$51 / ton: Biden Restores the Obama “Social Cost of Carbon”

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 EST

President 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.

4.8 24 votes
Article Rating
248 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Walter Horsting
February 27, 2021 10:06 am

China and India will not be participants!

Dennis
Reply to  Walter Horsting
February 27, 2021 2:45 pm

Developing nations must be given a chance to catch up, and for China to overtake and dominate assisted by the unelected UN Officials.

William Capron
Reply to  Dennis
February 27, 2021 9:00 pm

WWGD – What Would Griff Do? I’d look for his comment, but life is too short to waste my time reading his leftist propaganda.

griff
Reply to  William Capron
February 28, 2021 2:04 am

I’m not a leftist!

Reply to  griff
February 28, 2021 9:19 am

But your comments make all believe you are 😀

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
February 28, 2021 10:26 am

Yes, you are, and you proudly proclaim so with each comment you post.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 28, 2021 12:31 pm

“I’m not a leftist!”

neither was Carl Marx

right griff ;-)..

you are a sjw leftist, socialist prat. !

FAR left, and too self-blind to see it.

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
Dean
Reply to  Walter Horsting
February 28, 2021 3:31 pm

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.

Patrick healy
Reply to  Dean
March 1, 2021 2:26 am

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.

John
February 27, 2021 10:17 am

Economic suicide by a million cuts!

MarkW
Reply to  John
February 27, 2021 12:01 pm

In a healthy economy, people can survive without the assistance of government.

hiskorr
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 12:23 pm

Please! Can you point to any “healthy economy”? Or any government “assistance” that actually benefitted an economy, for that matter.

Dennis
Reply to  hiskorr
February 27, 2021 2:48 pm

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.

Mark Besse
Reply to  hiskorr
February 27, 2021 8:25 pm

Erie Canal and Interstates. Only 2 I got.

MarkW
Reply to  Mark Besse
February 27, 2021 9:15 pm

Erie Canal was a private venture.
Private corporations were building roads and canals long before government got into the act.

Dennis
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 2:46 pm

Actually in my life experience governments more often than not create a cost and living burden for people.

Paul Stevens
Reply to  John
February 28, 2021 5:22 am

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?

Steve Case
February 27, 2021 10:19 am

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.

Jeff Meyer
Reply to  Steve Case
February 27, 2021 11:00 am

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.

Anon
Reply to  Jeff Meyer
February 27, 2021 1:20 pm

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.)

Last edited 5 months ago by Anon
William Haas
Reply to  Jeff Meyer
February 27, 2021 2:54 pm

The federal government has long ago run out of money and are deep in debt.

bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 10:19 am

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….

Paul C
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 10:46 am

So applying the fake “social cost” INSTEAD of the current taxes would REDUCE the cost of oil and gas by how much?

Anon
Reply to  Paul C
February 27, 2021 1:44 pm

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???

Last edited 5 months ago by Anon
Paul C
Reply to  Anon
February 27, 2021 3:59 pm

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!

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 10:51 am

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”?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 27, 2021 11:20 am

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…

M Courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 11:38 am

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.

bigoilbob
Reply to  M Courtney
February 27, 2021 11:43 am

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.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 11:46 am

How was $51 calculated?

If it is such a great idea, why not boost it to $1000?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 27, 2021 11:51 am

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.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 11:53 am

In other words, it is completely arbitrary without any basis in reality.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 27, 2021 7:08 pm

It has to be arbitrary, because there is no evidence that CO2 needs to be regulated or needs a price applied to it.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:08 pm

In other words, the amount will be set based on the needs of politicians.

Mr.
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:47 pm

Bob, keep up your defense, you’re doing really well.

beat-up boxer.jpg
bigoilbob
Reply to  Mr.
February 27, 2021 1:23 pm

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….

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 4:47 pm

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.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 28, 2021 12:29 pm

“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.

bigoilbob
Reply to  fred250
February 28, 2021 12:45 pm

“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.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 28, 2021 5:06 pm

“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

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
February 28, 2021 5:52 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 28, 2021 5:51 pm

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.

Wade
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:03 pm

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.

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 11:56 am

Lol pay for it 😉

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:07 pm

The market isn’t making this decision, the government is.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 1:11 pm

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.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:32 pm

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 !!

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 4:48 pm

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.

M Courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:18 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:28 pm

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?

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 12:42 pm

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…

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:04 pm

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.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:35 pm

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 !!

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
February 27, 2021 4:50 pm

He doesn’t need evidence, his handlers have assured him that the government can never be wrong.

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 2:21 pm

Bob believes in Trump Russia colluuuusion….and Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy

Good one Bob.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Derg
February 27, 2021 7:25 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 4:49 pm

Once again, bugOilBoob is unable to actually defend his worship of government control.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 5:19 pm

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!

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:29 pm

Pay for all the MASSIVE BENEFITS for a fossil fueled society

I DARE you to cut all things carbon from your pitiful twisted existence.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  fred250
February 27, 2021 10:31 pm

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.

observa
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 6:08 pm

“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.

Eisenhower
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 1, 2021 2:23 pm

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/

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:06 pm

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.

meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:36 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  meab
February 27, 2021 1:05 pm

The costs of hydrocarbon use aren’t exaggerated. They’re imaginary.

Last edited 5 months ago by MarkW
Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 4:02 pm

Exactly, Mark. People discuss this nonsense as though there really is a “carbon cost”. It’s all fantasy.

Paul C
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 27, 2021 4:22 pm

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.

Anon
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 27, 2021 4:23 pm

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.

Last edited 5 months ago by Anon
Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 10:52 am

Tell that to China 😉

George Daddis
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 10:53 am

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.

William Haas
Reply to  George Daddis
February 27, 2021 2:57 pm

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.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 11:00 am

Bob,

You seem more strident of late. Did you get run-off another rig?

fred250
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 27, 2021 11:15 am

A twitter and bisted fool, is big oily blob !

Derg
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 27, 2021 11:17 am

He strikes me as a real good worker😜

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 27, 2021 12:37 pm

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?

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2021 1:07 pm

He might work in the oil industry. Probably a janitor.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 11:19 am

…move to limit the communization of the external costs of an industry, and move them from us back to the industry?

You should not have skipped Econ 101.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 27, 2021 11:56 am

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….

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:06 pm

Here’s a question you should ask yourself: “Self, who profits from these added ‘carbon’ costs?”

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:10 pm

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.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 12:22 pm

“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.

Last edited 5 months ago by bigoilbob
MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:32 pm

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.

BobM
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:31 pm

Name the top three, please.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:38 pm

Another load of unsubstantiated BS from the human-hater that is big oily blob.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 3:14 pm

“I have listed them dozens of times”

.

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 ???

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
MarkW
Reply to  fred250
February 27, 2021 4:53 pm

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.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:37 pm

“Everything I am saying……”

.

Is a steaming heap of, bitter, anti-life, anti-human excrement.

WHY DO YOU HATE YOURSELF SO, SO MUCH !!!

bigoilbob
Reply to  fred250
February 27, 2021 1:40 pm

Folks, can’t say it better than Frank Zappa:

You’ll hurt your throat, stop it!”

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 3:15 pm

You are who you are , slimy, oily blob

WHY DO YOU HATE YOURSELF, and ALL LIFE ON EARTH,..

… SO, SO MUCH !!!

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 4:54 pm

And still BugOilBoob refuses to actually support the outlandish claims he has been making.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 6:03 pm

“free ride from the rest of us “

.

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 !!

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:02 pm

I see that you are still stupid enough to believe that CO2 is a problem.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 12:18 pm

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….

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:29 pm

Standard watermelon talking points end-to-end, all divorced from truth.

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 27, 2021 1:08 pm

Also divorced from facts.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:35 pm

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.

Doonman
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 12:51 pm

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.

Last edited 5 months ago by Doonman
fred250
Reply to  Doonman
February 27, 2021 1:44 pm

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.

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Doonman
February 28, 2021 2:27 pm

You do yourself no favors with the termite argument.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:41 pm

“Yes, it is. Neither of us are “stupid”, but I am the person facing facts head on.”

..

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?

Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 2:52 pm

…but I am the person facing facts head on

And these are ?

Megs
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 3:39 pm

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.

Megs
Reply to  Megs
February 27, 2021 3:41 pm
Mr.
Reply to  Megs
February 27, 2021 4:38 pm

Never mind Megs – you probably saved BoB from another bout of apoplexy.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 4:44 pm

” Neither of us are “stupid””

.

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.

Lrp
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 11:51 pm

There is no wisdom of the crowd; you’re just a sheep following other sheep and believing yourself smart for that

Abolition Man
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 1:48 pm

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!

bigoilbob
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 27, 2021 1:55 pm

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….

Abolition Man
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 2:28 pm

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!

Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 2:50 pm

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)

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 3:18 pm

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?

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 3:24 pm

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..

Doonman
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 3:52 pm

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.

Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 2:01 pm

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 ?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 27, 2021 4:00 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 27, 2021 5:31 pm

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!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 27, 2021 9:59 pm

Exactly.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 2:50 pm

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.

Robert Austin
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 27, 2021 4:52 pm

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.

Sweet Old Bob
February 27, 2021 10:22 am

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 ?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 27, 2021 11:13 am

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.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 27, 2021 6:05 pm

If you really want to weep, try this:

President Joe Biden’s newly sworn in energy secretary Jennifer Granholm floated the idea of Texas joining the national grid.

Granholm called last week’s Texas storm a climate event on par with California’s wildfires.

“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.”

Granholm suggested that the Biden administration push for Texas to consider the national grid at least as a backup in the event of an emergency.

“So the bottom line is these fossil fuel industries, unfortunately for those working in them, are seeing a challenge from their market perspective,” Granholm said in an interview on MSNBC.

Utterly gormless.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
February 27, 2021 7:37 pm

““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.

Last edited 5 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 28, 2021 8:39 am

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.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
February 27, 2021 10:02 pm

“send ions across the electric grid”?!?

What dufus wrote this gem?

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 28, 2021 12:41 pm

Biden’s secretary of energy.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
February 28, 2021 5:50 pm

Gah, must have come from a long career in the used car industry.

Big Al
February 27, 2021 10:36 am

Food shortage part of Great Reset. Be more disturbing if pres Buy den had AF1 on Tx jet trip.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Big Al
February 27, 2021 11:04 am

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

George Daddis
February 27, 2021 10:48 am

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?

Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2021 10:54 am

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…

Chas
February 27, 2021 10:54 am

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.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Chas
February 27, 2021 12:25 pm

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?

KT66
February 27, 2021 10:57 am

What about the social benefits of carbon? How does that balance out against the make believe costs?

fred250
Reply to  KT66
February 27, 2021 4:59 pm

the BENEFITS are several magnitude more than any fanciful costs

CD in Wisconsin
February 27, 2021 11:07 am

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.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 27, 2021 11:19 am

…..and some CO2 comes from the oceans Mr. President. You also forget to assign a social cost to the oceans.

William Haas
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 27, 2021 3:22 pm

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.

yirgach
February 27, 2021 11:15 am

Somebody at the WH has been into the Nitrous Oxide supply. Again.
Was that you Joe?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  yirgach
February 27, 2021 7:43 pm

Probably Hunter.

Carlo, Monte
February 27, 2021 11:17 am

Need lots and lots of carbon to make wind turbines and silicon PV, do these get hit also?

john
February 27, 2021 11:21 am

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.

William Haas
Reply to  john
February 27, 2021 3:09 pm

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.

john
February 27, 2021 11:28 am

Carbon insanity…

296668BC-112A-4E43-A900-243F99A0BD43.jpeg
griff
Reply to  john
February 28, 2021 2:06 am

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

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
February 28, 2021 2:47 pm

Even though the storms aren’t any different. And those systems are thanks to the “carbon” infrastructure.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 27, 2021 11:29 am

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?

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 27, 2021 5:58 pm

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.

Lowell
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 27, 2021 7:25 pm

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.

Stephen Skinner
February 27, 2021 11:39 am

Biden and Harris are idiots. What does that make those that voted for them?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
February 27, 2021 7:44 pm

That makes them idiots, too.

Gordon
February 27, 2021 11:41 am

I have my Yellow Vest ready to protest when the taxes start.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 27, 2021 11:49 am

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?

John F Hultquist
February 27, 2021 11:57 am

Want to see a large number?
Calculate this: The social cost of Obama: _ _ _ _

gringojay
Reply to  John F Hultquist
February 27, 2021 1:06 pm

Only one pair here should get a trigger warning.

73D10395-396D-4DAA-8B94-2678A654DE55.jpeg
MarkW
February 27, 2021 11:59 am

The social cost of CO2 is negative, since CO2 is a net benefit, not a net cost.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 12:08 pm

Can a progressive woke watermelon mind understand negative numbers? I doubt it.

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 27, 2021 12:36 pm

BugOilBoob has demonstrated that he refuses to understand them.

sendergreen
February 27, 2021 12:14 pm

And, of course only leftists will be allowed to freeze in the winter.

griff
Reply to  sendergreen
February 28, 2021 2:07 am

y’all are leftists down there in failing gas plant Texas?

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 28, 2021 11:46 am

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.

Last edited 5 months ago by fred250
MarkW
Reply to  fred250
February 28, 2021 12:49 pm

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

Jean Parisot
February 27, 2021 12:26 pm

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.

Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2021 12:29 pm

Eric, you said,

The $18,000 / ton on nitrous oxide could be a significant new cost for farmers.

What about those driving vehicles with internal combustion engines? Might they factor that into sales tax on vehicles, or add it to gasoline taxes?

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 28, 2021 6:20 am

Might add to your medical bill: nitrous oxide is used by anaesthetists, with hospitals being some of the larger point sources. Also sewage treatment.

Wharfplank
February 27, 2021 12:47 pm

We know how sensitive Leftists (communists) are to “externalities”…they just banned “The Cat in the Hat”

Larry Hamlin
February 27, 2021 1:10 pm

Biden and his Democrats have demonstrated incredible stupidity in dealing with energy issues. They clearly support destruction of the developed nations energy and economies for the sole purpose of playing purely political games falsely claimed to be addressing the non existent climate emergency. They are handing the future economic power in the world to China and its developing nation allies.
What colossal idiocy.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
February 27, 2021 2:40 pm

Why do you think China pays them so well! The DemoKKKrats would probably implement a lot of their anti-American policies without the big bucks flowing from China because they despise the middle and working classes so virulently! But they never would have put a sock puppet like old Sleepy Joe in the White House without getting approval from Beijing!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 27, 2021 4:03 pm

They are playing Go and laughing while Zhou Bai-Den is playing with his checkers.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 27, 2021 5:11 pm

I doubt that China’s Joe has enough brain power left to play checkers; he’s probably happily playing and losing at tic-tac-toe!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 27, 2021 10:05 pm

“Playing with his checkers”!

Joel O’Bryan
February 27, 2021 1:24 pm

Another salvo in the Demtards’ War on the Middle Class.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
February 27, 2021 1:31 pm

The social cost of carbon was $43 not $51. I bothered to read the original document.

It is based on RCP8.5, meaning essentially it is B.S.

The calculation avoids entirely the social benefits of “carbon” which greatly exceed the cost, even under ridiculous damage scenarios. The social net cost of carbon is negative.

Whoever is misleading this policy obviously wants the Western world to commit economic suicide. There is no other outcome possible. The insanity of shutting down natural gas, farming and electricity is unmatched. No country in history has ever done something that foolish. Even in Nero’s Rome they weren’t that stupid or drunk on power.

William Haas
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
February 27, 2021 3:14 pm

One of the many benefits is enabling life as we know it on this planet. How much is that worth?

MarkW
Reply to  William Haas
February 27, 2021 5:06 pm
Karl Juve
February 27, 2021 1:54 pm

Without a doubt, Joe Biden is proving to be the dumbest resident of the WH in history.

MAL
Reply to  Karl Juve
February 27, 2021 2:40 pm

That true does that leave Oblama second or third. Out of the last four Dimms President, we have the three dumbest.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Karl Juve
March 1, 2021 12:11 pm

The fact that he is a democrat should have given voters pause about his intellectual ability. However, it appears that he is the victim of premature senile dementia. The MSM will bear responsibility for enabling his election, when his poor decisions and disruption of executive continuity harms the country.

Right-Handed Shark
February 27, 2021 1:56 pm

$1,500-per-ton cost for methane emissions”

Are they going after termites individually, or as a collective? Who do they bank with?

S.K.
February 27, 2021 1:58 pm

Co2 is 0.042% of the atmosphere and methane is 0.00019% of the atmosphere; it is impossible for trace gases to impact the climate due their scarcity. The UN/IPCC has never produced experimental evidence quantifying co2 climate sensitivity.

Dr. Ross McKitrick values co2 quite differently than Biden:

Based on these updates alone, we showed that, even using a low discount rate, the social cost of carbon as of 2020 drops from US$32 per tonne to about 60 cents, and there’s a 50/50 chance it’s below zero. It does grow over time but not by much. By 2050 it’s still under $3 per tonne and has a 46 per cent chance of being less than zero.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-believing-the-science-on-climate-change-doesnt-mean-any-policy-goes

https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/09/29/calculating-the-social-cost-of-co2-emissions-using-fund/

William Haas
Reply to  S.K.
February 27, 2021 3:21 pm

The gas in our atmosphere with the highest climate sensitivity is N2 but no one is doing anything to reduce levels of N2 in our atmosphere. N2 is the gas that is primarily responsible for the atmosphere’s insulating effects. N2 is much more of a heat trapping gas than any of the so called greenhouse gases because N2 is such a poor radiator to space. More heat energy is held by N2 in our atmosphere than any other gas.

Abolition Man
February 27, 2021 2:24 pm

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors!” Plato, 427-347 BC

One of the factors that Plato and other great leaders and philosophers over looked is the propensity for sociopathic and psychopathic personalities to rise to the top of ruling elites if there is no accountability! We are seeing this occurring in realtime now in the US with the imposition of the Zhao Bai Den regime over the will of the American people!
As this collection of crooks and crazies implements their Progressive social justice system on the population, we will witness greater and greater leaps beyond the bounds of sanity. Right now young people in the US are self identifying as LGBQT… at a rate that is four or five times ALL previous reporting thanks to the indoctrination of our social media and schools! Children as young as kindergarteners are being encouraged to transition by taking powerful drugs like puberty blockers and steroids, and undergoing genital mutilation at the hands of willing doctors! The Equality Act just passed by Congress not only makes this legal; it requires it!
The implementation of a carbon tax is just a drop in the bucket, although it will have far reaching effects as the US struggles under the weight of our cancerous national debt and it will make producing our way back to prosperity virtually impossible!
There has never been an administration that is so virulently anti-American! They lockdown our schools, the people and our Capitol; while opening the borders to immigrants without any idea of what diseases or drugs are being brought along!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 27, 2021 7:53 pm

“There has never been an administration that is so virulently anti-American!”

Well, Americans are going to fight back. I posted this the other day but I’ll post it again now.

“The States are going to fight back. Here’s a headline from an Oklahoma paper:

“State House to discuss legislation to ignore federal government”

And then there is this headline:

“Senators approve vote on bill to allow citizens to sue social media for censorship”

The Red States are not sitting on their hands while the Democrats attempt their socialist takeover.”

And I will add to that with this: The Oklahoma legislature is putting forth a bill to make Oklahoma a Sanctuary State for the Second Amendment.

Oklahoma already allows any citizen over 21 years of age who has not been convicted of a felony, to carry a weapon without a license. So now those crooks who might have attacked that little old lady for her purse will have to think twice about whether that little old lady is packing heat.

Last edited 5 months ago by Tom Abbott
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 28, 2021 3:13 pm

Believe it or not, Washington is also an open carry state, I don’t think there is any licensing either. And the Seattle progressives can’t stand it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 1, 2021 12:14 pm

+42! (that is 42-factorial)

ResourceGuy
February 27, 2021 2:31 pm

Beware the Friday rule releases and and the late night Pelosi votes.

BTW this is how you pay for “infrastructure” and “the children” and “Medicare for all”. Climate will be about 5 percent of the spending story–suckers.

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 27, 2021 5:08 pm

The senate parliamentarian has ruled that the Democrats can’t use reconciliation to pass a minimum wage hike.
The progressive Democrats are mad as heck, demanding that the parliamentarian be fired and replaced with one who will agree with them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2021 7:59 pm

Just to show how out-of-control Nancy Pelosi is, she ignored the Parliamentarian’s ruling and put the $15 wage increase in the bill anyway.

It will now go to the U.S. Senate where the Senate Parliamintarian has already said it cannot be in the bill, so the Senate will take it out and pass the rest of the bill and send it back to Pelosi.

Two Democrats voted against the bill along with all of the Republicans, in the House.

If the bill comes back to the House without the $15 wage increase in it, then more Democrats may refuse to vote for the bill, and then Nancy is going to have a problem.

Rory Forbes
February 27, 2021 2:33 pm

People need to stop saying “Biden did this” or “Biden did that”. He’s doing nothing of the sort. It’s unlikely that they even show him what they’re doing.

Burgher King
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 27, 2021 7:07 pm

Most people who know the truth of the current situation understand that “Biden” as a name is merely a shorthand label for the cabal of Obama staffers which actuallly calls the shots in the White House.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Burgher King
February 27, 2021 8:20 pm

There must be a deep sense of embarrassment among the few honest Democrats who still exist. The whole world knows what’s going on and won’t miss this opportunity to screw the US with impunity. As an embarrassed Canadian (the burden of Trudeau) it will be hard to watch.

ResourceGuy
February 27, 2021 2:38 pm

And now you will see the paid online message managers come forward in mass to defend the policy proposal. That paid component was a matter-of-course part of marketing contracts for Obamacare promotion and it will manifest again.

ResourceGuy
February 27, 2021 2:44 pm

The social cost of concocted support for Party over reach agenda is $50,000 per ton of BS.

Dennis
February 27, 2021 2:44 pm

“The price” … should read “the tax on carbon”, carbon tax added to the cost of living and the cost of operating businesses.

n.n
Reply to  Dennis
February 27, 2021 3:38 pm

Yes, the issue is carbon and carbon-based things. There is a “Plan” for that.. him… her… it… whatever.

ResourceGuy
February 27, 2021 2:50 pm

Like Chuck Yeager said about what won WW2, “the least bad planning wins.” I’m afraid we’re going to see big, expensive policy fails on this Crusade and we will be on the losing end this time. And re-name the new dollar as the Bolivar.

n.n
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 27, 2021 3:36 pm

It’s not a crusade, it’s an adventure! Inhaling from Puff the Hallucinating Dragon as he… it flies over the Rainbow, helps.

William Haas
February 27, 2021 2:51 pm

But they are not saying anything about the cost of DHMO. Molecule per molecule, DHMO is a stronger IR absorber than is CO2 and there is so much of it that you cannot get rid of it in our atmosphere. DHMO is a product of combustion that no one is talking about. In addition to being the primary greenhouse gas, DHMO is a major component of acid rain. Many extreme weather events are at least in part caused by DHMO in our atmosphere. The plants that farmers grow cause HMO to be added to our atmosphere. Farmers also make use of DHMO to enhance plant growth and their practices cause DHMO to be added to the atmosphere. In the town where I live there are times when the level of DHMO in our atmosphere gets so great that DHMO gas condenses out as a liquid and falls to the ground. To handle all of this liquid DHMO falling from the sky, the city has installed a network of underground pipes to channel the liquid DHMO away. All the city does is dump the DHMO outside of the city resulting in a pool of liquid DHMO that can be seen for miles and is even visible from space. The pool of DHMO is allowed to evaporate back into the atmosphere. The EPA needs to force the city to properly dispose of the huge pool of DHMO that they have created,

Since more CO2 in our atmosphere causes plants to grow better, maybe farmers should be paying people for the CO2 that they add to the atmosphere. The reality is that, despite the hype, 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. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. The problem is that such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. So in terms of climate change, the cost of all of the so called greenhouse gases is zero. If we define climate sensitivity as the amount of global warming the doubling of the amount already in the atmosphere will cause then the atmospheric gas with the highest climate sensitivity has got to be N2 because of the amount of pressure that exerts on the Earth’s surface. N2 is much more apt to trap heat energy than is any of the so called greenhouse gases because N2 is such a poor LWIR radiator to space. So far no effort is underway to reduce the amount of heat trapping N2 in our atmosphere. Second to N2 in terms of climate sensitivity is O2. Actually the burning of fossil fuels helps to lower the level of heat trapping and pressure causing O2 in our atmosphere.

ResourceGuy
February 27, 2021 3:02 pm

Remember to convert to $2.00 per gallon gas right before the mid term elections.

John in Oz
February 27, 2021 3:41 pm

Looking at the social ‘cost’ without considering the social ‘benefits’ reminds me of a boss I once had who wanted to know why my department’s costs were higher than budget.

He had come from a marketing section, one with costs only as they never produced any income, therefore he was used to questioning costs.

As a service manager, I had incomes and costs. We were spending more because we were exceeding our income budget – it costs more to make more – and our profit levels were also higher than budget.

Regardless of the extra bottom line profit, he concentrated on our costs meeting budget.

A one-sided, blinkered view of the real world, much the same as the greentards who cannot see the increased fertilisation of the world due to carbon ‘pollution’.

Sara
February 27, 2021 4:09 pm

Nitrate fertilizer…. Cow urine and hog urine and dried feces from both go into producing fertilizer. There’s also “green” fertilizer in the form of alfalfa and soybeans, both of which fix nitrogen in the soil.

Is it too obvious to point out that plants need nitrogen in order to grow properly, just as much as they need CO2 and water? And if so, why is that so hard for these marones to understand?

Oh, that’s right – they think food comes from the store, and there’s no reason to do real farming any more.

My grandmas never told me that some day we’d be living with nutballs who don’t have the common sense God gave a goose, or the basic intelligence of a field of clover or alfalfa. I guess this is my punishment for growing up in farm country, where things made sense (and still do), instead of in the city, where nothing makes sense any more.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Sara
February 27, 2021 5:21 pm

Our grandmas could never have imagined a world where idiots and incompetents would be allowed to run the media, much less our country! They probably figured that common sense folks would never let it happen; they couldn’t foresee our schools banning common sense along with facts, data and history!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 27, 2021 8:35 pm

“they couldn’t foresee our schools banning common sense along with facts, data and history!”

I think that’s what has happened. The schools are leading in the destruction of society and freedom with their brainwashing of the children.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 1, 2021 12:26 pm

“Those who can’t do, become teachers. Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.” It does not bode well for society when the least competent are doing the most important job.

Perhaps instead of encouraging young people to join the military (or drafting them as we used to do), perhaps all members of society should have to perform public service similar to the Peace Corps. The best and brightest should serve a couple of years teaching.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sara
March 1, 2021 12:20 pm

“… food comes from the store”
And chocolate milk comes from brown cows.

stinkerp
February 27, 2021 5:12 pm

“Social cost” of carbon calculated by Trump: $8 a ton

“Social cost” of carbon calculated by Biden: $51 a ton

Benefit of CO2 to all living things: priceless

rovingbroker
February 27, 2021 5:20 pm

What Are the Sources of Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions?

Cars, trucks, and buses are the largest sources of emissions, followed by power plants, diesel-powered heavy construction equipment and other movable engines, and industrial boilers. Man-made sources in the U.S. emitted 14 million metric tons of nitrogen oxides, mainly from burning fuels, in 2011.

Nitrogen Dioxide | American Lung Association

No mention of fertilizer.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  rovingbroker
February 27, 2021 5:51 pm

Nitrous oxide is N2O, not NO2.

Gregg Eshelman
February 27, 2021 5:35 pm

Who cares about the farmers. We all know food comes from stores! <sarc>

William Haas
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
February 27, 2021 6:54 pm

And the food is delivered to stores by fossil fuel burning trucks.

Sara
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
February 28, 2021 9:18 am

Wait a second……. WWF has an ad on right now about how ocean water rains on banana plantations and the people who work there harvest those bananas and put them on ships and stuff…. and you’re tell me that WWF IS BLOWING ITS OWN COVER?????????

Look for that ad, PLEASE. The hypocrisy is palpable.

Itdoesn't add up...
February 27, 2021 5:48 pm

The UK government adopted a different approach as long ago as 2009. They defined the cost of carbon used for policy evaluation to be whatever is necessary to hit their artificial emissions goals from time to time. There is of course no guarantee whatever that policies are considered and implemented in order of increasing cost. So they have a self-justification for any scheme they dream up. Expect the US system to transition to that.

RickWill
February 27, 2021 6:06 pm

There will be a few Dodge Rams going cheap! I wonder if they make an electric conversion? Maybe they could just fit a wind turbine on top:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PbboHJl85o&t=38
Just need a bigger turbine than these!

February 27, 2021 6:10 pm

It gets scary when you entertain the notion that your government is out to kill you.

Patrick MJD
February 27, 2021 7:41 pm

I was in a discussion with a poster at the Sydney Morning Herald here in Australia who claimed CO2 is *CAUSING* up to 80% of climate change. As usual, not one shred of evidence was supplied to support that statement. With people like this in the world is it any wonder Biden can get away with applying a US$51/ton tax on the trace gas?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 1, 2021 12:30 pm

Fact-free and 2% fact milkers think that they are the cream of milkers.

Peter
February 27, 2021 9:59 pm

There’s no such thing as a greenhouse gas, that is, an insulating / heat trapping gas, otherwise we would use greenhouse gasses instead of vacuum in vacuum flasks. Please stop saying things like “powerful greenhouse gas”, it’s bullshit. Try replacing the vacuum in a vacuum flask with a “powerful greenhouse gas”, you’ll find the temperature of the flasks contents will drop much faster. Gasses that absorb radiation in the infrared spectrum wavelength also emit infrared radiation at the same frequencies. Heat transfer is an irreversible process, greenhouse gas theory fails the second law of thermodynamics. Heat always travels from hot to cold, the greenhouse gas theorists would have us believe that greenhouse gasses can radiate from cold to hot, it’s bullshit, you need a heat pump like an air conditioner or refrigerator has to do that.

Clive
February 28, 2021 3:41 am

Social costs are for socialists.

2hotel9
February 28, 2021 4:02 am

So, the first step in destroying agriculture in America. Peeps? Best be buying up miraclegro and other widely available fertilizers cuz they ain’t gonna be widely available much longer. We are going top have to feed ourselves in the not to distant future and you city people will be well and truly screwed.

very old white guy
February 28, 2021 4:48 am

The terminally stupid are going to kill us all if we don’t stop the insanity.

cedarhill
February 28, 2021 5:14 am

And yet, magically, the economy will “boom” under Biden and all the stimulus, infrastructure, kick-starting, and earmarked budget spending. All without a breath of inflation.
This is already re-starting the Obama stagnate New Normal Nothing Economy where consumer prices begin accelerating along with Biden keeping American workers on unemployment as millions of cheap labor “migrants”, etc., flood the nation. Oh, and then let’s raise the minimum wage of the former illegals to, say, $30/hr, graded on family size. Along with ending American energy independence and …

What is so fascinating about American politics of this century is acceptance by so so many voters for the creation of the socialist Unicorn Land using fascist techniques to impose fiats. All the while blaming some real estate guy from a network TV show. One supposes they feel your pain?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  cedarhill
March 1, 2021 12:35 pm

When the economy takes a dive, it will be interesting to see how the MSM and socialists (I repeat myself) spin the event. They will probably blame it on the previous administration. After all, when the economy does well when a republican takes office, the MSM always gives credit to the previous democrat administration. They actually think that they are fooling everyone.

Bruce Cobb
February 28, 2021 6:22 am

You charge fifty a ton, and what do you get
A ruined economy, and everybody in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the likes of Al Gore

Лазо
February 28, 2021 7:14 am

As always, never a discussion of the overwhelming social benefits of carbon which trumps the social costs by many times as history supports for well past the last two centuries.

Vincent
February 28, 2021 7:16 am

Imagine a world where there was no concern about the social cost of pollution from fossil fuels, and no correlation between CO2 and devastating climate change.

The world would continue to expand its use of fossil fuels. Developing countries would reduce the cost of energy from fossil fuels by not installing the expensive, ‘sate-of-the-art’ emission controls. Miners in coal mines would continue to suffer from lung diseases, and the general public in congested cities would also suffer health problems from pollution and smog.

As the demand for fossil fuels increased, and all the natural disasters such as floods, droughts and hurricanes were addressed by building secure homes and infrastructure, involving huge amounts of fossil fuels for heavy equipment such as bulldozers and trucks, and the building of dams, and so on, then at some point we would reach a scarcity of fossil fuel resources, and the world economy would collapse.

Investing now into research for alternative energy supplies has a sensible aspect. Creating a scare about the harmful effects of CO2 emissions is a political ploy to encourage the development of alternative energy supplies so we will not face a massive economic crisis in the future, say in 50 year’s time, due to dwindling fossil fuel reserves.

One might think the alternative Nuclear Power would be a better option, but the potential disasters that might occur if there were tens of thousands of nuclear plants around the globe, in undeveloped and/or corrupt countries, is even more worrying than the worst ‘natural’ climate disasters.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Vincent
February 28, 2021 7:35 am

Pure, unadulterated bollocks.

2hotel9
Reply to  Vincent
February 28, 2021 10:23 am

So your solution is for everyone to sit down in the dirt and die. You first, show us the courage of your convictions.

Vincent
Reply to  2hotel9
February 28, 2021 5:27 pm

Why would you think that? Have you tried using your imagination?

My solution would be to exploit our current reserves of fossil fuels in the cleanest and safest way that modern technology allows, whilst at the same time spending more money into research on alternative energy supplies to avoid an eventual economic collapse, due to dwindling fossil fuel reserves.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
February 28, 2021 6:08 pm

That’s the problem, you have used so much imagination that the world your envision has no relationship with the world the rest of us live in.

Every thing you have written is wrong, and the conclusions you reach are just standard left wing pablum about how the self annointed elite need to run the world because the rest of us are just too stupid to figure it out on our own.

Vincent
Reply to  MarkW
February 28, 2021 9:29 pm

One fairly reliable way to determine who is right or wrong is whether or not the response is in the form of an Ad Hominem attack.

The Ad Hominem is a very common response from someone who feels very uncomfortable when another person’s comment might make sense and be true, but feels as though it is against their belief system. Instead of debunking the argument by presenting reliable evidence and/or a rational counter-argument, the person responds with an Ad Hominem, thus confirming that he is the one who is wrong, but is unable to admit it.

It’s a shame this site is so full of Ad Hominem attacks. The articles presented for discussion are usually interesting and informative, but the responses by some posters have no value, except to confirm that those posters are dogmatic and set in their ways, just like Climate Change Alarmists are.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
March 1, 2021 9:42 am

Pointing out that everything you wrote is wrong, is an ad hominem?

fred250
Reply to  Vincent
February 28, 2021 11:55 am

Words from the mind of an ignorant child !!

So manys points of ignorance , its hard to count them.

The social benefits from fossil fuels FAR OUTWEIGH any imagined social costs, by MAGNITUDES

Modern society would not exist if not for Fossil Fuels

Modern coal fired power has very little real pollution, and are put far outside any capital cities.

And then there is your idiotic ACDS thinking CO2 causes “climate change”

Its all a load of BOLLOCKS, created for simple-minded feel-good cretins like you.

Vincent
Reply to  fred250
February 28, 2021 5:36 pm

“So many points of ignorance , its hard to count them.”

Wow! Your counting skills must be so very low. That’s unbelievable.

The claim that our fossil fuel reserves will last a very long time is based on the current rate of usage. As the less developed countries continue to develop, the ‘rate of use’ of fossil fuels would dramatically increase, in the absence of alternative energy supplies. Is that difficult to understand? Are your ‘counting skills’ up to the job?

However, an even bigger problem might result if the current political scare about the consequences of CO2 emissions were to cease. Imagine what might result if the Media were to change its paradigm, and instead of reporting every disastrous weather event as unprecedented and a consequence of AGW, they instead reported that the event was natural and that worse events had occurred in the past, and that such natural events could get worse in the future because we know from history that past civilizations have been destroyed by rapid changes in climate.

Wouldn’t more people, like Greta Thunberg, then start panicking? Wouldn’t people start demanding that their governments spend more resources in protecting homes and infrastructure from floods and hurricanes? Would there perhaps even be lawsuits initiated against governments which had allowed homes to be built in flood plains, despite those governments having the historical records showing that such areas had been flooded many times during the past 200 years or more?

If governments world-wide began building more dams to reduce flooding, contouring the landscape to improve drainage during heavy downpours in suburban areas, introducing strict regulations to ensure that homes could withstand the forces of hurricanes, in areas where hurricane have occurred in the past, wouldn’t the use of fossil fuels escalate? Wouldn’t the cost be prohibitive, especially in less developed countries?

Many AGW skeptics point out the huge cost of moving towards renewables, the spending of trillions of dollars on the development of better solar panels and batteries, and so on, and the subsidies to encourage such development. And that is true. Energy costs have increased dramatically in countries that have seriously tried to reduce their CO2 emissions, such as Germany.

However, what do you think the cost would be to successfully adapt to any changing climate in a particular area, and protect all citizens throughout the world from the recurrence of natural, extreme weather events?

The cost would be so enormous that I suspect most governments would not be able to deal with the situation.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
February 28, 2021 6:10 pm

Vincent is just another self anointed elitist who has decided that since people don’t agree with him, that’s just proof that the people shouldn’t be allowed to run their own lives. Even if he has to trick the people into doing what he wants by using lies, it’s ok, because he’s doing it for their benefit.

Vincent
Reply to  MarkW
February 28, 2021 9:41 pm

No. I’m definitely not an elitist. I live a frugal life, even grow my own fruit and vegetables, spend a lot of time in nature, appreciate the benefits of increased CO2 levels, and understand that the ‘true’ cost of energy is fundamental to our security and prosperity.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
March 1, 2021 9:43 am

Once again, Vincent demonstrates that everything he believes is wrong.
You don’t have to live high on the hog to be an elitist.
All that is necessary is that you believe yourself to be right and entitled to force everyone else to live by your standards.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
February 28, 2021 6:06 pm

So much outdated left wing non-economics it’s hard to know where to begin.

That poor countries often skip on environmental controls is already known. However it’s also not an argument for preventing them from using fossil fuels. It’s an argument for helping poor countries become not poor as quickly as possible. BTW, I love how you just assume that the people in poor countries are too stupid to know what is in their best interest, therefore you, as an enlightened foreigner will just have to run their economies for them.

As to your belief that the world is just going to one day run out of fossil fuels, that too is nonsense. What happens in the real world (you should visit it sometime) is that over time, the cheapest to access sources are used up. This causes the cost of extracting to slowly increase. These increasing costs cause people to use less fossil fuels and extraction companies to spend more money finding more fossil fuels. Both of which slow the rise in prices.

Coal mines are not the death traps that your ignorant imagination believes them to be.

Finally, we’ve got at least 400 years worth of oil and gas left, and over 1000 years of coal.
This looming shortage is just another figment of your uninformed imagination.

Your idea that you and your fellow elitists need to trick the people into doing what you know to be in the best interests is the kind of nonsense the communists routinely pull.

Everything you have written is just BS in support of an ignorant agenda.

Vincent
Reply to  MarkW
February 28, 2021 11:54 pm

“Finally, we’ve got at least 400 years worth of oil and gas left, and over 1000 years of coal. This looming shortage is just another figment of your uninformed imagination.”

Well, at least you’ve attempted to address some of my arguments, with a slightly reduced number of Ad Hominem attacks, so that’s an improvement.

Let’s address your point mentioned above that we have 400 years worth of oil and gas and over 1,000 years of coal. Can you provide a link? Those figures are significantly higher than what I can find on the internet.

For example, the following site addresses the lifetime of the currently known reserves used constantly at the current rate of consumption. It’s quite reasonable to assume that additional reserves would be discovered if energy consumption were to increase without the availability of renewables. But whether or not those additional reserves will match the increased rate of consumption is just speculation. There are claims that 80% of the world population lives on less that $10 a day. I don’t know if that’s true, but even if it’s only 50%, as some sources claim, the rate of fossil fuel consumption would have to increase dramatically in order to raise almost 4 billion people out of poverty, not to mention the increasing demand from those who are already reasonably well off.

Here’s the quote:
“We can calculate the life of current petroleum reserves by dividing the current reserves by current consumption.

At the current rate of consumption, the approximate lifetime of the world’s petroleum, natural gas, and coal reserves is 50 years, 52.8 years, and 153 years, respectively.”
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1932

Now I’ll address your following comment:

“As to your belief that the world is just going to one day run out of fossil fuels, that too is nonsense. What happens in the real world (you should visit it sometime) is that over time, the cheapest to access sources are used up. This causes the cost of extracting to slowly increase. These increasing costs cause people to use less fossil fuels and extraction companies to spend more money finding more fossil fuels. Both of which slow the rise in prices.”

Of course the world isn’t going to run out of fossil fuels, because we are introducing renewables into the system, which will eventually become the major source of energy. The scenario I’ve described is what would happen in the absence of renewables. It’s understood that fossil fuel reserves don’t run out suddenly. It would be a gradual process of progressively increasing prices as the resources became more expensive to extract, and that would unavoidably slow down the economy, causing significant unemployment, and the reduction of the prosperity of millions of people which had been reached through the rapid expansion of fossil fuels consumption during the previous 50 years or so.

As I’ve mentioned before, the cost and availability of energy is the most fundamental requirement for any modern civilization to even continue to exist, without considering the additional cost of progress and development which, surely, we all want to occur.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
March 1, 2021 9:45 am

Actually, this was my first response to your insanity. Though I’m not surprised that an elitist such as yourself can’t be bothered with a little thing like time stamps.

When all you look for is data that matches what you already believe, all you will find is data that matches what you already believe.

As to your refusal to accept arguments based in economics 101, I find that to be pretty common for those who view themselves as being morally and intellectually superior to the rest of humanity.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
March 3, 2021 5:44 am

Mark,

Much of his argument is based on the economic falsity that income is stagnant as prices go up. It just doesn’t happen that way in the real world.

willem post
February 28, 2021 12:20 pm

$51/metric ton is a tremendous bargain.

Vermont wants to use CANADIAN electric school buses, that reduce CO2 at $1617/metric ton, which is off-the-charts nuts, but the RE ZEALOTS in the Socialist Legislature want them anyway.

 
ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS LIKELY NOT COST-EFFECTIVE IN VERMONT AT PRESENT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at

This analysis is based on only the Combustion CO2

The analysis shows the combustion CO2 reduction cost would be an exorbitant$1,617/metric ton

It would be irrational to waste federal COVID money on such a highly uneconomic CO2 reduction measure, while tens of thousands of Vermont households and businesses have, and will continue to struggle for some years.

Combustion CO2 of a Gallon of Diesel Fuel   

Emissions of pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, NOx, and SOx, would be less, in case of electric buses.
However, power plants also have such pollutants
 
Combustion CO2eq/gallon is 10.21 kg CO2 + 0.41 g x 25/454, CH4 + 0.08 g x 298/454, N2O = 10.285 kg. See Summary 2 table

This excludes the upstream CO2 of the energy for crude oil extracting, processing, and transporting the finished product to a user.

In case of diesel, the upstream CO2 is about 26% of the combustion CO2. See URL
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi

Lifetime, A-to-Z Analysis Includes Combustion CO2 + Upstream CO2 + Embodied CO2 

A much more realistic CO2-reduction analysis would be on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis. 
Such analyses regarding electric vehicles have been performed for at least 20 years. Engineers are very familiar with them. 
They would include:

1) Upstream CO2 of energy for extraction, processing and transport to a user 
2) Embodied CO2 of expensive batteries, from extraction of materials to installation in a bus
3) Embodied CO2 of $352,500 electric buses vs $100,000 diesel buses
4) Embodied CO2 of balance-of-system components
5) Embodied CO2 of much more expensive electric bus parking facilities, with a Level 2 charger for each bus, than for a diesel bus parking facility with a diesel pump.

Any CO2 advantage of electric buses vs diesel buses would be minimal on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis. 

The cost of CO2 reduction would be much greater than $1617/metric ton.

Failure to analyze on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis ignores a significant quantity of CO2

Jeff Alberts
February 28, 2021 12:43 pm

a percentage of the fertiliser mass is converted by bacteria or other processes into gaseous nitrogen compounds, including ammonia and nitrous oxide”

Clearly, the bacteria should pay the tax, not the farmer.

Gant
February 28, 2021 5:50 pm

These are the same people who think that you can borrow and print nearly limitless amounts of money without consequence so forgive me if I think their full if it.

RFHirsch
March 1, 2021 6:52 pm

The report is largely focused on economics. What discount rate to apply to expenditures now to reduce future “costs” of greenhouse gases?

It assumes all impacts will be bad:
” The SC-GHG is the monetary value of the net harm to society associated with adding a small amount of that GHG to the atmosphere in a given year. In principle, it includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased flood risk natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services” (from the Executive Summary) or
” Examples of market damages include changes in net agricultural productivity, energy use, and property damage from increased flood risk” (footnote 38 on page 32)

The major benefits of increased CO2 in the air are ignored. Agricultural productivity is at least 10% higher than it would be if CO2 were at the level of 200 years ago. Thousands of published research studies demonstrate this. Commercial greenhouses routinely add CO2 to above the level in the atmosphere for this purpose. This tangible benefit is not mentioned anywhere in the report. It likely is at least $25 per ton of CO2 emitted, based on FOA data for commercial agriculture. As noted above, this report expects that there will be a negative effect on agriculture.

The word “benefit(s)” is mentioned 64 times in the document and I could not find any place where it was about improvement of agriculture.

Likewise, since daily death rates are higher in winter than in summer in practically every part of the world, a warmer climate will reduce deaths, which must have a tangible benefit, though much harder to calculate than the agricultural benefits.

The report also does not consider how long a given gas will remain in the atmosphere. While CH4 is given a high cost, it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long, so the emissions now have little impact on climate even 5 years from now.

David Stone CEng
March 2, 2021 12:30 pm

The impact of $18,000 / ton of nitrous oxide will kill agriculture completely. This man is an idiot, not using any fertilizer will stop American agriculture dead within 10 years. Perhaps he can explain how nitrogen fertilizer (essential for plant growth) can be withdrawn, and yields not become minuscule within a few years? At that price, no farmer could use anything. I suppose he knows about this? If one sells maize at $150 per tonne you can just about make money. If you sell for bio-fuel you get less money. This has already caused food shortages in various poor countries, bio-fuel has cost just as any fossil fuel does. Do the Greens think it just grows? Perhaps they are stupid enough to believe this complete lie! It will be electric tractors next!

%d bloggers like this: