Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Republicans pass bill to cut renewable energy by $113 million and raise spending on fossil fuels by $500. I'm glad priorities are being kept straight.

$113 Million Cut From Renewable Energy Spending By Republican Bill | CleanTechnica

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) has authored the “2015 Energy and Water” bill, which was recently approved by a House Appropriations Committee subpanel. It calls for $113 million in cuts to renewable energy programs and over $500 million in increases for spending on fossil fuels.
 
On a more positive note:

Google recently hosted an event to give its employees an opportunity to test drive twelve electric cars and motorcycles, and has installed charging infrastructure to provide Level 2 charging capabilities at more than 750 parking spaces at its Mountain View headquarters and 11 other locations.

See: http://googlegreenblog.blogspot.ca/2014/06/experience-electric-at-google.html

IRENA has recently published a report on the socio-economic benefits of renewable energy:

Socio-economic benefits are gaining prominence as a key driver for renewable energy deployment. With many economies faced with low growth, policy makers see potential for increased income, improved trade balance, contribution to industrial development and job creation. However, analytical work and empirical evidence on these topics remain relatively limited.

In an effort to contribute to this field of knowledge, this report presents a conceptual framework for analysing the socio-economic effects of large-scale renewable energy deployment. The proposed framework is adapted from the existing literature and aims to understand the social, economic and environmental value that can be created from renewables. For analytical purposes, it classifies socio-economic effects as: macroeconomic, distributional, energy system-related and other cross-sectoral (additional). This analysis focuses on one category of effects, namely macroeconomic, within which four variables are addressed – value added, gross domestic product, welfare and employment.

See: http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/Portals/2/pdfs/CEM5-econValue-solar_and_wind.pdf

The World Energy Council has just released a report on the implications of climate change for global energy systems. It notes:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) concludes that climate change is unequivocal, and that human activities, particularly emissions of carbon dioxide, are very likely to be the dominant cause. Changes are observed in all geographical regions: the atmosphere and oceans are warming, the extent and volume of snow and ice are diminishing, sea levels are rising and weather patterns are changing. ...

To prevent the most severe impacts of climate change, parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed a target of keeping the rise in average global temperature since pre-industrial times below 2°C, and to consider lowering the target to 1.5°C in the near future.

The first instalment of AR5 in 2013 (Working Group I on the physical science basis of climate change) concluded that by 2011, we had already emitted about two-thirds of the maximum cumulative amount of carbon dioxide that we can emit if we are to have a better than two-thirds chance of meeting the 2°C target.

Impact of past emissions:
Even if emissions are stopped immediately, temperatures will remain elevated for centuries due to the effect of greenhouse gases from past human emissions already present in the atmosphere. Limiting temperature rise will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Its five key findings are:

Energy demand is increasing globally, causing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector also to increase. The trend is set to continue, driven primarily by economic growth and the rising population. In recent years the long-term trend of gradual decarbonisation of energy has reversed due to an increase in coal burning.

Climate change presents increasing challenges for energy production and transmission. A progressive temperature increase, an increasing number and severity of extreme weather events and changing precipitation patterns will affect energy production and delivery. The supply of fossil fuels, and thermal and hydropower generation and transmission, will also be affected. However, adaptation options exist.

Significant cuts in GHG emissions from energy can be achieved through a variety of measures. These include cutting emissions from fossil fuel extraction and conversion, switching to lower-carbon fuels (for example from coal to gas), improving energy efficiency in transmission and distribution, increasing use of renewable and nuclear generation, introduction of carbon capture and storage (CCS), and reducing final energy demand.

Strong global political action on climate change would have major implications for the energy sector. Stabilisation of emissions at levels compatible with the internationally agreed 2°C temperature target will mean a fundamental transformation of the energy industry worldwide in the next few decades, on a pathway to complete decarbonisation.

Incentivising investment in low-carbon technologies will be a key challenge for governments and regulators to achieve carbon reduction targets. Reducing GHG emissions also brings important co-benefits such as improved health and employment, but supply-side mitigation measures also carry risks.

See: http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-conte...or-Summary-from-IPCC-AR5-2014-Full-report.pdf
 
Last edited:
The Coming Climate Crash - Lessons for Climate Change in the 2008 Recession

The following Op-Ed, from Hank Paulson in Sunday’s New York Times, reflects the concerns about the carbon bubble, and use of carbon pollution levies or taxes to deflate it, joining the mainstream of thought in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/o...-the-2008-recession.html?mabReward=RI:17&_r=0


The Risky Business Project, launched by Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson and Tom Steyer, is addressing the economic risks of climate change:

http://riskybusiness.org/


See also, from Shell, the top ten reasons that business should love a carbon price:

http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/category/carbon-tax/
 
Last edited:
For those who may have (quite mistakenly) believed the denier nonsense about a pause in global warming.

Climate change: May breaks global temperature record

Driven by exceptionally warm ocean waters, Earth smashed a record for heat in May and is likely to keep on breaking high temperature marks, experts say.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday said May's average temperature on Earth of 15.54 C beat the old record set four years ago. In April, the globe tied the 2010 record for that month. Records go back to 1880. ...

May was 0.74 C warmer than the 20th century world average. The last month that was cooler than normal was February 1985, marking 351 hotter than average months in a row.
This possibly could quiet people claiming global warming has stopped, but more importantly it "should remind everyone that global warming is a long-term trend," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said.

Setting or tying monthly global heat records has happened frequently in recent years. The last global monthly cold record was set in December 1916.
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/climate-change-may-breaks-global-temperature-record

 
@Richard

Of course it is to be considered that the Temperature Anomaly has to be considered when averaged over the whole year. Then, as the article that you are mentioning quotes, there are other facts to be considered like El Nino and so on.
I mean that also in case there is no increase of the Temperature Anomaly when averaged over the whole year we must always consider that the heat is being absorbed by the Oceans that are warming. In fact as the concentration of CO2 in the atmoshere increases be sure that the heat is being trapped within the atmosphere and either the Average Temperature Anomaly increases or the Oceans get warmed (or both).

And, last but not least, the Oceans undergo the Acidification effect because of CO2 in excess combining with the water in the Oceans.
 
More solid evidence of the economic viability (and benefits) of intelligence public policy on climate change:

Climate-smart development: adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change (Vol. 1 of 2) : Main report (English)

Fighting climate change would help grow the world economy, according to the World Bank, adding up to $2.6tn (£1.5tn) a year to global GDP in the coming decades.

http://documents.worldbank.org/cura...rty-combat-climate-change-vol-1-2-main-report

- - - Updated - - -

@Richard

Of course it is to be considered that the Temperature Anomaly has to be considered when averaged over the whole year. Then, as the article that you are mentioning quotes, there are other facts to be considered like El Nino and so on.
I mean that also in case there is no increase of the Temperature Anomaly when averaged over the whole year we must always consider that the heat is being absorbed by the Oceans that are warming. In fact as the concentration of CO2 in the atmoshere increases be sure that the heat is being trapped within the atmosphere and either the Average Temperature Anomaly increases or the Oceans get warmed (or both).

And, last but not least, the Oceans undergo the Acidification because of CO2 in excess combining with the water in the Oceans.

Hi Raffy,

We are in violent agreement with one another! There is no "pause" and the global temperature continues its steady upward trend. The last "average" month was nearly 30 years ago (since then all have been warmer than average), and the last record cold month was almost 98 years ago.

I recognize that 99% of global warming is stored in the oceans, land and ice, and that the rising temperatures reflect only the 1% of global warming energy which is retained in the atmosphere.
 
Hi Raffy,

We are in violent agreement with one another! There is no "pause" and the global temperature continues its steady upward trend. The last "average" month was nearly 30 years ago (since then all have been warmer than average), and the last record cold month was almost 98 years ago.

I recognize that 99% of global warming is stored in the oceans, land and ice, and that the rising temperatures reflect only the 1% of global warming energy which is retained in the atmosphere.

Agree 100%. Thank you for your posts Richard.
 

At the risk of having to put myself into political quarantine: it was very interesting to see the reforms to the flood insurance program get rolled back, and who was on which side of that debate. Over-broad generalization: there was a big overlap between climate-change deniers and those unwilling to reform flood insurance to be (more or less) self-funding.

As a consequence of the weakened reforms, the billions cited in the article probably underestimate the damage. Why? Because land-owners won't bear the economic cost of their folly in rebuilding on flood plains. So it's not merely that the value of the buildings currently on the coast that will be lost are in the tens of billions, but also that we will fund the rebuilding of these properties several times over.

So, who exactly will pick up the tab for these billions of losses? The tax-payers, not the property owners. Have people forgotten the wisdom of the adage "a stitch in time saves nine"?
 
So, who exactly will pick up the tab for these billions of losses? The tax-payers, not the property owners. Have people forgotten the wisdom of the adage "a stitch in time saves nine"?

I for one don't want to pick up the tab for increased losses due to increased flooding due to AGW, especially when it's been made abundantly clear that the risks of these catastrophic events are goign to rise. Owners of coastal property should be the ones owning the risk.

Isn't it better to invest the $100 Billion to prevent the loss of Coastal Property? Maybe it's too simple but it's exactly like this.

That would be rational. We don't do rational here in America.

Now it's time for some fun, courtesy of Jon Stewart and Doonesberry.

Deaf Party Jam - The Daily Show - Video Clip | Comedy Central

deafpartyjam.jpg


doonsberry.jpg
 
At the risk of having to put myself into political quarantine: it was very interesting to see the reforms to the flood insurance program get rolled back, and who was on which side of that debate. Over-broad generalization: there was a big overlap between climate-change deniers and those unwilling to reform flood insurance to be (more or less) self-funding.

To some extent our mods need to accept the fact that climate change debate IS a political debate. I've not met a single climate change denier that isn't also opposed to "bigger" government. There are libertarians that accept climate change but the #1 reason people reject it is ideology. Ignoring the political component of climate change denial is like ignoring the religious component of evolution denial... It's generally not really the FACTs people have an issue with... it's what they perceive as the consequences of accepting those facts. Too bad you can't change reality by ignoring it :crying:

[video]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/[/video]
 
it was very interesting to see the reforms to the flood insurance program get rolled back, and who was on which side of that debate. Over-broad generalization: there was a big overlap between climate-change deniers and those unwilling to reform flood insurance to be (more or less) self-funding.

Do you have a source for that? I wouldn't doubt that it's true, but I haven't seen this correlation pointed out before. I was fairly clear that the reforms would be rolled back as soon as the higher insurance bills started to hit...
 
Isn't it better to invest the $100 Billion to prevent the loss of Coastal Property? Maybe it's too simple but it's exactly like this.

Unfortunately, Raffy, that also would be a waste of money. In the longer term, but eventually, effectively any such preventatives would be overwhelmed. There is a terrific aphorism in American English that encapsulates this: Nature Bats Last (it's a baseball terminology), and it means that no matter what measures you take, the natural system has on its side both time and the ineluctable forces of erosion.

My own take of this is that the headline is internally self-contradictory. That is to say, insofar as that coastal property is slated for natural destruction....it is not $100 billion that it is worth: it is $0. Why? Well, answer this question: How much would you be willing to pay, today, for that property (let's assume you would not be permitted to sell it for 50 years)?

But that's my take.....
 
To some extent our mods need to accept the fact that climate change debate IS a political debate. I've not met a single climate change denier that isn't also opposed to "bigger" government. There are libertarians that accept climate change but the #1 reason people reject it is ideology. Ignoring the political component of climate change denial is like ignoring the religious component of evolution denial... It's generally not really the FACTs people have an issue with... it's what they perceive as the consequences of accepting those facts. Too bad you can't change reality by ignoring it :crying:

[video]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/[/video]

Agree. But I would like to add that all the efforts to work out the Climate Change/Global Warming issue would get better results if such an issue would get rid of its political component.
That's why, as I said in another thread, I dream a transversal party in the USA (both Democrat and Republican) having the same ideas on the Climate Change/Global warming issue. This way people would face this issue without considering any ideological fact.

Then the efforts done to work out the Climate Change/Global Warming issue would get much better results.
 
Do you have a source for that? I wouldn't doubt that it's true, but I haven't seen this correlation pointed out before. I was fairly clear that the reforms would be rolled back as soon as the higher insurance bills started to hit...
I'm going to have to issue a retraction. While the discussion was (to my ear) tainted by climate deniers, the votes seemed primarily to align along coastal/inland lines (coastal states generally opposing the rate hikes), regardless of party or ideology. In the House, most of the dissent was from the GOP.

U.S. Senate: Legislation Roll Call Vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll091.xml
 
I'm a huge fan of Michael Jackson's talent and singing ability, and since it's the 5 year anniversary of him being gone, I want to share this music video with you guys. I love this song. It fits nicely in this thread.

 
Last edited by a moderator: