% for 82 years .. no additional payments .. annual interest rate .. calculate
$240 = $13,113.96 at year 2100
So all they did is apply the formula backwards.
I would add I don’t buy any of the numbers from either side, the idea that energy technology won’t have changed in timespan is highly speculative.
Page 2-79. Although I misread it. The carbon tax of $135 to $5,500 in 2010 US dollars was for 2030, not 2010.
$240/gallon divided by 52 is $4.62 in today’s dollars. We were paying roughly that much a decade ago for gasoline.
1) as has been pointed out, the $240 is already in 2010 dollars, no additional division needed to get it to present day (if anything the $240 should be slightly higher if you want it to be in 2018 dollars).
2) a decade ago people were complaining about the outrageously high over $4 price tag of a gallon of gas. Imagine how POed they’d with a price tag of $240+ per gallon.
Can I get a piece of that to upgrade my AC and furnace?
On second thought, my piece would probably come in the form of subsidized rebates or tax credits offered by politicians in exchange for something I value more.
As someone else once said, “I won’t sing soprano for a morsel of bread…”
I have been pondering that $240 per gallon too, and I am not seeing how this figure is arrived at.
Can somebody show the steps in the derivation of this figure? Thanks.
In SR15, the IPCC states that a carbon tax of $27,000/ton of CO2 may be required to stay below the 1.5 C limit.
It’s remarkable these people think that a high tax on some stuff will keep temperatures low. It boggles my mind!
your premise is wrong – and you have no logical argument to support it.
indeed, there is virtually nothing but facts that disprove it.
they don’t think that a high tax on some stuff will keep temperatures low.
they just want your money and boggling is the easiest way.
the stupid is a weapon. it’s a war on your reason.
boggling has been used successfully for at least 2000 years that i know about.
even the littlest wannabe parasite knows how to use the tactic.
That price is in 2100 dollars isn’t it .. maybe that is what Frank is on about .. the document states
On the contrary, estimates for a Below -1.5 ̊C pathway range from 135-5500 USD(2010) per tCO2
That is a price per ton of CO2 already in 2010 dollars and there is what 100 gallons of fuel to a metric ton of CO2 so the price is $1.35-$55 a gallon at 2010.
What did I miss?
All the prices are set to 2010 USD (hence the subscript 2010 after the term USD). the figures for 2100 are how much, in 2010 dollars, it will cost in 2100.
135-5500 USD(2010) per tCO2 is for the year 2030. IE in 2030 it will cost 135-5500 in 2010 dollars.
690-27000 USD(2010) per tCO2 is for the year 2100. IE in 2100 it will cost 690-27000 in 2010 dollars.
the set of years they gave values ranges (in 2010 dollars) for were 2030, 2050, 2070, and 2100
That is a price per ton of CO2 already in 2010 dollars and there is what 100 gallons of fuel to a metric ton of CO2 so the price is $1.35-$55 a gallon at 2010
a metric ton is approx. 2204 pounds (we’ll round that down to 2200 for ease of calculation).
a gallon of gas emits somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 pounds of C02 give or take a pound or two depending on the “blend” (ie whatever other crap they put into it), so 20 will do for our calculations (again makes the math easier) which means you are talking roughly 110 gallons per metric ton. so simply divide the per tCO2 number by 110 to get the per gallon number.
so the 2030 figure would be about $1.23 to $50 per gallon in 2010 dollars (so pretty close to your numbers). the 2100 figure is about $6.27 to $245 per gallon in 2010 dollars.
$1.23 is pretty close to 50% of the current price of gas, so you are talking a 50% hike on the low end. that alone is pretty outrageous, and what are the odds that we’d be so lucky to only get the low end tax and not a tax closer to the high end?
The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The huge expenditures that they are proposing will have not effect on climate.
‘Every page is marked with “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”’ This is very good advice. The whole thing should be quietly filed in the cylindrical filing bin in the corner on the floor.
US$122T (Lets assume p/a) would make everyone on earth poorer by ~US$17,500 p/a. That’s a big price to pay if you earn less than US$2 p/day.
$240/gallon? $27,000? I am no fan of the UN, even less so of climate change policy, but… the only $27,000 I can find in SR15 is in para 2.5 2.1, where it is the top of a range for the “cost of carbon” per ton. In 2100.
The “cost of carbon” is not the same as the carbon tax you would need to eliminate that cost. Even if some luvvies might like it.
A carbon tax is based on the social cost of carbon. Whether that takes the form of a direct tax or some other method of extracting $27,000/ton of of CO2 emissions out of the private sector, it’s still a tax.
When a government entity says “X” government program will cost $690–$27,000 per unit, it will inevitably cost more than the high-end estimate. Since the UN is an intergovernmental body, it’s cost estimates should be considered to be even less competent than those of a single government.
When ever a bureaucratic body gives a range estimate for what something will cost, name me one time where the actual cost came it anywhere near close to the low end of the estimate. If you manages that, congratulations, you found an outlier as most of the time it comes in above even the highest end estimate.
Here in Ireland, Budget 2019 was just introduced on Tuesday last. There was much speculation of including a Carbon tax to ”tackle Climate change” being announced, but it never happened. Greenies are outraged, but there are many voices expressing delight , stating the undue financial burden it would bring and with little consequence to ”improving” the climate. I even heard one guy on a TV current affairs show, giving China and India etc a mention and pointing out how insignificant we are in the over all mix.
Despite the sceptics’ view being suppressed, the message seems to be making it through, in some circles anyway. Maybe a bit further to go before it is general knowledge, and the ”ordinary” folk on the street become conversant with the scam that is CAGW.
What this price tag says is that mitigating climate change is a fool’s approach. We’re just going to have to adjust to the global climate cycle. Poor people will have to buy more air conditioning, and rich people will have to move out of their beachfront homes.
If the IPCC, which considers CO2 the main GHG that needs to be reduced, it can be
easily done and won’t require anything even remotely approaching $122 trillion.
Let’s look at the two major energies consumed : electricity and gasoline.
The world consumes 21,000 TWhrs of electricity , which is 21,000,000 GWhrs
or 21,000,000,000 MWhrs. and would be produced by a continuous production of
2.4 TWs. The major low carbon generators are nuclear (.46TW currently operating or
under construction, with another .55 TW planned) and hydroelectric (.45TW), which
we can assume will together have a capacity output of 1.46TW. Molten salt small
nuclear reactors will commercialize within the next 5 to 7 years and can be
constructed in factories, much faster than wind or solar and have a build cost of roughly
$2.5 billion per GW of capacity – two trillion dollars could therefore produce 1600 molten
salt SMRs with a total capacity of 800GW, or 0.8 TW of continous power. Added to the
existing nuclear and hydro outputs (1.46TW), we get 2.26 TW of continous low carbon electricity
Add solar and wind and you have accomplished the goal of 100% electricity production
using only low carbon generation . All for $2 trillion. But there will be more electricity demand as the
world’s vehicles transition to electric. Judging by the world’s consumption of gasoline
(roughly a billion gallons per day) and assuming 20MPG, we estimate that the world’s
drivers travel 20 billion miles per day. Assuming the average electric car gets 3.5 miles
per kWhr, that would require an additional 6 TWhrs per day, which would require an
additional .25 TW of continuous electric power generation. About $0.65 trillion for
250GW of molten salt SMR reactor capacity would provide all of the power required by
an all electric vehicle fleet. Therefore $2 trillion plus $0.6 trillion or $2.6 trillion could
replace virtually all carbon intensive electricity and gasoline energy consumption.