backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by Rulother.. on Jun 12 at 11:39 PM

...and that's just the down payment!

A persistent theme of this column is that the economic effects -- if any -- of global warming will be less costly by far than the schemes being proposed to combat it. That position has gotten some support recently from an unlikely source: the International Energy Agency (IEA).

On Friday, the Paris-based IEA released its formal plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The cost? A mere 45 trillion dollars -- an amount some three times larger than the entire U.S. economy.

This isn't the amount needed to actually eliminate emissions, mind you, but simply to halve them. And because the plan grabs all the "low hanging fruit" in carbon reductions, the amount needed to complete the job wouldn't just be double that $45 trillion, but far higher.

Worse still, the report only covers emissions from energy production -- the much larger amount arising from agriculture, transportation, land-use changes, and other factors weren't included.

The plan includes a massive increase in wind power, with 17,000 new multi-megawatt units required each year until 2050. It also includes carbon sequestration devices installed on existing fossil-fuel plants, and an increasing reliance on nuclear energy. A wide scale campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency would also be required.

Environmental ministers from all Group of Eight industrialized nations have already backed the 50 percent reduction goal, and are calling for it to be formally endorsed by member nations at the upcoming G8 summit in July.

The U.S. has so far been wise enough to avoid signing Kyoto -- a vastly costly measure that even its supporters admit won't measurably affect world temperatures.  Let's hope it will likewise avoid this latest boondoggle from the IAE.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Food For Thought
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/9/2008 10:56:17 AM , Rating: 5
Okay, obviously no countries will be jumping at the bit to foot a 45 trillion bill.

But let's remove global warming from the debate for a second. The measure is mainly suggesting that we expand alternative energy. This includes greatly expanding wind power, solar power, and nuclear power, the latter of which if I recall correctly you're a big advocate of, Michael.

What about these provisions is so bad? We ARE going to have to move to some sort of alternative energy based infrastructure sooner or later, be it in 20 years, 100 years, or 500 years. Fossil fuel resources will run out eventually at the current growing rate of consumption, no one can argue this point.

Secondly, just wanted to point out helpfully that I believe the title is wrong. You refer to the IEA in the rest of the article, and the title says IAE.




RE: Food For Thought
By masher2 (blog) on 6/9/2008 11:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "This includes greatly expanding wind power, solar power, and nuclear power...What about these provisions is so bad?"

The first two.


RE: Food For Thought
By wordsworm on 6/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Food For Thought
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/9/2008 11:26:58 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nonetheless, nuclear power is not smart - it's just a nasty accident waiting to happen.

I hope you are joking.


RE: Food For Thought
By KaiserCSS on 6/9/2008 11:38:07 AM , Rating: 5
Stop thinking like a child. Your fear-mongering has been echoed by many an ignorant person. Those who protest nuclear energy need to do some actual research instead of spouting this "nookular accident" bologna.

The Chernobyl incident was the result of poor design and maintenance. The Three Mile Island incident involved the reactor experiencing a partial core meltdown. However, the reactor vessel and containment building were not breached and little radiation was released to the environment. A testament to solid design.

New technology and solid designs have severely reduced, if not eliminated, many of the hazards surrounding nuclear power plants. The fears expressed by the public are created by ignorance. A nuclear power plant is not "a nasty accident waiting to happen". You could say that about a great many things. New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. The Space Shuttle was a disaster waiting to happen. The presidential election of 2008 is a disaster waiting to happen.

Here's something else:

"A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident."

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.


RE: Food For Thought
By porkpie on 6/9/2008 11:41:51 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage
And coal plants release a lot more nasty toxins than just radioactivity. By protesting nuclear power, enviro-whackos have kept all those coal plants running. Way to go, guys!


RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2008 2:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
Just more evidence they could care less about the environment.


RE: Food For Thought
By Symmetriad on 6/9/2008 3:58:56 PM , Rating: 3
Hey, not all of us are on the same leaky boat as the Greenpeace granola patrol. As a moderate environmentalist, I fully support nuclear power as the most viable long-term alternative for a main power source. Despite all the FUD and NIMBYism afoot, modern reactor design is very safe, and you're not about to have three-eyed fish swimming in the rivers any time soon - certainly no more than relying on coal. Most reasonable people I know - environmentalist or not, liberal or conservative - believe nuclear power is our best option right now and are pissed at all the stupidity keeping it from becoming more prevalent in the United States.


RE: Food For Thought
By Ringold on 6/9/2008 11:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Nuclear used 0 times.

McCain's site references it several times, and the last time I saw him on CNBC on Kudlow and Company, he wouldn't stop talking about nuclear power. I believe that was a coded message that a Republican might not necessarily want translated on national TV: I'm on this environmental bandwagon because I have to be, but I'm not a communist, I have sound policies.

Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth has been running an anti-McCain ad which includes an attack on his support of nuclear.

You moderates are not at all in control, and if the movement is to be respected at all, moderates have to retake control. Unfortunately, I think there are fewer of you than you believe..


RE: Food For Thought
By onwisconsin on 6/10/2008 10:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
So what has McCain done for Nuclear Energy? Talk is cheap; any politician can do that and "flip flop" later


RE: Food For Thought
By masher2 (blog) on 6/10/2008 10:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
> "So what has McCain done for Nuclear Energy?"

The 2007 cap-and-trade bill he introduced in the Senate would have given proceeds from the sale of carbon credits to nuclear R&D. Beyond that, though -- not much.


RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 3:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
Except Obama right?


RE: Food For Thought
By Ringold on 6/10/2008 4:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, Obama supporters have to be careful with the "talk is cheap" attack when their candidate is a Freshman Senator. Cheap "talk" is his key weapon, not his thin record.


RE: Food For Thought
By jbartabas on 6/10/2008 7:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Nuclear used 0 times.


It seems clear that nuclear is not his cup of tea! Or worse, it is, but he does not want to talk about it because he does not want to loose voter who are radical green.

I don't agree with what you say about Mc Cain.

quote:
I believe that was a coded message[...] I'm on this environmental bandwagon because I have to be, but I'm not a communist, I have sound policies.


Let alone the "communist" reference that is irrelevant, even anachronistic, you equate AGW = radical environmentalist, hence => anti-nuclear.

One can perfectly recognize that AGW exist and needs to be tackled on, and at the same time be pro-nuclear. Actually that goes very well together as there is virtually no chance you can hinder GW without developing usage of nuclear energy.
So I don't think he pretends to be environmentalist, and, wink-wink, says he's not by openly supporting nuclear energy.


RE: Food For Thought
By Ringold on 6/10/2008 8:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
Like I've said to someone else who said they were a "moderate" pro-nuclear environmentalist; you're completely out of touch with the public front of the environmentalist movement. The ones that are setting the environmentalist agenda, the one that are influencing politicians with contributions and attack ads, are not moderate pro-nuclear environmentalists.

They're the neo-Marxists (is that better, or perhaps 'terrorist'?) who are either fabricating or simply hiding behind global warming, and I view it was the height of intellectual dishonesty to suggest otherwise when these most prominent, public environmental groups in the nation and in the world slam every solution put forth by moderates and conservatives alike, including nuclear and coal+carbon capture. They've had a cow over South Dakota's new refinery, and they can't stand the idea of drilling in a tiny patch of land in ANWR, or the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of California, to relieve short term supply shortages. Instead, they push solar and wind, neither of which are viable as reliable sources of power.

Don't believe me?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

http://action.foe.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=2720...

Not only is there anti-Nuclear BS there, they've apparently caught on that at these price levels coal-to-liquids may be viable, and are ramping up their assault on that energy solution as well. No solution can be allowed to prosper!

http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/renewables/index....

Even for ecoweenies they don't have the balls to have the strong language of their peers, but they do refer to nuclear as polluting at the above, and have a dedicated anti-coal campaign.

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/toms_turn/going-n...

EarthJustice tries to play coy, but they cough up their view eventually. No balls there, either.

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_...

WWF jumps on the anti-nuclear bandwagon as well.

McCain was therefore distancing himself from those people, whom you apparently choose to completely ignore. He wasn't apparently talking to you. He was talking to his base and to moderates with their eyes open, those who see those environmentalists for what they are, and who have questioned his credentials. Many Republican's fear he's just as bad as many environmentalists, and he's trying to counter that.


RE: Food For Thought
By jbartabas on 6/10/2008 8:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
You should slow down on coffee...

The point was: he does not have to pretend anything regarding combating AGW and promoting nuclear energy, they're not exclusive at all.


RE: Food For Thought
By theslug on 6/11/2008 10:15:07 AM , Rating: 2
Could, or couldn't?


RE: Food For Thought
By maverick85wd on 6/9/2008 2:52:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
.... The presidential election of 2008 is a disaster waiting to happen.


... a 6!


RE: Food For Thought
By wordsworm on 6/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Food For Thought
By jskirwin on 6/9/2008 6:27:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nuclear power is dangerous... Solar and wind are two excellent solutions to those problems.


Solar and wind are also dangerous. Solar panel plants produce toxic waste http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... Solar panels can also become airborne during storms.

Wind turbines also throw ice unless properly managed and can cause "wind turbine syndrome" in areas with wind farms. The latter is thought to be due to low frequency vibrations and remains controversial.

The issue isn't that something is dangerous; it's how the danger is accounted for. Flying is dangerous, yet it remains one of the safest forms of transportation around, safer even then walking. This is because airplanes are engineered with robust redundant systems. So are nuclear reactors.

We cannot remove risk from the world, but we can decrease the chances of it happening. Nuclear accidents are extremely rare events and kill fewer people than coal mining, oil production. As solar power and wind farms become more common people will die from them since the engineering behind them is nowhere near as advanced as that behind nuclear power.


RE: Food For Thought
By wordsworm on 6/9/2008 9:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
After googling it, I was able to find your article. Yes, it seems if you don't dispose of those solar cells, they can be hazardous. It's too bad that the government hasn't yet made those companies responsible for their waste. In any case, here's solar going green: http://greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/nan...

It's actually a lot more realistic than using silicon, since silicon is neither cheap nor easy to make in vast quantities. Let's not forget that the fight for it actually increases the cost of CPUs for us all.

There are better things being worked on for wind power than you might be aware of. Here's one: http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/...
http://www.quietrevolution.co.uk/display_turbines....
http://www.bsi-global.com/en/About-BSI/News-Room/B...

Technologies in solar and wind are out and about which don't produce the side effects you mentioned. As far as solar panels becoming airborne during storms - when cars, roofs, and cows are flying about amidst a flurry of other objects caught up by a tornado or hurricane, I don't think most people will look up to spy and comment on the solar panel's destructive power.


RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 8:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
Wind and solar do not produce enough electricity to replace coal or nuclear.

Look at the new solar plant thats being built in Arizona. It will be the most efficient and most powerful solar power plant to date. And despite it using thousands of acres of land, it will still only produce 280MW. Barely more than a 1/5 of the output of an average nuclear plant. Look at the wind farm that Texas oil tycoon wants to build. It will use 200,000 acres, cost us the taxpayers billions in government subsidies, and then only generate 4GW. 200,000 acres to only barely beat our largest nuclear plant which fits onto 4,000 acres. What an efficient use of land.

Nuclear plants can easily power the entire country. Unless you plan to blanket millions of acres of the United States in solar panels and wind turbines, that ain't gonna happen with wind and solar. And not only can nuclear easily power the whole country, its cost per kW/hr is very stable as is its power generating ability. If a cloudy day happens, or the wind stops blowing, all those wind turbines and solar panels are useless. Not to mention the majority of the US doesn't have reliable sunlight and wind speeds.

There is an inherent danger to everything. Driving a car, riding a bike, walking down the street. Power generation is no different. Nuclear power has proven it is safe and efficient if done right. Other countries have been using it vastly more than the United States for decades without issue. Our plants here in the states have operated largely without issue.

You can scream all you want. Those of us with a brain would like to move forward and ensure the cheap, reliable production of energy for decades to come here in the US. Not the hoping and dreaming of what might eventually be. When solar cells become a truly viable form of alternative energy with efficiencies greater than 50% or more which will make it not require vast tracks of land, we can look at using it large scale. Until then, we can and should use nuclear.


RE: Food For Thought
By wordsworm on 6/10/2008 9:26:35 AM , Rating: 2
Solar and wind are generally enough to meet the needs of the public. I can't remember the name of the city, I only remember it being in Norway. They have found that buildings could largely function with solar arrays. They built gigantic holding tanks whose purpose was to circulate water over winter and summer to heat/cool. A simple black hose routed through your roof to presupply your watertank is capable of reducing your monthly consumption of electricity will actually drop, especially if you have a large family. There are so many ways to save energy and generate energy.

I am more a proponent of using artificial surfaces (buildings, cars, etc) as opposed to setting up large arrays in deserts and such. I don't know exactly how much electricity could be generated. However, I believe there was an article I saw recently that estimated that if all the cars in Germany were to be covered in solar cells, you'd be talking about terawatts of electricity. I looked around for the article, but couldn't find it, so feel free to say I made it up.

Nuclear or coal should be a backup source rather than the main source of energy. Nonetheless, in the next 10 years, if oil prices continue to rise, or even if they level out for the next 10, then solar will become not only dropping the requirement for energy, but it will also potentially feed the grid gigawatts. (you can look for the article yourself that talks about how electric cars can help feed the grid).

A city like Nevada which sees both extremes of hot and cold could, with water circulation throughout the city, you can eliminate a gigantic proportion of energy required to heat and cool the city.

Nuclear power plants are not without their weaknesses. They require a lot of water. If you see a drought, you'll have to shut down the plant. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/drought/2008-01-24...

Some designs that are on the books make some pretty hefty promises: http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/26/super-powered-...

I know this doesn't jive with redneck or hill billy logic, but we'll all find out.


RE: Food For Thought
By masher2 (blog) on 6/10/2008 9:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "Solar and wind are generally enough to meet the needs of the public. I can't remember the name of the city, I only remember it being in Norway..."

Nowhere on the planet do "solar and wind" meet the needs of the public, certainly not in a high latitude like Norway. You've probably confused the geothermal power of Finland with this.


RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 3:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I have no problem using geothermal power either if its feasible. The heat of the earth isn't going anywhere. Why not use it. Its definitely free energy. And 100% reliable unlike solar or wind.


RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 2:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
First. Nevada is a state. Not a city. You either don't live in the US or are incredibly uneducated about our country.

Second, Nevada is mostly desert. Please tell me where all this water will come from to run underneath cities like Vegas to handle heating and cooling. I think the people there would be incredibly pissed off if they had to ration water so that it could be used to heat or cool their homes.

Please do not compare the actions and policies of tiny countries like Norway to those of a large nation like the US.

As far as roof mounted solar arrays for homes and buildings. For homes yes you can eliminate a big chunk of your power bill by mounting solar panels. But for a business, its doubtful that you'd make a significant dent considering the roof is only so big. And the more floors you have, the less an impact you make. Plus in a corporate office you've got hundreds of PCs. However for both the issues are cost to procure and maintain them. Yes I'd like to get some solar panels on my roof when I eventually own a home. Run my AC off it or something. But not everyone can afford it. Nor do I support using government tax credits that largely the middle class will pay for to subsidize everyone in the nation getting solar panels on their roof.

Now maybe a smart developer will start pre-installing solar setups on homes and add it into the cost. Plus be able to buy in volume which lowers cost. That'd be fine. But having the tax payers pay for not only their system (should they choose to install one) and everyone else's? No.


RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 4:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuclear power plants are not without their weaknesses. They require a lot of water. If you see a drought, you'll have to shut down the plant.


The Palo Verde plant uses treated sewage for its cooling needs. There is no reason other plants cannot do the same. Your argument fails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Ge...

And that one plant provides 35% of the energy for an entire state. 35% on 4000 acres.


RE: Food For Thought
By masher2 (blog) on 6/10/2008 9:50:11 AM , Rating: 3
> "...it will still only produce 280MW. Barely more than a 1/5 of the output of an average nuclear plant"

It's even worse than that. Solar plants are rated on max output, yet due to weather and the day/night cycle, they generally produce only 30% of that figure on a regular basis.

Nuclear and coal plants, however, have availability factors ranging from 80-95%.


RE: Food For Thought
By nvalhalla on 6/11/2008 9:58:40 AM , Rating: 2
I love when people bring up accidents that happened 40 years ago. We have over 200 nuclear plants in the U.S., all of them more than 30 years old. What has happened at those? What horrors have been unleashed since 3 mile island? I can think of 2 cave ins that have killed miners in the last year from coal mining.

Mistakes were made, but with the advancements we have today, like computers that won't allow what happened at Chernobyl to happen again, those incidents are unlikely to be repeated. A few kinks had to be worked out, but nuclear has shown itself over the last 40 years to be safe.


RE: Food For Thought
By The0ne on 6/11/2008 1:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
While I don't generally disagree with what you have said I have to point out the flaw in your comments. You are literally assuming that designs are 100% fool proof. From a design point of view, one of my backgrounds, this is never the case. There are too many such cases involving designs of all sorts that either the designer(s) or people have thought it perfect only to realize along the way that with a blow of the wind, a chemical reaction unforeseen, the whole design comes crumbling down like nothing.

Ignorance due to self confidence and superiority is one of the most dangerous ever.


RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2008 1:28:30 PM , Rating: 5
Quiet hippy. I don't hear you bitching about the French being 90% nuclear.

Or is just the US not allowed to take advantage of clean, efficient, safe, and stably priced nuclear energy because it might be near your home?

I'd love to hear your attitude when your power bill doubles because of $130 a barrel oil. If you don't think its coming, think again.


RE: Food For Thought
By wordsworm on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 9:23:31 AM , Rating: 3
Yes we're all well aware that environmentalists could care less about people loosing their jobs, costs rising, the economy suffering. As long as the trees are saved.

And no, solar power will not be making some huge upturn. Because while Arizona, California, Texas, Nevada, and the few other south western states have plenty of desert space with tons of sunlight, the rest of the country does not. The entire northern midwest and north east don't have constant sun year round. And I don't see you people approving the cutting down of thousands of acres of forest to build solar power plants in Florida.

As far as wind goes, tornado alley isn't the best place for wind power either. Nor is there space in the north east. When it takes wind power an area thats 1/4 the size of Rhode Island to get around the same power as a 4,000 acre nuclear plant, that makes it pretty unfeasible for the vast majority of the country.

You can live in imagination land all you want. It won't ever merge with reality.


RE: Food For Thought
By wordsworm on 6/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Food For Thought
By masher2 (blog) on 6/10/2008 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 3
> "Clearly you're out of touch with modern technologies. I'll reiterate the article on Maglev wind turbines:"

Err, this "Magnetic Levitation technology" is designed to do just one thing well -- separate investors from their hard-earned dollars.

There isn't a single functioning commercial "maglev" windmill in existence....and I'd lay good money there never will be.


RE: Food For Thought
By wordsworm on 6/11/2008 6:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There isn't a single functioning commercial "maglev" windmill in existence....and I'd lay good money there never will be.
There are two plants being built that will build them. The one in China is mentioning that it's going to produce small scale maglevs, while the one being built in the US isn't being listed. So, don't go betting and keep your money in your pocket so that you can be the first in your neighborhood to get one. haha... of course you wouldn't be caught with green technology. I was only joking.


RE: Food For Thought
By FITCamaro on 6/11/2008 6:16:07 AM , Rating: 2
When one of these things actually exists, I'll consider it an alternative. I could counter that fusion has the ability to create safe, clean power off of water, but that doesn't exist either. At least not to where its outputting more than it takes to keep it going.


RE: Food For Thought
By Nik00117 on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Food For Thought
By FaceMaster on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Food For Thought
By FaceMaster on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Food For Thought
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Food For Thought
By barjebus on 6/9/2008 11:59:06 AM , Rating: 1
I agree that alternative energy is something that would be beneficial to move towards, however solar is pretty harmful environmentally in terms of cell production, and is exceedingly inefficient except at a somewhat narrow latitude.

The problem I have with this however is that it's being promoted under the false pretenses of anthropogenic global warming. If you want to build renewable energy, just tell governments that they need to work towards a viable sustainability plan for the long term, state the economic benefits inherent in such a scheme, and let capitalism take it's course.

It makes me think of the Iraq war in alot of ways. Even after it all came out that Bush lied, and that the entire thing was based on hysteria and ulterior motives, people said, well Saddam killed thousands of his own citizen's; it was good regardless of the stated reasons. Which is, in my opinion, completely false and silly to an extreme degree.


RE: Food For Thought
By TheDoc9 on 6/9/2008 12:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't watched the latest micheal moore hysteria or al gore propaganda, when did bush admit to lying?


RE: Food For Thought
By maven81 on 6/9/2008 3:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that the justifications for the war are weak and misguided, I think there's a huge difference between doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and trying to justify it (the war), and doing the right thing for the wrong reason (alternative energy).

Hate it or not fear is a very powerful motivator. I find it very telling that masher has no problem with fear mongering if it serves a cause he believes in (missile defense shields for instance), but gets hot and bothered if fear is used for a cause he disagrees with.



RE: Food For Thought
By elgueroloco on 6/9/2008 3:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
Wind power sucks. Especially current designs. Maybe that Magenn balloon will be worth something, but windmills blow. They take up endless acres of otherwise good land to produce the same power we could get from a city block of real power plant. Also, solar can be put on the roof of everything, especially once they improve the tech on the market to actually be worth making solar stuff, so solar is way better than wind, or hydroelectric, which also wrecks the environment.


RE: Food For Thought
By arazok on 6/9/2008 3:36:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wind power sucks.


No, it blows. ;)


RE: Food For Thought
By masher2 (blog) on 6/9/2008 4:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think that one deserves a six. :)


RE: Food For Thought
By Ringold on 6/9/2008 3:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about these provisions is so bad? We ARE going to have to move to some sort of alternative energy based infrastructure sooner or later, be it in 20 years, 100 years, or 500 years. Fossil fuel resources will run out eventually at the current growing rate of consumption, no one can argue this point.


The one and only reason government has a right to be inserting its self in to the energy generation market is the theory that global warming is a market failure and only the government can correct it.

If you do suspend the global warming issue as you propose, it all becomes a non-issue. It doesn't matter that fossil fuels will be exhausted at some ridiculously distant point in the future; they will become more scarce before they run out, driving up prices, and as price increases, alternatives naturally become viable, and energy producers switch to alternatives of their own accord with no government subsidies needed.


RE: Food For Thought
By maven81 on 6/9/2008 4:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
A valid point, but I think you will agree that the government has the ability to speed up adoption of certain technologies by making them more viable. For instance more people might be inclined to buy fuel efficient cards if they received a significant tax write-off. Same with people installing solar cells on their homes. Or even better, if I was a nuclear plant developer I might be more inclined to build plants if the government cut me some slack on property taxes perhaps.
I'm not saying it wouldn't happen on it's own as you say, just that the government does have the ability to speed things up.


RE: Food For Thought
By Ringold on 6/10/2008 12:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
It absolutely has the ability to speed up adoption of certain technologies, they have the police power of the military state to enforce federal mandates and the power of the federal purse to force states to implement federal policies that would be unconstitutional if they were simply federal law.

Unfortunately, history has far too many examples of government trying to 'pick a winner' technology instead of waiting for the free market verdict and getting it horribly wrong. If we learned anything from the ethanol bonanza it should be that the government is not only incapable of picking a technology, it even screws up a bad technology by implementing it in one of the worst ways possible. Econ 101 says that markets that arent failing are providing their products at the lowest cost they can, and as costs go up on existing means of producing their product (energy), they'll implement technologies at will that cost less. A market has to be failing or acting irrationally somehow for a government intervention to have net positive economic effect, and Jason suspended the global warming market failure thesis.

A market can be perfectly rational and a government intervention can increase "equity", but this isn't a class warfare discussion, so that entire realm of economic inquiry is a non-issue.


RE: Food For Thought
By rsmech on 6/9/2008 11:48:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What about these provisions is so bad? We ARE going to have to move to some sort of alternative energy based infrastructure sooner or later, be it in 20 years, 100 years, or 500 years.


The one question I have never heard the pro GW side or pro GW politician answer is how are you going to help me with energy costs TODAY. I'm all for future alternatives but why are they avoiding me today?

This is what they have done for me so far today:

1. increased food prices (ethanol)
2. increased fuel subsidies (ethanol)
3. increased ground water usage (ethanol)
4. increased oil prices (refusing to drill new wells)
5. increased gas prices (refusing new refineries)
6. increased cost of goods & services (fuel increases directly impacted by political decisions)
7. increased cost of light bulb (side note. I a lady who had one of these new bulbs break in her kids room. She called Home Depot & others to see how to clean it up. Someone gave her a number for cleaning up hazardous materials (mercury). It cost her about $2000.00 to have them clean it up by OSHA standards. Well worth the energy savings)

I could go on & on. I'm all about the future but don't forget about today. If you can't get it right today why should I think you can do it tomorrow. For the politician it's because they won't be held accountable when this all blows over or cost too much because we will all forget.

Tell you what. I'll give you your help tomorrow if you can help me TODAY.


RE: Food For Thought
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Food For Thought
By tjr508 on 6/10/2008 12:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
Just to clue you in... The US drills multiple times as many wells as the rest of the world combined. I don't think the # of wells drilled here is hurting the price of oil.


RE: Food For Thought
By Ringold on 6/10/2008 12:18:25 AM , Rating: 2
Need data that...

a) Proves that

b) Suggests it is at all relevant when the big untapped reserves of oil we know is in various locations can't be drilled at all due to government mandate


RE: Food For Thought
By rsmech on 6/10/2008 12:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
So increasing supply does nothing for price? So the opposite must be true, The increase in corn demand shouldn't increase prices either.

If what you say is correct the answer is that we still didn't drill enough. Because increasing supply does reduce demand and prices follow. So my point still hold true.


RE: Food For Thought
By tjr508 on 6/10/2008 5:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
Rigzone.com is the best place for rig count data internationally. Keep in mind that not only does the US have twice as many active drilling rigs as the rest of the world combined, but we also drill wells MUCH MUCH faster than other nations making each of our rigs more productive as well.
The problem is we drill for anywhere from 50 to 5000 barrels a day where some countries wouldn't drill a well for 20,000 bpd.
The best way to increase oil supply is to get more of our equipment and expertise overseas.


RE: Food For Thought
By rsmech on 6/11/2008 12:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
Just as I thought, you can down mod me but you can't come up with a solution. You can continue but you still support my premise. you have not immediate solution, you have given up. Is it really that hard. Just because you haven't been given your marching orders on it yet doesn't mean you can't come up with something on your own. Or just state the obvious, you have no solution for today. It's what your down modding tells us.


RE: Food For Thought
By tjr508 on 6/9/2008 11:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest problem with a wind or solar patch is that 50 wind farms can't replace a single coal/gas plant because their outputs range from ZERO to whatever. We do not have and 'never' will have a good way to store energy on the scale of our power grid.
You can't just tell someone who legally invested millions and millions in a power plant that they can't sell energy during sunny or windy days, so the only way to solve the issue would be a complete government takeover of the industry; which is exactly what the Frenchies want anyway.


Kyoto
By BMFPitt on 6/9/2008 11:50:05 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The U.S. has so far been wise enough to avoid signing Kyoto -- a vastly costly measure that even its supporters admit won't measurably affect world temperatures.
Signing it is cheap. It would only cost some jet fuel and some ink. Then we could just ignore it like all the other countries.




RE: Kyoto
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/9/2008 1:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well this way when the truth about it comes out in 15-20 years we can say we were future thinking and recognized then that it was an impractical idea.


RE: Kyoto
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2008 1:30:32 PM , Rating: 3
And whats scary is regardless of who we vote for it seems like our signature might be on it. Obama and McCain both support the global warming propaganda. Hopefully McCain only supports it to get more votes. Just like Obama claims to care about the economy and claims he'll have a tough stance on Iran.


RE: Kyoto
By BBeltrami on 6/9/2008 2:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
They both support it because green is FASHION. Even the far right has begun to embrace green initiatives because that embrace buys political capital.

Like it or not, repeating "Global Warming is here and its our fault and it's going to be bad for future generations" over and over and over has had a dramatic impact on public perception. People now believe simply because it has been repeated. It's called propoganda and was nearly perfected by Joseph Goebbels, a somewhat notorious figure, if you know a bit of history.

When British Petroleum and Subaru are lecturing me in their commercials about how green they are and how I should be more thoughtful about the planet? Oh please, how insulting!

AGW is about money and control; a natural playground for politicians.


RE: Kyoto
By jbartabas on 6/9/2008 2:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's called propoganda and was nearly perfected by Joseph Goebbels, a somewhat notorious figure, if you know a bit of history.


Could an expert in Godwin's law tell if that one qualifies, please? :-D


RE: Kyoto
By Eris23007 on 6/9/2008 6:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
English Judge: 8
German Judge: 7
Russian Judge: 8
American Judge: 7
French Judge: 5

Overall score: 7

The judges rule that Godwin's law applies.


RE: Kyoto
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2008 2:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone for getting a massive movement going in the US to have tens of millions of people here write in Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee for president?


RE: Kyoto
By BMFPitt on 6/9/2008 3:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone for getting a massive movement going in the US to have tens of millions of people here write in Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee for president?
Mike Huckabee? If the last 7 years have taught us anything, it's that you shouldn't pick a President based on who would be funnier to see trying to do the job. Even if we could get Chuck Norris as VP.

Ron Paul could probably crack 1%, but I still don't see that making a big difference. An ideal 3rd candidate would be one that pulls enough from both sides that in 2012, they'll be able to get some real attention. The parties and the media know that Paul has a very limited following, as energetic as they are.

In any case, I'll be voting for myself, again. I even have bumper stickers.


RE: Kyoto
By Ringold on 6/9/2008 3:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hopefully McCain only supports it to get more votes.


Here in Florida I voted for Charlie Crist (for Governor) because I thought his fig leaf to the teachers union was a bluff, I thought his concern over the environment was a bluff, I thought his promise to expand Citizens Property Insurance was a bluff, and I thought all his "bipartisan" (read: left-leaning) proposals were all just attempts to get votes.

I thought Crist was just giving the ol' wink-wink, and he'd be the Chain Gang Charlie we hoped he would be, and continue the Holy Crusade against the Teachers Union, etc.

But no. He ended up being everything he said he'd be. I think he may have undone all the good work Jeb had accomplished against the unions.

Some times, actually have to believe these people. :P

At least McCain has differences with Obama on other issues. Crist and the guy he ran against were almost clones. I keep up on things, but I only could remember and identify Crist as the Republican 2 days before the election, that's how similar they were.


RE: Kyoto
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2008 4:26:47 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah I thought Jeb did a great job.


RE: Kyoto
By Ringold on 6/10/2008 12:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
I agree; some people are convinced he's a viable Presidential candidate in the future. I don't know... but at least he'd get a huge chunk of the hispanic vote.


RE: Kyoto
By BMFPitt on 6/10/2008 7:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
some people are convinced he's a viable Presidential candidate in the future.
I wonder what liabilities he may have that would hurt his run?


RE: Kyoto
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 8:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
The biggest one will be his brother. I think a lot of people will be apprehensive about putting another Bush in the White House. I wouldn't because I know Jeb did a great job in Florida. But you know the entire liberal media would destroy him with slogans like "PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH DYNASTY!".

About the only other thing off the top of my head is his wife. I remember she was involved in some kind of shop lifting or something. I never heard the outcome.


RE: Kyoto
By BMFPitt on 6/10/2008 12:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The biggest one will be his brother.
Nothing gets by you...


Recipe for a "fair and balance" article ...
By jbartabas on 6/9/2008 1:50:57 PM , Rating: 3
... take the worldwide cost over a few decades (~ 40 years), and compare it to the US (annual) current GDP. That's a much scarier number than "1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product" (noticeably mostly in technologies that will be required in the future anyway, independently of the GW issue).

Most certainly mentioning, even briefly, an order of magnitude for the time scale for this investment would have been totally irrelevant ...




RE: Recipe for a "fair and balance" article ...
By Ringold on 6/10/2008 1:08:02 AM , Rating: 3
Current global GDP, in 2007, was 60 - 65 trillion.

US GDP, just shy of 14 trillion.

US + EU (who would combined be forced by the third world to shoulder the vast majority of costs) GDP = 28 trillion

45 trillion / 40 years = 1.125 trillion a year, or 4% off the top.

Assuming this 45 trillion is in addition to what would've otherwise been done anyway, then the way I read it the US and EU would have to maintain 4% growth in the private economy just to tread water from all the wealth and treasure getting blown on CO2 reduction. That, dare I say, is a nearly impossible sustainable rate of growth for a developed country for 40 years. If both drift much further to the left politically, 2% might be tough.

Meanwhile, that's 45 trillion not available to future generations, plus 'interest.' Does this 45 trillion offset significantly more than 45 trillion over the next 100-200 years? Through the glories of compound interest (assuming i=3.75%, a semi-random low-ball number), by the year 2108 I calculate 949 in trillion of GW damage would have to of been averted..

By 2208, 37,683 trillion.

Thats just to break even. Thats a lot of GW damage.

Even by the time the investment is complete in 2050 or so, it would already represent 104 trillion in forgone alternative uses. (Compound interest is a cruel master)

I'm pretty sure I did the math right, but the gist of it all looks correct.


RE: Recipe for a "fair and balance" article ...
By jbartabas on 6/10/2008 3:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
US + EU (who would combined be forced by the third world to shoulder the vast majority of costs) GDP = 28 trillion


According to the IEA, about $27 trillion would be borne by developing countries. That leaves ~ 18 for developed countries... which are (and will be) more than EU and US.

quote:
45 trillion / 40 years = 1.125 trillion a year, or 4% off the top.


If you start at ~ 0.7 and end at ~1.9 trillions per year, it is 1.1% of the world GDP (assumed to grow at 3.3% by the IEA). It is not clear how they spread the investment over time though: it is possible that some of the investments will require a substantial initial boost. However, they suggest investments that will grow in time (with the growth of the world economy). Unfortunately, their detailed report does not seem to be available for free, so the details are out of my reach.

quote:
Meanwhile, that's 45 trillion not available to future generations, plus 'interest.'


If I understand you correctly, your premise assumes that the 45 trillions are pure loss, and would have brought 3.75% interest worldwide and over 40 years if invested anywhere else. To focus on the first part, and even accounting for your belief that CO2 is not an issue at all, I am not sure why you consider building 32 new nuclear plants each year and improving energy efficiency are pure losses. Could you explain please, or correct my interpretation if it's wrong?

quote:
Even by the time the investment is complete in 2050 or so, it would already represent 104 trillion in forgone alternative uses.


Accounting for inflation? In the meantime, even assuming this amount is a total loss, the world would have produced ~4200 trillions of wealth. It is also an average "loss" of ~2.5 trillions per year in a world economy with a real average GDP of the order of 102 trillions.

quote:
by the year 2108 I calculate 949 in trillion of GW damage would have to of been averted.


Did you account for the reduced yearly investment required for extending the period up to 2108? I find a total cost of ~250 trillions, while the world GDP over the same time produce >23000 trillions (at max of 600 trillions per year in 2108).


RE: Recipe for a "fair and balance" article ...
By Ringold on 6/10/2008 5:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the IEA, about $27 trillion would be borne by developing countries.


The IEA can live in their own nice, comfortable fantasy land, but in the real world Europe is already seriously considering paying for more efficient factories and powerplants and whatnot to be built in China, and the developing world has been screaming that the US and Europe have been the ones to release by far the most CO2 to date and thus we should not only fix it largely ourselves but we should compensate them.

Asking liberal Americans and Europeans to throttle their lifestyles may work, but to think we will get China to throttle themselves is nuts. We'll eat the full 45 trillion.

quote:
Could you explain please, or correct my interpretation if it's wrong?


I could be wrong, but my interpretation was that it was 45 trillion that would not have been spent otherwise, representing expenses the market wouldn't of had to spend on CO2 prevention and could've, I assumed, been put to areas where the market wanted instead of government.

To assume it was still a total loss, however, is a valid criticism. Then again, I probably low-balled it with the 3.75%, those were the 10 year bond yields in the issue of The Economist next to me, but they're artificially low right now.

quote:
Accounting for inflation?


I used constant dollars, partly to be simple and partly because I have no idea at all what inflation will do moving forward and what number I should thus use as a deflator.

quote:
Did you account for the reduced yearly investment required for extending the period up to 2108?


I assumed 1.125 trillion per year for 40 years (to get to the 45t total), and only interest accumulation after that out to 2208 to try to represent total opportunity cost.

At any rate, I may have boned up somewhere along the line, but my argument is that the cost of global warming must be reduced by an amount no less than the cost of the measures we take against it. You seem to be emphasizing how little it costs relative to global GDP, but thats not how business choices are made. Benefits must be had, and they must outweigh costs, and preferably the net gain should be better than some benchmark rate; 10 year bond yields, LIBOR, whatever suits your fancy. (I <3 the S&P500 annual return of 10% as a benchmark)


By jbartabas on 6/10/2008 5:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
First allow me to answer this statement to avoid any possible ambiguity on my position:

quote:
You seem to be emphasizing how little it costs relative to global GDP


I will not say that the cost is little, and I don't think any economist would say that seriously. 1% of GDP over relatively long term is definitely a significant investment, no doubt about it. However, 45 trillions over 40 years, as big a number it is, has to be put into perspective: it is ~1% of the world GDP.


RE: Recipe for a "fair and balance" article ...
By jbartabas on 6/10/2008 6:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The IEA can live in their own nice [...]


Your point here is mostly personal opinion, so there is no point for me to pretend you are right or wrong, but this is important: the IEA does not say how this will happen, it lays down a plan for how it should happen. That's the job of politician to ensure a sensible plan is followed ...

quote:
We'll eat the full 45 trillion.


... and there is no way we eat the 45 trillions on our own. So that definitely won't happen. The plan will just never happen in its form if developing country don't want to share the burden.

quote:
I could be wrong, but my interpretation was that it was 45 trillion that would not have been spent otherwise, [...]


That would probably hold for CO2 sequestration. I don't think that holds for "new" (or renewed, for nuclear) sources of energy or energy efficiency.

quote:
Then again, I probably low-balled it with the 3.75%, those were the 10 year bond yields in the issue of The Economist next to me, but they're artificially low right now.[...] I used constant dollars, partly to be simple and partly because I have no idea at all what inflation will do moving forward and what number I should thus use as a deflator.


Accounting for inflation is definitely not an easy task for the past, it's even worse for the future ;-) . However, interest rates don't mean much if you don't correct for inflation. A value of 2.5% for the US and Europe seems to a reasonable order of magnitude for the recent history. I am not sure how to translate that at the world scale though. Over 50 or 100 years, that's a very significant impact.

quote:
I assumed 1.125 trillion per year for 40 years (to get to the 45t total), and only interest accumulation after that out to 2208 to try to represent total opportunity cost.


Again, cost is relative. You could as well push to the year 2300 or even 3000. That would definitely make an even more impressive number. However that would still be a "relatively" small fraction of the world economy, and an increasingly smaller fraction of the accumulated GDP over all these years.

quote:
thats not how business choices are made.


Energy policies are definitely not 100% driven by market (or business). From the strategic interests to the safety and pollutions issues, their are numerous important parameters that can influence political choices beyond the sole problem of cost. Combining all the advantages would be good, but I am afraid that here like everywhere else, it's all about compromises.


RE: Recipe for a "fair and balance" article ...
By Ringold on 6/10/2008 8:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your point here is mostly personal opinion,


That the developed world (read: America + EU) should shoulder most of the cost is not only my opinion, but thus far the official diplomatic position of China and many developing countries.

The entire point of my post was to have some reality meet the fantasy land of the IEA's proposal.

quote:
The plan will just never happen in its form if developing country don't want to share the burden.


I agree. It doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

quote:
Over 50 or 100 years, that's a very significant impact.


Well, if we're talking about losses or gains to GDP, and real global GDP growth is going at +5% annually, then perhaps it doesn't matter much.

quote:
beyond the sole problem of cost.


No. When changes are made to the health care system, by hospitals, etc, they deduce dollar values and do cost benefit analysis. Modern charitable foundations even do cost-benefit analysis to determine the best use of their resources. Pollution has costs; air pollution puts people in the hospital and can damage crops, for example. Easy to quantify. If sea level rise destroyed some coastal property, that has costs, it can be quantified.

To suggest global warming must be justified based on opinionated emotional reasons rather than the sort of cost-benefit analysis that takes place in every other mature public and private sector is to throw global warming to ideological dogs. The first hour on the first day in a principles of economics course would point out that all decisions have costs, and that the cornerstone of economic analysis, both for business and government policy decisions, is comparing costs, opportunity costs, and benefits. Anything less simply lacks rigor, and 5 year old children could pull off. Might as well flip a coin!


By jbartabas on 6/11/2008 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, if we're talking about losses or gains to GDP, and real global GDP growth is going at +5% annually, then perhaps it doesn't matter much.


I am not sure what point you're trying to make, but the assumed real GDP for the study was 3.3%.

If you assume 5%, the investment required to reach 45trillions is even less than 1% GDP per year ... In addition, that doesn't change the fact that at 2.5% inflation (low-ball) your 104 trillions (I haven't updated the number, but it is less than that anyway even with 3.3% GDP growth) of cost + interest are worth much less in 2050 than today, not even mentioning their relative cost respective to total GDP ...

quote:
No. When changes are made to the health care system, blablabla [...] To suggest global warming must be justified based on opinionated emotional reasons rather than the sort of cost-benefit analysis that takes place in every other mature public and private sector is to throw global warming to ideological dogs.


I have reached the conclusion that either you can't read, or your brain is a sort of binary system that can't deal with complexity beyond good/evil, black/white, make money/lose money. So let me emphasize for you a few keywords for you, maybe it'll be easier for you:
quote:
Energy policies are definitely not 100% driven by market (or business). From the strategic interests to the safety and pollutions (that's probably what you labeled as 'emotional')issues, there are numerous important parameters that can influence political choices beyond the sole problem of cost. Combining all the advantages would be good, but I am afraid that here like everywhere else, it's all about compromises .


By jbartabas on 6/10/2008 5:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Actually for a 100 years investment period, it's more like a final GDP of ~1,500 trillions and total GDP over the period of ~47,000 trillions (total amount with interests is ~ 190 trillions).


$45 Trillion may not be so expensive after all....
By mork1979 on 6/10/2008 2:54:07 AM , Rating: 5
More than 70 percent of the world's population lives on coastal plains, and 11 of the world's 15 largest cities are on the coast or estuaries. Enlgand and many Nordic countries lie below the sea level. Over the 20th century, sea levels rose between 10 and 20 centimetres (4-8 inches). The IPCC puts predictions of 21st century sea level rise at 9 to 88 cm

If these countries were to endure regular severe floods or worse yet, flood, the costs would be well in excess of 45 Trillion. This estimate is derived from a collapse of the pound (and collateral financial damage) and the total GDP lost in each affected country.

I think once entire economies are on the brink of collopse, the money will materialise. Unfortunately, governments generally act when situations are most dire.

On a more positive note, I think its fabulous that people are empassioned enough to voice their concerns in all forums and medias (such as this one) and lobby governments. Though we have not reached our end goal of dramatically reducing greenhouse emissions, we are definately well on our way - the public accepts as fact that global warming will cause adverse envrionmental consequences and politicians have generally placed envrionmental issues high on their agendas (although they have yet to act...)




By FITCamaro on 6/11/2008 10:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
They've been saying the sea levels will rise several inches a year for the past few years. Yet all the coast lines of Florida and the whole east coast are still there. And where they were before.

Just as they've been saying the global temperature was going to dramatically rise. Yet its gone down.


By FITCamaro on 6/11/2008 5:57:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the public accepts as fact that global warming will cause adverse environmental consequences


Yes we accept the fact that global warming could cause bad environmental effects. But we do not believe that mankind is causing such warming, or that such warming is even happening right now. Mindless sheep who believe everything the liberal media tells them perhaps do. But those who actually open their eyes and look around them most certainly do not.

It's your goal to dramatically cut "greenhouse" gas emissions. Not mine. Or a lot of people's. We recognize the man-made global warming agenda for what it is. A money making scam to push a socialist, environmentalist agenda.


By Symmetriad on 6/12/2008 5:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Is it too much to ask that you not consistently use loaded words and ad hominem attacks against anybody who doesn't share your perspective? Some people here make well-worded and researched posts supporting the idea that global warming exists, and do so civilly, and yet you still dismiss them as "mindless sheep" and make wild accusations. You're not even trying to make a reasoned or logical argument with this post, you're just name-calling and spewing emotional invective.

It's people like you, on both sides of this and many other debates, who are the reason intelligent discourse and decision-making have more or less ceased in the United States. Thanks for helping to lower the level of discourse on DT to hooting and yelling.


Not a lot
By simeika on 6/9/2008 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
You think $45 trillion not a lot when all cities start flood!




RE: Not a lot
By jbartabas on 6/9/2008 2:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
$45 trillion is way beyond "a lot" for your, mine, Donald Trump, New York city, the US, etc ... yearly budgets.

It is just a substantial amount for the world economies over roughly the next half century (doesn't mean you want to waste it of course ;-) ).


RE: Not a lot
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2008 2:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
Tell your country to pay it then.


Picture Request
By novacthall on 6/9/2008 11:26:00 AM , Rating: 3
I feel it's only appropriate to put Dr. Evil as the picture for this article. While I realize at no point in time has combating climate change ever included sharks (or ill-tempered sea bass) with frickin' laser beams on their heads, even amongst the nuttiest of eco-nuts, the ridiculous sum alone warrants a ridiculous madman holding the world ransom for a ridiculous fee.




45 Trillion?
By FaceMaster on 6/9/2008 4:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see the calculations for that.

'### for recycling facilities, ### for vehicles, ### for windmills... and ### for me'




By mork1979 on 6/10/2008 2:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
I ment to write "completely flood" when I wrote -

"If these countries were to endure regular severe floods or worse yet, flood..."

Whoops - sorry.




missing a line...
By Screwballl on 6/10/2008 4:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
at the end there needs to be the usual disclaimer:
"The group responsible for this demand is also one that has been found to be the most corrupt of any multi-national group outside of the UN itself. If any money is put up, at least 80% of it would end up in their pockets or wasted on studies and committies, and not towards pollution reduction."




Wow...
By Polynikes on 6/11/2008 11:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
I think I'm gonna try to find a way to make a living under the table, so I don't have to help fund this massive waste of money.




Oh man
By Rulother on 6/12/2008 11:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
That is quite a number




For 45 Trillion
By Nik00117 on 6/9/08, Rating: 0
"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki