You clearly have no idea how science works, both at the methodological and the sociological side. There are no data that falsify the hypothesis of climate change. We have peer review to keep us honest. That does not always work, but in a huge debate like this it will.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?
- Thread starter Marc v E
- Start date
Are you a scientist? If not (or even if you are, it's tiny minority) I think I'll go with the hypothesis that the data does support and that the modeling to date has supported, aka as what the majority of climate scientists do believe. The opposite of this is to go with what non-professionals, politicians and fossil fuel companies would have us believe. Clearly not going that direction.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,369
- Likes
- 3,557
The last time I checked, per capita, places like India and PRC were already a lot greener than the USA.
Not sure that is best way to look at it. Maybe GDP is better. Again, not sure as less developed countries are greener per capita. China is a huge polluter.
Last edited:
Keith_W
Major Contributor
Both those countries also have a large number of subsistence farmers who lead a hand to mouth existence. Peasants, to use a 19th century terminology. Both countries are also trying to lift millions out of poverty, and that involves consuming a lot of energy. Which is why they have the largest growing carbon emissions in the world.
Just as I thought, a substance-free argument. Federal leases for oil drilling are auctioned, they are a regulated market. Auction prices reflect the risks and costs of profitable extraction. The rest of your post is pure conjecture. I have searched "on the net", and most of the bloated estimates of the subsidies include nonsense like historical heath impact of fossil fuel extraction and burning. That's dumb. The benefits, making modern society possible because there were no other practical alternatives until recently, are never mentioned. For those of us who are rational proponents of phasing out fossil fuels, arguments like this make us all look stupid, because only the irrational voices are heard, seldom the rational ones.
If the fossil fuel industry is so overwhelmingly subsidized as you claim, how do you explain the low PE ratios for the oil industry for the past 10 years?
Per capita yes but China produces more green house gasses than the rest of the developed world combined and while developed countries are steadily reducing China is rapidly increasing. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
OP
Marc v E
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #528
Actually Europe produces a lot of goods in China. The associated emissions are counted as China's, but in reality certainly a part of it could be attributed to EU needs. I suspect the same could be said for the US, for iphones production for example...
For current climate change, what really matters is the accumulated CO2, and there it is Europe and even more so the US that are the origin: https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2. However, I agree that it is urgent that China begins reducing its emissions, and like all countries they should do so right now.
OP
Marc v E
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #530
New York state will require that all state owned buildings will receive 100% renewable energy by 2030 from the New York Power Authority. This measure will also help shift utilities away from private companies to make them publicly owned. It's basically phasing out 6 gas peaker plants.
One interesting snippet: "Historically, when utilities are owned by investors, profits go to shareholders. But in publicly owned models, profits are reinvested in the utility’s operations. Rates on energy bills are also generally lower."
www.theguardian.com
One interesting snippet: "Historically, when utilities are owned by investors, profits go to shareholders. But in publicly owned models, profits are reinvested in the utility’s operations. Rates on energy bills are also generally lower."
New York takes big step toward renewable energy in ‘historic’ climate win
Measure will also help shift utilities away from private companies to make them publicly owned
www.theguardian.com
Some Dutch parties also want utilities to become publicly owned again. I am not sure if that is needed if there is enough competition, but regulation certainly is. By the way, Dutch railways have only used green electricity for quite while (some 95% of the rail network is electrified).
Keith_W
Major Contributor
Here is a radical idea. Why not stop offshoring manufacturing? Some raw resources of course have to be imported. Think of all the carbon emissions you could save if you stopped buying cheap imported goods from China.
Australia is a prime example of this kind of stupidity - we dig up iron ore, send the unprocessed ore to China, where they refine it, make steel products, and then sell it back to us. The yield of iron from iron ore is about 20-30%, meaning 70-80% of what is shipped is stuff that does not need to be shipped. Why do we do this? Because (1) we don't have an iron refining industry, (2) Australians are nervous about carbon emissions so they would rather the Chinese emit carbon for us. If we processed iron in Australia, we would increase Australian carbon emissions, but decrease global carbon emissions as a whole. Not to mention provide jobs, grow industry, etc.
Australia is a prime example of this kind of stupidity - we dig up iron ore, send the unprocessed ore to China, where they refine it, make steel products, and then sell it back to us. The yield of iron from iron ore is about 20-30%, meaning 70-80% of what is shipped is stuff that does not need to be shipped. Why do we do this? Because (1) we don't have an iron refining industry, (2) Australians are nervous about carbon emissions so they would rather the Chinese emit carbon for us. If we processed iron in Australia, we would increase Australian carbon emissions, but decrease global carbon emissions as a whole. Not to mention provide jobs, grow industry, etc.
I claim it because I can read about it all over from sources much more credible than a random poster on an audio site. There is a bill HR2184 that was presented to remove some of the subsidies that the oil companies currently enjoy, easy to read that as well. Obviously it did not pass because of the many oil industry paid politicians on staff in our Congress. I am not going to try to explain their low PE ratio, but I know oil companies are not poor in any way, at all, on a common commodity.
Quite a few Dutch companies have started moving manufacturing back to Europe, if only to obtain more secure supplies. With wage levels converging, the cost advantages of manufacturing in Asia are quickly eroded by transport costs, supply reliability and quality control issues. Obviously, this does not apply to all markets in the same way, but the trend is quite clear.
The EU has a policy in the works that should impose levies on production in countries with lower emission standards, to maintain a level playing field in the presence of the EU emission credit trading system.
The EU has a policy in the works that should impose levies on production in countries with lower emission standards, to maintain a level playing field in the presence of the EU emission credit trading system.
Last edited:
But you can't even reference one actual subsidy, and your original post was full of stuff that wasn't true, like the oil industry getting free land. I may be a random anonymous poster, but I'm posting with more integrity than you are.
And you're from Iowa, the largest producer of ethanol for mixing in gasoline in the US? Ethanol production for use in gasoline is such an ecological farce, even Greenpeace can't support it. What do you have to say about that?
HR2184 was misnamed. It did not remove "subsidies", because there aren't any direct subsidies. HR2184 proposed removing tax deductions and credits for expenses similar to those available to any other US company. The bill wasn't aimed at eliminating subsidies, it was obviously aimed at increasing the cost of fossil fuels to make EVs and renewal sources look better by comparison by targeted taxation.
I don't support propping up ethanol any more than I support subsidies for the oil industry. I think we're done here. Carry on with your oil industry support, I won't be joining you.
That's hilarious. Two-thirds of the Indian population burn wood and cow dung for fuel and China has the worst smog problem in the world.
Just divide the greenhouse gas emission numbers that I posted by population and you will see that per capita emissions in the US are highest, followed by Europe at about half of that. Another fact is that the US and the EU have been responsible for a large part of the accumulated emissions that are now causing climate change. Those are the facts. Another fact is, of course, that India and China have large populations.
So in terms of historic responsibility the US and Europe share a lot of responsibility, and the world quite rightly looks at them. At the same time, to reduce future emissions China and India will obviously be very important. This summarizes the international tension. My view is that we can only expect China and India to do their bit if we show that we are prepared to do our bit to make up for our past emissions. I think that is morally right, but also that it is the only practical option.
So in terms of historic responsibility the US and Europe share a lot of responsibility, and the world quite rightly looks at them. At the same time, to reduce future emissions China and India will obviously be very important. This summarizes the international tension. My view is that we can only expect China and India to do their bit if we show that we are prepared to do our bit to make up for our past emissions. I think that is morally right, but also that it is the only practical option.
Anymore political rants rather than informed contributions?
Similar threads
