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Every page is marked with “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”… That’s fracking hilarious.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 |
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.