Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to The Guardian, coal use will have to collapse in the 2020s if we are to combat the climate crisis.
Carbon emissions fall as electricity producers move away from coal
Global emissions down by 2% amid mild winter and reduced use of coal-fired power plants
Jillian Ambrose and Simon Goodley
Mon 9 Mar 2020 17.01 AEDTCarbon emissions from the global electricity system fell by 2% last year, the biggest drop in almost 30 years, as countries began to turn their backs on coal-fired power plants.
…
The report from climate thinktank Ember, formerly Sandbag, warned that the dent in the world’s coal-fired electricity generation relied on many one-off factors, including milder winters across many countries.
“Progress is being made on reducing coal generation, but nothing like with the urgency needed to limit climate change,” the report said.
Dave Jones, the lead author of the report, said governments must dramatically accelerate the electricity transition so that global coal generation collapses throughout the 2020s.
“To switch from coal into gas is just swapping one fossil fuel for another. The cheapest and quickest way to end coal generation is through a rapid rollout of wind and solar,” he said.
“But without concerted policymaker efforts to boost wind and solar, we will fail to meet climate targets. China’s growth in coal, and to some extent gas, is alarming but the answers are all there.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/09/carbon-emissions-fall-as-electricity-producers-move-away-from-coal
The report is available here.
Interesting that cheap solar and wind still seems to need so much government help.
Coal Use is Not Falling Fast Enough
And why would that be? And whose use is not falling fast enough?
Its China, India etc, its their use. They are installing coal plants as fast as they can. In China’s case not just in their own country but all over the world. And this is why its not falling fast enough. In fact, its not falling at all.
And so what does the Guardian want to do?
Close down the use of coal in the UK, whose use is tiny by comparison, and which will have no significant effect on the global tonnage of coal used.
Now ask the basic question.
If the Guardian cannot reasonably want to stop coal use in the UK in order to have any effect on global coal use, global CO2 emissions, or the global climate…. why do they want to do it?
Always ask: whose coal use is not falling fast enough? Who is it that has to stop or reduce in order to make an impact on global use?
And then ask yourself why the Guardian does not advocate their doing that, that is a taboo subject, but instead thinks it very important and planet saving for some tiny amount of coal use or CO2 emission to be stopped in the UK.
One thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with the global climate.
The following article demonstrates that a carbon dioxide tax would cost us a lot of money and have no effect on the climate. Using the authors data an additional view is as follows; Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were 55.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent; From Sciencing.com there are approximately 3 trillion tons of dioxide in the atmosphere; that means that 55.3 billion tons divided by 3000 billion tons times 100% is man’s contribution. The answer is approximately 1.84%. This is another reason man’s reduction of carbon dioxide would result in no measurable change in climate.
Regards, John Lentini.
Many of America’s corporate and academic elites have united to advocate for a carbon tax.
With all the money and brains behind the self-anointed “Climate Leadership Council” (CLC) you would think it would be able to figure out the math is simple that a carbon tax will have no effect on climate. There are reasons they haven’t.
The CLC is undertaking a media and lobbying blitz to push for a $40-per-ton national carbon tax, escalating by 5% per year. The CLC calls this “the most cost-effective, environmentally ambitious and politically viable climate solution.”
A $40 carbon tax would immediately raise the price of oil by $17, or to about 133% of today’s prices. We’re told not to fret the price increase because the government will remit the tax back to taxpayers as a “carbon dividend.” Most consumers will get back more money via the dividend than they paid in the tax, says the CLC.
Let’s breakdown this hucksterism.
First, a carbon tax is no sort of ‘climate solution.’ Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were 55.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents and increasing with no end in sight, according to the United Nations. The U.S. share was 7.2 billion tons 13% and shrinking as the rest of the world increases emissions.
Imagine the U.S. magically went dark and emitted no more carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases evermore. The rest of the world, which shows no signs of emitting less, would still emit at least 48 BILLION tons annually, which is 13 billion tons greater than the Kyoto Protocol’s goal of stabilizing emissions at 35 billion tons.
Even if the U.S. never emitted again, the difference in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be about two percent (2%) by the year 2100. No matter your view of climate science, that slight difference in CO2 would make no discernible difference to global temperature.
So simple math shows a CO2 tax would accomplish nothing. Even if a CO2 tax only cost you a nickel, you’d still be ripped off.
Next, although taxes tend to reduce use of the thing being taxed, this isn’t meaningfully true with oil. During the mid-2000s when oil rose to $140 per barrel, US oil consumption dipped a mere five percent (i.e., 20 million vs. 19 million barrels per day). Under the CLC’s plan, it would take 35 years to get the current price of oil up to that $140 level which barely reduced oil consumption in the first place. Absent sensible alternatives, Americans would likely cling to gasoline even as they were ripped off by the carbon tax.
Now for the really cynical part of the CLC’s carbon tax the ‘dividend.’
The CLC’s plan calls for a family of four to receive a $2,000 annual dividend check from the government in the first year, an amount that would grow as the tax increases. But is anyone paying attention to the math?
In 2019, US energy-related emissions were 5.1 billion tons. At $40 per ton, those emissions would raise $204 billion in taxes. Divide that $204 billion by 330 million Americans and you get a carbon tax costing each American $618 or $2,472 per family of four. But the carbon dividend is only worth $2,000 for a family of four, leaving them to pointlessly pay $472 more in energy costs every year.
The CLC’s device around this is to limit the dividend so that 70 percent of households would receive more in dividends than paid in carbon tax. So the CLC’s tax just amounts to a vote-buying, Marxist income redistribution scheme via climate.
Who exactly is the CLC anyway? It’s comprised of multinational corporate rentseekers and greenwashers, ivory tower economists, has-been politicians and left-wing environment groups.
The carbon tax is not about the climate so much as it is about CLC members’ various economic, political and personal agendas. Here are some of them.
Big Oil members (ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP) want to regain control over the price of oil lost due to the fracking revolution. Nuclear utility Exelon and First Solar hope to advance their interests by making fossil fuels more expensive. Goldman Sachs has investments in all sorts of green technologies. Two members are former Energy secretaries from the Obama ‘war on coal’ years. Former UN climate chief Christina Figueres is a leftist looking to end capitalism, as are the green groups like the World Wildlife Fund and the World Resources Institute.
The last time a such a diverse cabal of powerbrokers united on climate was to push cap-and-trade a different kind of carbon tax during the late 2000s. Cap-and-tax failed. Now the CLC has resurrected it. Meet the new fraud. Same as the old fraud.
Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, served on the Trump EPA transition team and is the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016).
The following article demonstrates that a carbon dioxide tax would cost us a lot of money and have no effect on the climate. Using the authors data an additional view is as follows; Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were 55.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent; From Sciencing.com there are approximately 3 trillion tons of dioxide in the atmosphere; that means that 55.3 billion tons divided by 3000 billion tons times 100% is man’s contribution. The answer is approximately 1.84%. This is another reason man’s reduction of carbon dioxide would result in no measurable change in climate.
Many of America’s corporate and academic elites have united to advocate for a carbon tax.
With all the money and brains behind the self-anointed “Climate Leadership Council” (CLC) you would think it would be able to figure out the math is simple that a carbon tax will have no effect on climate. There are reasons they haven’t.
The CLC is undertaking a media and lobbying blitz to push for a $40-per-ton national carbon tax, escalating by 5% per year. The CLC calls this “the most cost-effective, environmentally ambitious and politically viable climate solution.”
A $40 carbon tax would immediately raise the price of oil by $17, or to about 133% of today’s prices. We’re told not to fret the price increase because the government will remit the tax back to taxpayers as a “carbon dividend.” Most consumers will get back more money via the dividend than they paid in the tax, says the CLC.
Let’s breakdown this hucksterism.
First, a carbon tax is no sort of ‘climate solution.’ Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were 55.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents and increasing with no end in sight, according to the United Nations. The U.S. share was 7.2 billion tons 13% and shrinking as the rest of the world increases emissions.
Imagine the U.S. magically went dark and emitted no more carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases evermore. The rest of the world, which shows no signs of emitting less, would still emit at least 48 BILLION tons annually, which is 13 billion tons greater than the Kyoto Protocol’s goal of stabilizing emissions at 35 billion tons.
Even if the U.S. never emitted again, the difference in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be about two percent (2%) by the year 2100. No matter your view of climate science, that slight difference in CO2 would make no discernible difference to global temperature.
So simple math shows a CO2 tax would accomplish nothing. Even if a CO2 tax only cost you a nickel, you’d still be ripped off.
Next, although taxes tend to reduce use of the thing being taxed, this isn’t meaningfully true with oil. During the mid-2000s when oil rose to $140 per barrel, US oil consumption dipped a mere five percent (i.e., 20 million vs. 19 million barrels per day). Under the CLC’s plan, it would take 35 years to get the current price of oil up to that $140 level which barely reduced oil consumption in the first place. Absent sensible alternatives, Americans would likely cling to gasoline even as they were ripped off by the carbon tax.
Now for the really cynical part of the CLC’s carbon tax the ‘dividend.’
The CLC’s plan calls for a family of four to receive a $2,000 annual dividend check from the government in the first year, an amount that would grow as the tax increases. But is anyone paying attention to the math?
In 2019, US energy-related emissions were 5.1 billion tons. At $40 per ton, those emissions would raise $204 billion in taxes. Divide that $204 billion by 330 million Americans and you get a carbon tax costing each American $618 or $2,472 per family of four. But the carbon dividend is only worth $2,000 for a family of four, leaving them to pointlessly pay $472 more in energy costs every year.
The CLC’s device around this is to limit the dividend so that 70 percent of households would receive more in dividends than paid in carbon tax. So the CLC’s tax just amounts to a vote-buying, Marxist income redistribution scheme via climate.
Who exactly is the CLC anyway? It’s comprised of multinational corporate rentseekers and greenwashers, ivory tower economists, has-been politicians and left-wing environment groups.
The carbon tax is not about the climate so much as it is about CLC members’ various economic, political and personal agendas. Here are some of them.
Big Oil members (ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP) want to regain control over the price of oil lost due to the fracking revolution. Nuclear utility Exelon and First Solar hope to advance their interests by making fossil fuels more expensive. Goldman Sachs has investments in all sorts of green technologies. Two members are former Energy secretaries from the Obama ‘war on coal’ years. Former UN climate chief Christina Figueres is a leftist looking to end capitalism, as are the green groups like the World Wildlife Fund and the World Resources Institute.
The last time a such a diverse cabal of powerbrokers united on climate was to push cap-and-trade a different kind of carbon tax during the late 2000s. Cap-and-tax failed. Now the CLC has resurrected it. Meet the new fraud. Same as the old fraud.
Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, served on the Trump EPA transition team and is the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016).
Hello, the following article demonstrates that a carbon dioxide tax would cost us a lot of money and have no effect on the climate. Using the authors data an additional view is as follows; Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were 55.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent; From Sciencing.com there are approximately 3 trillion tons of dioxide in the atmosphere; that means that 55.3 billion tons divided by 3000 billion tons times 100% is man’s contribution. The answer is approximately 1.84%. This is another reason man’s reduction of carbon dioxide would result in no measurable change in climate.
Regards, John Lentini.
Many of America’s corporate and academic elites have united to advocate for a carbon tax.
With all the money and brains behind the self-anointed “Climate Leadership Council” (CLC) you would think it would be able to figure out the math is simple that a carbon tax will have no effect on climate. There are reasons they haven’t.
The CLC is undertaking a media and lobbying blitz to push for a $40-per-ton national carbon tax, escalating by 5% per year. The CLC calls this “the most cost-effective, environmentally ambitious and politically viable climate solution.”
A $40 carbon tax would immediately raise the price of oil by $17, or to about 133% of today’s prices. We’re told not to fret the price increase because the government will remit the tax back to taxpayers as a “carbon dividend.” Most consumers will get back more money via the dividend than they paid in the tax, says the CLC.
Let’s breakdown this hucksterism.
First, a carbon tax is no sort of ‘climate solution.’ Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were 55.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents and increasing with no end in sight, according to the United Nations. The U.S. share was 7.2 billion tons 13% and shrinking as the rest of the world increases emissions.
Imagine the U.S. magically went dark and emitted no more carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases evermore. The rest of the world, which shows no signs of emitting less, would still emit at least 48 BILLION tons annually, which is 13 billion tons greater than the Kyoto Protocol’s goal of stabilizing emissions at 35 billion tons.
Even if the U.S. never emitted again, the difference in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be about two percent (2%) by the year 2100. No matter your view of climate science, that slight difference in CO2 would make no discernible difference to global temperature.
So simple math shows a CO2 tax would accomplish nothing. Even if a CO2 tax only cost you a nickel, you’d still be ripped off.
Next, although taxes tend to reduce use of the thing being taxed, this isn’t meaningfully true with oil. During the mid-2000s when oil rose to $140 per barrel, US oil consumption dipped a mere five percent (i.e., 20 million vs. 19 million barrels per day). Under the CLC’s plan, it would take 35 years to get the current price of oil up to that $140 level which barely reduced oil consumption in the first place. Absent sensible alternatives, Americans would likely cling to gasoline even as they were ripped off by the carbon tax.
Now for the really cynical part of the CLC’s carbon tax the ‘dividend.’
The CLC’s plan calls for a family of four to receive a $2,000 annual dividend check from the government in the first year, an amount that would grow as the tax increases. But is anyone paying attention to the math?
In 2019, US energy-related emissions were 5.1 billion tons. At $40 per ton, those emissions would raise $204 billion in taxes. Divide that $204 billion by 330 million Americans and you get a carbon tax costing each American $618 or $2,472 per family of four. But the carbon dividend is only worth $2,000 for a family of four, leaving them to pointlessly pay $472 more in energy costs every year.
The CLC’s device around this is to limit the dividend so that 70 percent of households would receive more in dividends than paid in carbon tax. So the CLC’s tax just amounts to a vote-buying, Marxist income redistribution scheme via climate.
Who exactly is the CLC anyway? It’s comprised of multinational corporate rentseekers and greenwashers, ivory tower economists, has-been politicians and left-wing environment groups.
The carbon tax is not about the climate so much as it is about CLC members’ various economic, political and personal agendas. Here are some of them.
Big Oil members (ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP) want to regain control over the price of oil lost due to the fracking revolution. Nuclear utility Exelon and First Solar hope to advance their interests by making fossil fuels more expensive. Goldman Sachs has investments in all sorts of green technologies. Two members are former Energy secretaries from the Obama ‘war on coal’ years. Former UN climate chief Christina Figueres is a leftist looking to end capitalism, as are the green groups like the World Wildlife Fund and the World Resources Institute.
The last time a such a diverse cabal of powerbrokers united on climate was to push cap-and-trade a different kind of carbon tax during the late 2000s. Cap-and-tax failed. Now the CLC has resurrected it. Meet the new fraud. Same as the old fraud.
Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, served on the Trump EPA transition team and is the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016).
Wednesday last week coal was producing twice as much electricity as wind. No good saying Oh that’s exceptional da da da. It has to be planned for and covered by real generators.’ Or perhaps in the future we will perforce tolerate frequent blackouts. Don’t be in hospital.
The Guardian correspondent must be mistaken. China and India are building over 600 new coal fired power stations. Of course they are! What’s happening to the Myrna Loy (whatever) figure? Maybe humankind isn’t making a difference?
Well they do say right at the end-
“China’s growth in coal, and to some extent gas, is alarming but the answers are all there.”
Sometimes they need to pause and listen to themselves and what it means as in a very expensive exercise in futility stoopids.
“What’s happening to the Myrna Loy (whatever) figure?”
Presumably you’re referring to Mauna Loa and they didn’t muck around with committees and endless meetings bloody meetings in the good old days-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/hawaiian-man-finds-remains-of-bombs-which-were-dropped-on-erupting-mauna-loa-volcano-in-1935/ar-BB110BLr
What can we do quick to fix this thing and don’t worry about the odd unexploded ordinance getting carried down by the lava. LOL.
PV Magazine reports that A large number of 10 year old roof top solar system inverters are failing. Here’s the comment I provided….not yet posted (long live coal])
Nice little upgrade to something that only doubles the price of electricity and worsens the duck curve for an installed cost of….$5000 or more? Or maybe “free” just add the cost to the ratepayers? End this stupidity now!