Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth It

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Strummer » Fri 14 Feb 2014, 14:51:20

Plantagenet wrote:Please take a second to double check your posts for errors--you're getting basic facts wrong. For instance, (1) Apple is building a manufacturing center right now in Mesa, Az. And (2) yes, it will be run on 100% renewable power. And (3) no, it doesn't manufacture glass.

Apple manufacturing center under construction in Arizona


What? First, it's a 700-employee facility, so, as I said, it's a tiny, almost negligible part of the whole Apple manufacturing and supply chain. Second, it will manufacture synthetic sapphire which is currently used for camera and fingerprint reader covers on the iCrap, and may be used in the future for whole screen cover. That synthetic sapphire is also commonly known as "sapphire glass". See Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire#T ... d_hardness

One application of synthetic sapphire is sapphire glass. Here glass is a layman term which refers not to the amorphous state, but to the transparency.
Strummer
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 04:42:14

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 14 Feb 2014, 14:53:35

pstarr wrote:
I'll admit to having very few ethics, but even I draw the line at giving a big thumbs up to mindless consumerism and slave labour by purchasing apple crap.
Apples are not crap. They're organic. Or green or something?


Some apples are even organic.

And bringing this back to the thread topic….apples are carbon sinks.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 14 Feb 2014, 15:06:05

I'm not sure what you are arguing about. The facts are pretty clear here:

(#1 and #2)
Strummer wrote:Apple….a 700-employee facility


Yes, Apple is building a manufacturing site IN THE US employing 700 workers. Your claim that Apple doesn't have US manufacturing is in error. And whats more, it will run on 100% renewable energy. You were wrong again.

(#3)
Strummer wrote:synthetic sapphire is also commonly known as "sapphire glass"...Here glass is a layman term which refers not to the amorphous state, but to the transparency.


"Layman term" meaning wrong. Sapphire is not glass. Lots of things are transparent that aren't glass. Scientific illiterates may think that everything that is transparent is glass, but they aren't.

---------

Obviously in a perfect world all the manufacturing would be in the US and everything would be renewable and I guess sapphire would be made out of glass---but this isn't a perfect world.

So what is your point? That Apple doesn't have US manufacturing so they are bad? But they do. That Saphire is glass and thats bad? But sapphire isn't glass except in the minds of people who don't know any better. Sapphire isn't perfect but its VERY GOOD---its the second hardest natural mineral, rating out at 9 on the mineral hardness scale! That renewable energy is bad and its bad for US companies like Apple to be shifting their US facilities to renewable energy because they aren't at 100% yet? So why is it bad to shift to renewable energy?

Theres an old saying that is relevant here---the perfect is the enemy of the good. [smilie=stop.gif]
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Peak_Yeast » Fri 14 Feb 2014, 15:47:40

We need something better than CO2 tax.

Since people are the primary target of all co2 consumption, pollution, and ressource usage - the tax/cost should be placed on those who wants to produce new humans.

Of course, this has to be global - and paid up-front. It would certainly stop a lot of people from having children they cant afford and doesnt bring up, but dumps on others peoples front-doors.

It would also inspire parents to try to make a quality product since they have paid a significant and tangible amount to start the project - and not just giving in to hormones and lust.

Furthermore it would hit hardest in poor overcrowded countries that produce citizens which are of no use at all. Also it would hit the poorest people in all countries - which are those who are most likely to produce uneducated criminal citizens.

Yeah it sounds so unfair and the target population & race are so biased - but isnt what we are going towards even worse by not doing anything.

Who needs 5b people who is a complete drain and doesnt produce anything worthwhile? That is okay in a world of abundance - which i guess is why it has been acceptable.. Now things are changeing and we need to think hard about what we actually need that consumes resources.

Dont worry - im ready to be torn to pieces for writing this :-D
"If democracy is the least bad form of government - then why dont we try it for real?"
User avatar
Peak_Yeast
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013, 17:54:38
Location: Denmark

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 14 Feb 2014, 15:56:24

Peak_Yeast wrote:We need something better than CO2 tax.

Since people are the primary target of all co2 consumption, pollution, and ressource usage - the tax/cost should be placed on those who wants to produce new humans……...
Dont worry - im ready to be torn to pieces for writing this :-D


There already is a tax on new humans. In the US raising a kid up to age 18 is estimated to cost 241,000 dollars. The high cost of raising kids is one reason Americans are already at zero population growth---our population would be stable right now except for the influx of legal and illegal immigrants.

The advantage of a carbon tax is that it directly attacks the carbon problem---the release of carbon into the atmosphere. Furthermore it is directly proportional to the use of carbon----the more carbon used, the higher the tax. People who drive cars and fly in airplanes would see high carbon taxes----people traveling by electric trams and HSR would see little to no carbon tax.

Theres an old saying----if you want less of something put a tax on it. The carbon tax would result in lower carbon emissions.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby kiwichick » Fri 14 Feb 2014, 19:00:13

natural gas is almost as bad
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby AndyA » Fri 14 Feb 2014, 19:13:08

Plantagenet wrote:
pstarr wrote:
I'll admit to having very few ethics, but even I draw the line at giving a big thumbs up to mindless consumerism and slave labour by purchasing apple crap.
Apples are not crap. They're organic. Or green or something?


Some apples are even organic.

And bringing this back to the thread topic….apples are carbon sinks.

Apples can be a 100% renewable energy source, and can be produced without any FF inputs at all, and because of their ability to produce and reproduce without any inputs they have an EROEI approaching infinity.
If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. -Sen-ts'an
AndyA
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat 10 Aug 2013, 01:26:33

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 14 Feb 2014, 19:41:39

kiwichick wrote:natural gas is almost as bad


Then the carbon tax on NG would be set at a level almost as high as the carbon tax on gasoline.

Image
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby TemplarMyst » Sat 15 Feb 2014, 00:31:40

Been a bit since I dropped in. Plant, do you know what the overall efficiency is of the various renewable plants Apple has put into place? I ask not because I'm inherently opposed to renewables, it's just that I keep running up against what seems to me several downsides to a strictly renewables approach.

First, since they're intermittent, and we still at this point have a baseload energy system, they have to be backed up by some form of fossil fuel infrastructure. My understanding is Apple feeds their green energy into Duke Energy's grid, rather than being able to power their plants directly from their solar and fuel cell sources. I think it'd be generous, based on Germany's current experience, to say that solar provides electricity about 12% of the time and wind about 20% of the time, I keep thinking this isn't making a huge dent in the overall carbon load, though I suppose every little bit helps to some degree.

Second, my understanding is the current carbon load won't really be felt for another 30 or 40 years - that we're currently experiencing the climate effects of the stuff we threw up in the 70s or 80s. In other words, we'd need to go in reverse on carbon - start actively pulling it down, and at a pretty good clip at that. (Actually, an insanely intense clip, but that's another discussion if we can't get to zero emissions anytime soon on renewables).

Third, it seems to me we're going to have at least a minimal need for liquid fuels for some time to come. Running mining equipment off electric sources might work, but tractors? And the raw hydrocarbon stocks that go into Apple (and most other) products will still be needed for some time as well. Plastics and fertilizers are the base of the modern industrial society.

So if we have to pull down carbon, and provide carbon stock, we'd need some sort of system that can turn the carbon cycle into one managed by humans. I can only conceive of this sort of thing in the presence of extremely large amounts of available, excess energy. And I can only conceive of that by some implementation of nuclear power.

But if you can explain how we do that with renewables, or if one or more of my assumptions are incorrect, I'm all ears :) A carbon tax might or might not be something that could be implemented, but if the carbon cycle itself could be managed and the products salable, such a tax might not be necessary in the first place. I grant you, the thermodynamics are the first wall I run into every time I think about renewables.
TemplarMyst
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri 16 Aug 2013, 21:45:22
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby AndyA » Sat 15 Feb 2014, 15:25:11

TemplarMyst, you are rational enough to know the answers to those questions and the direction we are headed. We will all be living off 100% renewable energy in the future, just not the current interpretation of it.
If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. -Sen-ts'an
AndyA
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat 10 Aug 2013, 01:26:33

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 15 Feb 2014, 15:33:11

TemplarMyst wrote:Been a bit since I dropped in. Plant, do you know what the overall efficiency is of the various renewable plants Apple has put into place? I ask not because I'm inherently opposed to renewables, it's just that I keep running up against what seems to me several downsides to a strictly renewables approach.


Welcome back, TemplarMyst.

Sorry, I don't know any of the technical specs of the Apple renewable energy program. All I know is that they say they are moving towards 100% RE in their US facilities, with a new manufacturing facility in Mesa AZ rated at 100% RE, and an overall rating of ca. 70%.

You are absolutely correct that sorting out what "100% renewable energy" means in terms of how a utility actually delivers its mix of energy is complicated, just as AndyA is right that Apple remains highly dependent on FF use through the rest of the economy.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 20 Feb 2014, 18:59:33

California senate leader wants carbon tax on fuel

California should create a carbon tax on transportation fuels that would rise to about 40¢/USG within 15 years, the state Senate's top Democrat said today.

California Senate president pro tempore Darrell Steinberg (D) outlined his proposal for removing gasoline and diesel from the state's greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade program and putting them under a carbon tax. Steinberg also called for “aggressive” post-2020 GHG-reduction targets.

Steinberg's proposed carbon tax on transport fuels would start at 15¢/USG next year, rising to 24¢ by 2020 and 40¢ by 2029. The proposal would leave in place the rest of the cap-and-trade program, which covers emissions from the state's electric, industrial and natural gas sectors.

Steinberg raised the specter of the state's energy crisis in supporting his proposal during a speech at the Sacramento Press Club, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. Leaving fuels under the cap-and-trade program would make consumers “vulnerable to anti-competitive behavior and Wall Street traders,” which Steinberg said has led to past price spikes and fuel shortages.

“A carbon tax is stable. A carbon tax is significantly less vulnerable to gaming,” he said.

About $2.5bn of the revenue from the carbon tax would be returned to California residents through a state earned income tax credit for those making less than $75,000/yr. The remainder would be used for mass transportation projects in California.


argusmedia
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 20 Feb 2014, 19:17:52

Graeme wrote:California senate leader wants carbon tax on fuel
About $2.5bn of the revenue from the carbon tax would be returned to California residents through a state earned income tax credit for those making less than $75,000/yr. The remainder would be used for mass transportation projects in California.


argusmedia[/quote]

Sounds great except for the rebates to those making less than $75k.

You aren't going to cut carbon emissions with a carbon tax if you rebate the carbon tax so people keep right on emitting carbon. The average per capita income in California is about 30k, and the average household income about 60k, so if you rebate the tax to everybody earning under 75K, hardly anybody will be taxed and almost all of the 30 million Californians will continue polluting the air with CO2.

If you want to cut carbon emissions, you've got to tax carbon emissions and people have to start driving less and doing other things to reduce their carbon emissions. No rebates. No special deals. Everybody has to emit less. Period. :idea:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Loki » Thu 20 Feb 2014, 21:45:35

Plantagenet wrote:If you want to cut carbon emissions, you've got to tax carbon emissions and people have to start driving less and doing other things to reduce their carbon emissions. No rebates. No special deals. Everybody has to emit less. Period.

I kind of agree, but the devil would be in the details. Let's say Joe Blow makes $20k/yr working at Taco Bell and gets back 50% of what he paid in carbon tax. That's still going to be a significant chunk out of Joe's budget if he drives a lot.

If he gets back 100% it will make less of a difference, but if the daily price at the pump hurts too much, he'll reduce his driving, regardless of a government check in an unknown amount he may or may not get 12 months from now. I'm just imagining the living paycheck to paycheck scenario, which is reality for a lot of us.

Still, I'd rather see the carbon tax linked to a reduction of income and/or property taxes. If the state gains, say, $5 billion from carbon taxes, reduce other existing taxes by a similar amount. This would be more politically palatable.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: Economist Says Best Climate Fix A Tough Sell, But Worth

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 00:28:05

Surprise! Even A Crazy-High Carbon Tax Would Help California Businesses

According to a new study out of California, taxing carbon emissions at a whopping $200 per ton would create more jobs in the state than business-as-usual.

The report was commissioned by Citizens Climate Lobby and carried out by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). The latter used a model of the California economy they’ve developed and combined it with the Carbon Tax Analysis Model — an open-source, Microsoft Excel-based model of carbon emissions and tax revenues at the state level, built off data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The resulting simulation looked at three different tax levels: $50 per ton of carbon emissions, $100 per ton, and $200 per ton. All three started at $10 per ton in 2015, then rose $10 annually until they hit their maximum level: $50 in 2019, $100 in 2024, and $200 in 2034.

Lots of previous analyses have tried to model the economic cost of the damage climate change will impose, and $200 per ton of emissions is consistent with several of them. But it’s also way higher than anything lawmakers here or elsewhere have considered. The Canadian province of British Columbia, for example, has a carbon tax of $27.88 per ton. When the Obama Administration estimated the price of carbon, the mid-range of their numbers was around $40 per ton.

Yet not only did the $200 per ton tax create more jobs than the “do nothing” baseline in REMI’s simulation, it created more jobs than the lower taxes did. Anywhere from 236,775 to 286,475 more jobs by 2035, to be specific.


thinkprogress
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Previous

Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests