Guest essay by Eric Worrall
President Biden has raised the social cost of carbon from Trump’s $8 / ton to the Obama level of $51 / ton. But the real sting is the price tag to be applied to methane ($1500 / ton) and nitrous oxide from fertiliser ($18,000 / ton). And the price may rise – this price rise is seen as an interim measure.
Biden hikes cost of carbon, easing path for new climate rules
The social cost of carbon could have ripple effects throughout industry.
By LORRAINE WOELLERT and ZACK COLMAN
02/26/2021 04:57 PM ESTPresident Joe Biden on Friday restored an Obama-era calculation on the economic cost of greenhouse gases, a step that will make it easier for his agencies to approve aggressive actions to confront climate change.
…
The interim figure — $51 for every ton of carbon released into the atmosphere — is well above the $8 cost used under former President Donald Trump, who declined to factor the global impacts of climate pollution into his calculation. It’s on par with a price based on analyses undertaken between 2010 and 2016 under former President Barack Obama, whose administration was first to calculate the figure known as the social cost of carbon.
The price point is temporary. A new Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases is required to issue a final number by January.
…
The Interagency Working Group, led by the Council of Economic Advisers, Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy, must issue recommendations on incorporating the cost into government decision-making and budgeting by September and deliver a final number by January.
The working group, in Friday’s notice, said it was “appropriate“ for federal agencies to revert to the Obama-era values, even though “new data and evidence strongly suggests that the discount rate regarded as appropriate for intergenerational analysis is lower.“
The group set a $1,500-per-ton cost for methane emissions and $18,000 for nitrous oxide.
…
Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/26/biden-carbon-price-climate-change-471787
Full details of the new prices are available on the White House website.
The social cost of carbon is not a carbon tax, it is used as a reference number to inform regulatory decisions about new pipelines, and may in time be used to “justify” a new carbon tax.
The Methane emission cost of $1500 / ton potentially paves the way for enormous fines next time a pipeline blows out, but we already knew Biden wants to kill off domestic fossil fuel production.
The $18,000 / ton on nitrous oxide could be a significant new cost for farmers.
We live in an age of food abundance because farmers apply 10s of kilograms of nitrate fertiliser to every acre of their land, every year. If increased costs or regulation pressure farmers into cutting back on nitrate fertiliser application, the result could be less abundance.
No doubt any resulting food or energy shortages will be blamed on climate change.
Update (EW): A few commenters have questioned the link between nitrate fertiliser and nitrous oxide. The link is, when you apply nitrate fertiliser to a field, a percentage of the fertiliser mass is converted by bacteria or other processes into gaseous nitrogen compounds, including ammonia and nitrous oxide. Most gaseous compounds of nitrogen are powerful greenhouse gasses.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
China and India will not be participants!
Developing nations must be given a chance to catch up, and for China to overtake and dominate assisted by the unelected UN Officials.
WWGD – What Would Griff Do? I’d look for his comment, but life is too short to waste my time reading his leftist propaganda.
I’m not a leftist!
But your comments make all believe you are 😀
Yes, you are, and you proudly proclaim so with each comment you post.
neither was Carl Marx
right griff ;-)..
you are a sjw leftist, socialist prat. !
FAR left, and too self-blind to see it.
Reading last year’s BP energy review the forecasts to reach net zero emissions by 2050 called for an eye watering USD250/t tax (2018 USDs) on CO2 emissions in 2050 in the developed world, and an incredible USD175/t tax averaged across the developing world by 2050.
For Australia that equated to about $6.4k per annum in CO2 taxes.
Totally and utterly impossible to get people to pay that level of tax in the developing world when they earn less than that in total.
Any party which tries that on will never be elected.
Dean,
A few days late here – “any party which tries that on will never get elected”
Please look at the gangsters we elected here in Britain a few years ago masquerading (appropriate word that – mask) as Conservatives. After taking over our dictator Boris went completely insane by adopting the mostextreme Marxist climate policy on the planet.
Before you vote next time check who the leader is sleeping with. Boris has a (present) concubine who is left of Michael Mann – just with better hair.
Economic suicide by a million cuts!
In a healthy economy, people can survive without the assistance of government.
Please! Can you point to any “healthy economy”? Or any government “assistance” that actually benefitted an economy, for that matter.
And economy of course is free market capitalism, a private sector burdened by not for profit governments, public servants and including politicians living off the tax revenue streams.
Erie Canal and Interstates. Only 2 I got.
Erie Canal was a private venture.
Private corporations were building roads and canals long before government got into the act.
Actually in my life experience governments more often than not create a cost and living burden for people.
I wonder how many billions of dollars have been spent importing solar panels, solar panel parts like charge controllers, tracking mechanisms and support structures from China for the last ten years? Same for wind turbines. And how much money has been wasted by governments trying to support hopelessly inefficient “green” schemes? What could that money have done if it had been spent to actually support domestic businesses?
CO2 is Not
a problem
Neither is Methane.
The whole issue is a mole hill to mountain exaggeration.
It will be 33 years this coming June since Dr. James Hansen famously testified before the United States Congress, the predictions he made at that time have not come true. The issue lives on because of politics, not science.
The problem is the government running out of our money! This is the easiest way to raise tax dollars for DC swamp insiders. Trump was right! The swamp needs drained flushed and sanitized ASAP! Term limits if that is possible! Maybe it just has to pop….. Good luck everyone… CO2 is good and being warmer is also a good thing. How backwards the world has become in my life span.
And now we will be all looking at China, Russia and India to save the world. Originally the decision was between autocracy and democracy (and what comes with it: free speech, elections, etc), BUT after the last election the choice is now between rationality, sanity and economic prosperity verses irrationality, insanity and economic decay.
I don’t see how the United States will lead the world into any kind of New World Order here or One World Government. A prerequisite for any form of government is that it deliver a better quality of life for its citizens, less it risk collapse from within. (why China switched to a capitalist model, after watching the USSR disintegrate eg.)
The federal government has long ago run out of money and are deep in debt.
Don’ja just HATE it when those mean ol’ Presidents move to limit the communization of the external costs of an industry, and move them from us back to the industry? Time to move the goal post now. “Bbbbbutt!, wudabout how IMPORTANT hydrocarbon products are?!” Agree, so important that those that use them should fully pay for them.
Price/cost signals should RULE in the American Enterprise. Milton Friedman would agree….
So applying the fake “social cost” INSTEAD of the current taxes would REDUCE the cost of oil and gas by how much?
I am not trying to be flippant or glib here, but “social cost” has a real-world meaning, outside of the way the Democrats are using the phrase. So, what is the “social cost” this kind of governance? And I can tell you it will be a lot more concrete than any price they put on methane. A few examples:
French Leaders Warn That Social Justice Ideas Imported From US Are Undermining Their Society
h**ps://www.zerohedge.com/political/french-leaders-warn-social-justice-ideas-imported-us-are-undermining-their-society
As column in Moscow’s top progressive newspaper labels West ‘New ethical Reich,’ are Russian liberals turning away from EU & US?
h**ps://www.rt.com/russia/515384-republic-progressive-newspaper-gubin-column/
Great Reset? Putin Says, “Not So Fast”
h**ps://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/great-reset-putin-says-not-so-fast
India’s space agency to build homegrown alternative to Google Maps, after country introduces ‘own’ Twitter & WhatsApp
h**ps://www.rt.com/news/515474-india-google-maps-alternative/
And it goes on and on in the international media. So, instead of being a beacon of leadership for a One World Government, the United States is on the road to becoming an excluded pariah state.
And the Democrats claimed Trump was an isolationist???
While “social cost” may indeed have further meanings and international implications other than those used in the article, or by the US Democrats statements which inspired this article, it is that basic meaning which we are using in discussing the article. Putting a price on “social cost” lays the groundwork in moving towards a theoretical pigovian tax on oil, gas, and fertiliser. Unfortunately for the Democrats, even in America the tax on fuels is already above any level likely to be determined for a pigovian tax.
The US appears to have problems with their government. We in the UK also have problems with ours. Most of the EU have problems at national as well as at EU level. Governments the world over appear to be bottomless cesspits of corruption. And that is before we even look at the really bad ones!
I absolutely agree Bob!
However, we also need to analyze the external BENEFITS of an industry and create a credit for that industry.
Right now, the countries that use fossil fuels in their economies create far more humanitarian living conditions for their populations. The agricultural countries also grow significantly more food for their poor, and enough to export to the poor in other countries that do not utilize fossil fuels.
Further, the CO2 fertilization effect has increased the overall production of vital cereal grain crops around the world – even in countries that only utilize subsistence farming techniques.
Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of all of the factors would probably result in a net subsidy of $10/barrel for crude oil producers and $3/MCF for natural gas producers.
I assume you would support these subsidies based on your previous comments regarding the proper treatment of “externalities”?
“However, we also need to analyze the external BENEFITS of an industry and create a credit for that industry.”
Orwellian in it’s 2Speak. Unlike the external costs ,which (predictably) end up falling quite disproportionately on small users, those referenced BENEFITS are already accounted for, when we buy hydrocarbon products. CPAC might enjoy your open mic stand up – after all, that’s all they’re doing this year – but no 2 dips, PI…
Cheap and reliable energy reduces the risk of social unrest.
That leads to cheaper investment costs across the economy – a positive externality.
It leads to lower insurance costs across society – a positive externality.
It leads to confidence to invest time and attention to the current social organisation leading to a functioning democracy – a positive externality.
How does the (low) price of fossil fuels factors in those externalities? If you think hard you can probably find more.
Considering how life expectancy, civil society and personal freedom has grown in societies that historically embraced fossil fuels it is obvious that the net externalities of fossil fuels are positive.
At the simplest, without bulldozers and combine harvesters moving earth and picking crops we used to use slaves.
AGAIN, that’s what you expect to get when YOU PAY FOR IT. All the more reason to pay for the full cost of it, and then let the market decide how much those internal and external benefits are worth.
How was $51 calculated?
If it is such a great idea, why not boost it to $1000?
A good question. But did you read the article?
The price point is temporary. A new Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases is required to issue a final number by January.
In other words, it is completely arbitrary without any basis in reality.
It has to be arbitrary, because there is no evidence that CO2 needs to be regulated or needs a price applied to it.
In other words, the amount will be set based on the needs of politicians.
Bob, keep up your defense, you’re doing really well.
Since the very article under discussion is about a moving towards a realistic estimate of carbon cost, and an interim increase from $8 to $51/ton, it doesn’t appear that the dead enders are doing that well. Well, maybe in Black Knight world….
How typical of a big government progressive.
Anyone who disagrees with your belief that government is capable of perfecting society is just a dead ender who needs to be killed.
“moving towards a realistic estimate of carbon cost”
WRONG WAY.
The BENEFITS also need to be considered.
And they outweigh the so-called “costs” by several magnitudes.
Even a petty ignorant fool like you, could not exist without them
Your whole existence DEPENDS on them.
“WRONG WAY.
The BENEFITS also need to be considered.”
Why do you insist on stopping thought when your foregone conclusions have been met?
The “BENEFITS” have already been accounted for by purchasing them. Every “benefit” mentioned is accrued by the customer. OTOH, the communized costs are rained down upon everyone.
I hereby give you permission to THINK.
“I hereby give you permission to THINK.
Something YOU have never been able to do
BENEFITS OF FOSSIL FULE far outweigh any imaginary small issues.
There are FAR MORE BENEFITS that we actuall pay for over the counter
Fossil Fuels are what keep western society FUNCTIONING
I’d suggest you use your brain.
But you seem to be TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF IT
I can’t find any evidence that bugOilBoob has ever engaged in thought of any kind. All he has ever done is regurgitate trite left wing slogans that even he knows make no sense.
So typical of a progressive, thinking is defined as agreeing with the progressive, even though everything claimed by the progressive has been disproven many times.
“The price point is temporary.”
In what world do you live in? The chances of this being temporary is far less than the chance of any of the global warming predictions being true. And since the global warming predictions are currently at 0%, the chance of this being temporary is less than 0%. Which means that it will be $51 today, $65 next year, $125 the next, $500 the next, $10,000 the next. And the only ones exempt will be the ones who can afford it, the ones who can buy a politician.
Lol pay for it 😉
The market isn’t making this decision, the government is.
The government is taking a tiny, baby step to restore actual market forces. The costs that the biz have been allowed to shirk for many decades have skewed those markets, as economists of every stripe know.
WRONG as always greasy, slimy blob.
BENEFITS from fossils fuels are MAGNITUDES MORE than for any costs
You could not live without them
And I bet you wouldn’t even try
You ar just EMPTY, twisted and bitter, MOUTHY BS !!
Taxes are restoring market forces?
Are you as stupid as your posts sound?
You have yet to demonstrate that CO2 is not a net benefit.
No.
People pay for the use of the energy that is generated.
The impacts I listed are externalities. They are not what is being paid for. They are side effects that impact on people who did not have any say on the decision to purchase fossil fuels and may not, in theory, even have used them.
You asked for no double-dipping. You got it.
And then you try to redefine any positive outcomes as “what you expect to get when YOU PAY FOR IT”.
You cannot do that. You can only count the positive outcomes that were paid for.
Otherwise you have to include all the negative externalities as being paid for by society as a whole and already built into the price.
Which is silly.
We do not even know what all the externalities, both positive and negative will be.
So that’s really the ground you want to defend.
Since people expect good things to happen when they emit CO2, there is no need to compensate people.
On the other hand, whether they expect or not bad things from emitting CO2, they have to be taxed for them.
Have you always been a hypocrite, or did becoming a progressive just bring it out?
“Since people expect good things to happen when they emit CO2,”
Which “people”? The same “people” in Trump’s “people are sayin’…”?
Said it before. You and your “peeps” can egg each other on from now to Doomsday. Thankfully, you have about as much above ground impact as Pat Frank’s “disturbing” 2019 paper had…
I see that Bob still can’t provide any actual data to support his beliefs. All he can do is make empty claims about how people who agree with him, agree with him, therefore he must be right.
Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL for any damage from the released of sequestered carbon into the carbons cycle
Let’s see if you have one single bit of real science to back up your bitter and twisted view of the CO2..
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Show us you are more than just an empty rotting old sock !!
He doesn’t need evidence, his handlers have assured him that the government can never be wrong.
Bob believes in Trump Russia colluuuusion….and Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy
Good one Bob.
I love the collusion angle when no one has given Putin a bigger boost than Biden has with his domestic energy policy.
The FBI should be investigating, as Putin does cartwheels
Once again, bugOilBoob is unable to actually defend his worship of government control.
Bob is hoping to be one of the elites that will be telling everyone else how to live, what to believe, and what to think. He is having a pipe dream.
Robespierre thought the same thing and you know where he ended up? Some would say “rolling” on the floor!
Pay for all the MASSIVE BENEFITS for a fossil fueled society
I DARE you to cut all things carbon from your pitiful twisted existence.
Someone should write a Sci-Fi novel about a silicon-based biosphere on this earth and how it flourished until its inhabitants unthinkingly accepted a meme that SiO2 was destroying the earth, which gave rise to the demise of the SiO2-based biosphere and paved the way for a Carbon-based biosphere.
“AGAIN, that’s what you expect to get when YOU PAY FOR IT.”
Don’t forget the existing taxes that’s being paid at the same time on all the activity because it’s convenient for the usual suspects to think about some double taxation here.
BigOlBob,
What if the SCC is negative. Does that mean we need to subsidized its production? The problem is SCC is based upon model assumptions that are too often chosen to get the desired result, not inform the true value.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/the-zombie-social-cost-of-carbon/
First off, the costs of CO2 are mostly imaginary. They simply don’t exist outside of computer models.
How are consumers compensated when the CO2 they create reduces excess winter deaths, and causes crops to grow bigger and healthier.
Stupid comment, bigbob. Greening of the Earth by CO2 is an example where the benefits of CO2 aren’t accounted for. Reduced hunger from increased crop production is another unaccounted benefit (owing to the increase in C02, the reduction in most crop water needs, and the fact that more land has become arable in Canada and Russia with the slight lengthening of the growing season while very little (if any) arable land has been lost to climate change).
There would be fewer climate related deaths in total since deaths from cold outnumber deaths from heat. That’s an unaccounted benefit. Fewer Texas type blackouts too. Shortening of shipping routes across the Arctic in summer. Increased wealth from the availability of cheap energy lengthens lifespans and is highly correlated with better education and reduced birth rates lowering the pressure from overpopulation. Wouldn’t have that without fossil fuels. Jobs are also correlated to the availability of cheap energy – all unaccounted benefits.
Listen up, the putative social costs from hydrocarbon use are hugely exaggerated not just from not accounting for the benefits but also by pessimistically predicting the detrements – the O’Biden Bama number is clearly bogus.
There’s something wrong with you if you really believe the nonsense that you just spouted.
The costs of hydrocarbon use aren’t exaggerated. They’re imaginary.
Exactly, Mark. People discuss this nonsense as though there really is a “carbon cost”. It’s all fantasy.
I hate to think of how much they should be paying me to burn coal. Brings to mind the Northern Ireland Wood Pellet Scandal – Renewable Heat Incentive or Cash for Ash where the subsidy for using renewable fuels was more than the cost of the actual fuels, leading to entirely predictable results. Market distortions are usually worse than the “problem” they are trying to fix.
Ironic as it now sounds, with the introduction of government subsidized Green Energy the government now has to subsidized Fossil Fuels to create the back-up system for when Green Energy fails to produce electricity. No fossil fuel energy producer will dare open up a coal plant or natural gas plant these days based on natural market forces (never mind the negative PR), as they won’t make a profit. (Or they will try and charge $9000 MW/hr in order to stay open). Quite simply, if the government wants a reliable grid, the government will need to pay for it. And that means guaranteeing a profit for fossil fuel producers. And that is the “dirty little secret” or “shell game” the government plays to appease the Greenies and ensure a reliable grid. And thus you have super expensive electricity, as in Germany.
And that in turn reduces the tax base (remember when they said Green Energy would be cheaper?):
High electricity cost drives German high-tech industry to Asia
“The high electricity price makes the location unattractive,” he said in an interview with the Handelsblatt. His company pays “less than half the electricity price” in Singapore.
https://www.thegwpf.com/green-suicide-high-electricity-costs-drive-german-high-tech-to-asia/
And so much for reducing carbon in the atmosphere, when that plant relocates to Asia. (lol)
Sweden Wrestles With Power Shortage As Cold Weather Hampers Supply
On Friday, the Holmen forestry company closed down large parts of its paper mills in Braviken and Hallstavik due to the high electricity price.
“We are watching the market with our hands on the handbrake. And if the calculation doesn’t add up, we have to close. This week, we operated at half speed,” said Holmen CEO Henrik Sjölund.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/sweden-wrestles-with-power-shortage-as-cold-weather-hampers-supply/
But, if you can simply print money, you don’t need to worry about your tax base. And around and around it goes… and the carbon dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere.
The whole thing would be laughable, if we didn’t have pay for it or suffer the consequences.
Tell that to China 😉
Please show the actual evidence that those externalities are caused by
CARBON(sic) CO2.By their own definition the claims are based on models which to date have shown no accuracy.
I doubt Milton would have agreed on a tax to prevent an imaginary impact.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
Bob,
You seem more strident of late. Did you get run-off another rig?
A twitter and bisted fool, is big oily blob !
He strikes me as a real good worker😜
He doesn’t sound like an oilman. More like a woke progressive sporting the the clothes of someone who actually works for a living. Why would someone choose an alias that makes him look like he has some intimate acquaintance with the industry if not to try to gain some support as an authority?
He might work in the oil industry. Probably a janitor.
You should not have skipped Econ 101.
“You should not have skipped Econ 101.”
Everything I am saying is consonant with it. Real pricing info is key to the American Enterprise. The hydrocarbon fuel chain has been getting a Trumpian YUGE free ride from the rest of us for over a century. Hence, the retinue who uses their F450’s like rascal scooters. with the attendant lifestyle related health problems. THAT’S Econ 101….
Here’s a question you should ask yourself: “Self, who profits from these added ‘carbon’ costs?”
It really does bug you that everything is run by the government.
There is no free ride for hydrocarbons.
You really should spend some time thinking instead of hating.
“There is no free ride for hydrocarbons.”
After spending my adult life in the biz, BS call. I have listed them dozens of times. But you have finally woke me to the fact that I need to keep this (quantified) list, and c/p it in response to vapor locked, fact free civilians like yourself.
Actually the only thing you have ever listed is things that exist only in your fevered imagination.
As to you having been part of the industry, your posts give no evidence to support that belief either.
Name the top three, please.
Another load of unsubstantiated BS from the human-hater that is big oily blob.
Fantasies based on ZERO SCIENCE are all you have.
The BENEFITS of a fossil fuel , carbon based life and society are MANY MAGNITUDES GREATER than any erroneously perceived harm by CO2 emissions.
Why do you HATE yourself and life on Earth so, so much ???
Like most of BugOilBoob’s claims, his claims that he has listed these so called costs “dozens” of times is nothing more than empty, unsupported blather.
Is a steaming heap of, bitter, anti-life, anti-human excrement.
WHY DO YOU HATE YOURSELF SO, SO MUCH !!!
Folks, can’t say it better than Frank Zappa:
“You’ll hurt your throat, stop it!”
You are who you are , slimy, oily blob
WHY DO YOU HATE YOURSELF, and ALL LIFE ON EARTH,..
… SO, SO MUCH !!!
And still BugOilBoob refuses to actually support the outlandish claims he has been making.
Yep, we have not had to pay more than a pittance for the MASSIVE BENEFITS of fossil fuel energy.
Fossil fuels have given us WESTERN SOCIETY, and now we abuse them.
WESTERN SOCIETY could not have developed WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS
Western Society would not exist but for fossil fuels.
Western society will collapse if fossil fuels are removed.
But that is the aim, isn’t it !!
I see that you are still stupid enough to believe that CO2 is a problem.
“I see that you are still stupid enough to believe that CO2 is a problem.”
Yes, it is. Neither of us are “stupid”, but I am the person facing facts head on. As are most scientists, and a majority of the rest of us. Sorry if you are still took in by those dozens still talking only to each other, and stricken with Dan Kahan system 2 rationalizing. But I’m pretty pleased that the wisdom of crowds is prevailing.
I am a proud defender of your right to whine to your buds, so feel free to continue to do so. But since we’re a country and not a country club, you can either contribute as a citizen or follow your fearless leader to extradition proof, soon to be gilded, Trump Tower Moscow….
Standard watermelon talking points end-to-end, all divorced from truth.
Also divorced from facts.
What facts? Every prediction made for the evils of CO2 has failed to materialize.
The claim that most scientists support your religious convictions has been refuted so many times that only those who are totally immune to reality, such as yourself, still cite them.
And once again, you demonstrate that hatred of those who are successful is the only thing that motivates you.
CO2 is the “problem” according to bigoilbob. But bigoilbob refuses to admit that termites emit ten times the amount of CO2 to the atmosphere as do humans. Further, he refuses to campaign for the extermination of 10% of termites as a solution to the “problem”. Instead, he calls for 100% elimination of human emissions.
Not too bright when you really stop and think about it. Nobody will miss the termites. And just think of all the extermination jobs that would be created.
Big oily blob is like all those inflicted with the deep-seated mental disease that is ACDS.
ABSOLUTELY HATES the fact that ITS WHOLE LIFE is totally dependent on CO2.. for its very existence.
The self-HATRED and HATRED for anything “CARBON” is has really twisted his little mind into a soggy mush of putrid green ooze.
You do yourself no favors with the termite argument.
UTTER BS, yet again
… you are running and hiding from actual facts, them fabricating your own version.
All based on a deep inner hatred of human and all other life.
Lets see your facts
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
…but I am the person facing facts head on
And these are ?
Bigoilbob, the likes of griff and Loydo can be irritating but you take it to a whole new level.
If you seriously believe that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem then shutting down the renewable energy industry would massively reduce raw materials waste, free up valuable land and alleviate the serious problem of end of life waste. Most of all it would reduce CO2.
Well, no that wouldn’t be the only positive, it would mean that we were using real power.
Since that is only a sweet dream and we are actually going down the gurgler I’ll get back to the discussion at hand.
I came across an article recently and I have in fact posted it a few times on this site. I’ll post it once again as it’s very relevant to the CO2 discussion. I’d like you to read it before you come back to insult me, and attempt to justify renewables technology. I recommend you open the PDF for ease of reading, it’s only a few pages including pictures.
I did not realise just how much coal was used in the production of silicon wafers for solar cells, that it’s an actual ingredient too. I did not know that hardwood is also an ingredient and that in some places the timber is being sourced from Brazilian and Indonesian rainforests.
I did not know that there are three separate processes requiring high temperatures. And that in one of the processes, the coal furnaces must be kept at around 1100C for 5 days. I also found out that after all that, half of the resulting silicon is lost when they cut the wafers to size! Oh, and it’s not only CO2 spewing from the factories.
All this is bad enough but the worst of it is that somewhere along the way “by agreement” they do not include the CO2 created in some of the processes.
All that, just for the silicon. Coal furnaces would also be necessary to make the aluminium frames. Coal furnaces, and metallurgical coal would also also be necessary to make the steel posts.
We are currently fighting a 400MW solar installation a few kilometres from our home. With batteries and 800,000 to 900,000 solar panels it will see almost 18 square kilometres of quality agricultural land fenced off. This land will be laser bulldozed of every shrub, tree, blade of grass and small animals that could not escape.
400MW solar capacity is nowhere near equal to any of the traditional power sources, and it only works when the sun’s out. The backup batteries won’t last an hour. I cannot even fathom the amount of raw materials that have to be mined, processed and shipped around the planet to build this installation. There are few jobs to be had in the renewables industry here in Australia. There may be up to ten jobs if this project goes ahead, mostly part-time maintenance jobs.
I invite you to come back to me Bigoilbob and justify this infrastructure.
Sorry Bigoilbob, I forgot to post the link.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335083312_Why_do_we_burn_coal_and_trees_to_make_solar_panels
Never mind Megs – you probably saved BoB from another bout of apoplexy.
Correction,
You, big oily blob, are most definitely INCREDIBLY STUPID !
It take incredible stupidity to catch anti-carbon derangement sydrome
ACDS is a sign of a completely broken cognitive capability.
There is no wisdom of the crowd; you’re just a sheep following other sheep and believing yourself smart for that
Hey, big oil bob,
You seem like a really knowledgeable guy; what would you proposed to stop the long term decrease of atmospheric CO2 due to biomineralization of armored shells for marine species?
From the data we have it seems clear that carbon dioxide will be reduced to 150ppm or less in the next period or two glacial advance. Do you consider this a minor or nonexistent problem? I’d love to here some intelligent solutions if it is a concern!
Is a question about non anthropogenic events tens of thousands of years in the future particularly relevant here? I’m more worried about post 1950 – ECS anthropogenic energy accretions at rates over an order of magnitude higher than ever documented.
But to answer, about 173 on my list of concerns, both for me and my spawn….
So you openly admit you do not care at all about the future of life on Earth!? That was pretty much what I thought from reading your diatribes; a mind filled with envy and hate is such a waste!
I’m more worried about post 1950 – ECS anthropogenic energy accretions at rates over an order of magnitude higher than ever documented.
Show me, or us, the resulting harm.
Have we now more or less famines ?
Have we now more or less “climate deaths” ?
Have we now more or less healthyness ?
Have we now a higher or a lower new borne death rate ?
Live we in general longer or shorter now ?
(to be continued)
Your WARPED, NIL-EDUCATED brain-washed semi-mind has absolutely no real scientific evidence of any damage by atmospheric CO2
It is all a COMPLETE ANTI-SCIENCE FANTASY of a WARPED and DERANGED MIND.
Lets try again, see if you can slime and ooze your way around answering, as usual
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
The BENEFITS of a slight increase in atmospheric CO2, even to 1200ppm +
… are MAGNITUDES MORE than any fantasy anti-science damage that your tiny mind has been brain-hosed with
The BENEFITS of a fossil fueled powered society are MANY MAGNITUDES MORE than any fantasy damage from human released atmospheric CO2
Even the increase i atmospheric CO2, is TOTALLY BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth
There is no scientific downside to increasing atmospheric CO2.
it is all just GREAT NEWS for the planet and all creatures living on it..
Bigoilbob falls into the trap in thinking that humans are somehow “Not Natural” because they can use their brains to figure out how dig up past eons of the remnants of the carbon cycle and put it to use for their benefit. However, in order for humans to be “not natural” in what they can do, ignores the fact that all natural beings do what they are capable of doing in order to survive and thrive. That’s biology 101.
Further, if humans are “not natural” then the only other explanation of their existence is from the result of divine intervention. That puts bigoilbob in a logical quandry as he has never ever said even once that he prays to a god routinely for some divine intervention to relieve the worry his belief system about humans causes him.
and move them from us back to the industry?
And buying in one or more steps these more expensive industrial products, we don’t pay the higher costs ?
Live you in Schlaraffia (land of milk and honey) ? No idea how economy works ?
Not a single clue.
Regarding tobacco taxes: they were imposed as a way to encourage people to not smoke by making it too expensive. What has happened? Has the tobacco industry gone away? Not even close—people still smoke. Is the solution to raise them even higher? This will never happen because the addiction to tobacco has now spread to governments who are now highly dependent on the tax revenue.
The same will happen with ‘carbon’ taxes: governments will become dependent on them, which will ensure the survival of the oil and gas industry for decades to come.
The government is just like any business. They carefully monitor the “price” and raise it until they see a fall off and then adjust back down just slightly. Their only thought is maximize the revenue that the tobacco tax brings in. Otherwise just simply ban it and be done!
Exactly.
There is no such thing as a “Social Cost of Carbon”, but there would be one hell of a social cost without it. You’re really one confused dude.
bigoilbob
You conveniently forget the benefits side of the cost / benefits inequality. I say inequality because the benefits of fossil fuel usage vastly outweigh the costs.
Puppet Biden doesn’t have a clue .
Look up his Texas speech if you have any doubt .
Poor man is being used as a useful idiot . Who is really in charge ?
The 64,000-dollar question. That was painful to watch, the guy can’t think his way out of a paper bag. “Dr” Jill should be up on elder-abuse charges.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-kamala-harris-in-charge-foreign-policy
If you really want to weep, try this:
Utterly gormless.
““I think the country would welcome Texas being connected to the national grid in some way, shape or form that allows its neighbors to help,” she told NPR in an interview. “We could send ions across the electric grid to help in cases, in situations like this.””
Texas would not have benefitted from being connected to the Southwest Power Pool, a group of 14 States.
The Southwest Power Pool was having power problems of their own and were experiencing rolling blackouts just like Texas was, although the blackouts in the Southwest Power Pool were not as severe or numerous as the blackouts in Texas.
The other day, David Middleton showed a graph of the Southwest Power Pool electricity production during the arctic cold wave and the wind component, just like the wind component in Texas, was not producing enough electricity.
My theory is that windmilss in the Southwest Power Pool also stopped functioning because of the weather and the windmills dropping out were the cause of the rolling blackouts in the Southwest Power Pool.
The windmills might have frozen up, or as in the case of Texas, there wasn’t enough wind available at certain times to power the windmills.
It looks like to me that windmills threw at least 15 States into chaos because they stopped producing electricity because of the weather.
Windmills were the chief cause of all the troubles on these grids. The reason the blackouts were not as severe or numerous in the Southwest Power Pool as compared to Texas is because the 14 States of the Southwest Power Pool have a lot less windmills than does Texas, and those windmills are spread across all those States.
We are definitely reaching “Peak Windmill” in Texas, and it looks like the Southwest Power Pool is close to Peak Windmill, too.
Peak Windmill = The number of windmills one can put on an electric grid without destablizing it.
“send ions across the electric grid”?!?
What dufus wrote this gem?
Biden’s secretary of energy.
Gah, must have come from a long career in the used car industry.
Food shortage part of Great Reset. Be more disturbing if pres Buy den had AF1 on Tx jet trip.
Soviet Union, Mao China, Kim North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela
As we go socialist we too can look forward to the great abundance of food that will be realized! /sarc
Using a GLOBAL SCC makes absolutely no sense if the major global emitters are not paying the same rates.
The impacts are based on models, not observable data.
The assumption is that if “carbon” (CO2) went away, the damage (floods from SLR, forest fires etc) would no longer occur. (Nonsense)
The BENEFITS of more CO2 to agriculture etc are not included.
Will every industrial wind turbine erected have to pay for the SCC?
The “social cost of carbon” is a complete lie of course, as CO2 is entirely beneficial to man, and to all life. We need more of it, in fact.
The social cost of lying, however…
The swamp is back with a vengeance. Buildings full of Wallys bloviating about the imaginary cost of ‘carbon’. What cost would you like? How many of us can benefit? And round and round it goes. It is a pity the cancel crowd doesn’t take aim at this self serving boondoggle.
ALL life on the planet Earth is based on carbon, so how can it be harmful? Without ‘carbon’, NONE of us could possibly live! Leave it to a bunch of charlatan QUACKS to screw everything up, and raise taxes on the working, struggling peoples of the world! They never seem to tire of that, do they?
What about the social benefits of carbon? How does that balance out against the make believe costs?
the BENEFITS are several magnitude more than any fanciful costs
President Biden has raised the social cost of carbon from Trump’s $8 / ton to the Obama level of $51 / ton. But the real sting is the price tag to be applied to methane ($1500 / ton) and nitrous oxide from fertiliser ($18,000 / ton). And the price may rise – this price rise is seen as an interim measure.
****
What about water vapor Mr. President?. Water vapor is a GHG too, isn’t it? You forgot to assign a social cost to water.
Total idiocy.
…..and some CO2 comes from the oceans Mr. President. You also forget to assign a social cost to the oceans.
Yes H2O is the primary greenhouse gas and molecule per molecule is a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2. In terms of the mythical radiant greenhouse effect all the other so called greenhouse gases are trivial compared to H20. Then there is the gas in our atmosphere with the greatest climate sensitivity, N2.
Somebody at the WH has been into the Nitrous Oxide supply. Again.
Was that you Joe?
Probably Hunter.
Need lots and lots of carbon to make wind turbines and silicon PV, do these get hit also?
Annapolis Maryland sues 26 oil companies in another frivolous lawsuit.
https://dcist.com/story/21/02/24/annapolis-battling-sea-level-rise-sues-26-oil-companies/
I thought Tort Reform
was supposed to
stop the this crap.
The oil companies stop supplying fossil fuels to that town and the people should stop making use of all goods and services that in any way make use of fossil fuels. That includes food and other goods being brought in by truck.
Carbon insanity…
They are at an all time low because affected countries now have effective early warning and evacuation systems in place, with storm shelters.
That’s why cyclones hitting Bangladesh kill an awful lot less people than in the 1970s
Even though the storms aren’t any different. And those systems are thanks to the “carbon” infrastructure.
Does anyone have a definition for the “social cost” of carbon, or is it just bureaucrat-speak for plain taxation?
I mean, I don’t use/develop “carbon” emissions in my social interactions with other people (other than perhaps by breathing in air and exhaling more CO2 than I inhaled), so I think I’m due a large tax refund . . . one going inclusive of at least the time since the beginning of the Obama administration.
Where do I apply for my refund?
It’s a notional price used to justify a crazy policy. By claiming that a policy that costs $18 billion saves 1 million tonnes of nitrous oxide emissions, they justify the policy.
People on the far left seem to think that all they need to do is find the right words.
When they say “Social cost of carbon” it just another way to get people on board without using words that have any real meaning. Their problem with the climate change activists Is that they use words that have no common meaning so they have lost the ability to communicate with people that have different viewpoints. They have lost the ability to compromise or even understand what the skeptic viewpoint is.
Biden and Harris are idiots. What does that make those that voted for them?
That makes them idiots, too.
I have my Yellow Vest ready to protest when the taxes start.
The above article presents this quote from http://www.politico.com: “The group set a $1,500-per-ton cost for methane emissions and $18,000 for nitrous oxide.”
Well, somebody needs to inform politico.com authors/editors—and perhaps, further upstream, members of the Biden administration—that nitrous oxide (N2O, aka “laughing gas”) is NOT used in commercial fertilizers.
In fact, the main nitrogen-based straight fertilizer is ammonia (NH3) or its solutions. Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) is also widely used. And urea (CH₄N₂O) is another source of nitrogen that is used in some fertilizers.
It is bacteria in the soils that break down fertilizers with one of the by-products being nitrous oxide. So, I’m wondering how one taxes, exactly, the unquantifiable amount of bacterial emission coming from soil . . . maybe by the use of GIGO modeling?
Want to see a large number?
Calculate this: The social cost of Obama: _ _ _ _
Only one pair here should get a trigger warning.
The social cost of CO2 is negative, since CO2 is a net benefit, not a net cost.
Can a progressive woke watermelon mind understand negative numbers? I doubt it.
BugOilBoob has demonstrated that he refuses to understand them.
And, of course only leftists will be allowed to freeze in the winter.
y’all are leftists down there in failing gas plant Texas?
the idiot griff responds with more LIES.. AS ALWAYS
WIND FAILED
GAS output increased by 450% and only gave up because the leftist idiots in charge of ERCOT wasted so much money on useless unreliable supplies
The blame for the WHOLE Texas debacle should be put TOTALLY and COMPLETELY at the feet of the anti-carbon agenda.
Here’s how it works.
Everyone expects wind to kick out on a moment’s notice, therefore you can’t blame wind for kicking out on a moment’s notice.
Since natural gas is supposed to back up wind, the fact that natural gas only went up 450% instead of whatever amount it needed to go up proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the problem was caused by the failure of natural gas to properly back up wind. /sarc
The “cost for carbon” is also a factor in getting financing for work in progress for nuclear (and other) projects in regulated areas. It’s a complex lever on the economy favored by high prices lobbyists, as it justifies their enormous bills.
Eric, you said,
What about those driving vehicles with internal combustion engines? Might they factor that into sales tax on vehicles, or add it to gasoline taxes?
Both bad. The $18,000 is particularly heinous, by my rough calculation could be used to justify a 20% increase in the cost of fertiliser.
Might add to your medical bill: nitrous oxide is used by anaesthetists, with hospitals being some of the larger point sources. Also sewage treatment.
We know how sensitive Leftists (communists) are to “externalities”…they just banned “The Cat in the Hat”