Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

It's time to choke off the supply of fossil-death-fuels

It's time to choke off the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 09:24:40

It’s time to think seriously about cutting off the supply of fossil fuels
A new paper makes the case for supply-side climate policy.

There is a bias in climate policy shared by analysts, politicians, and pundits across the political spectrum so common it is rarely remarked upon. To put it bluntly: Nobody, at least nobody in power, wants to restrict the supply of fossil fuels.

Policies that choke off fossil fuels at their origin — shutting down mines and wells; banning new ones; opting against new pipelines, refineries, and export terminals — have been embraced by climate activists, picking up steam with the Keystone pipeline protests and the recent direct action of the Valve Turners.

But they are looked upon with some disdain by the climate intelligentsia, who are united in their belief that such strategies are economically suboptimal and politically counterproductive.

Now a pair of economists has offered a cogent argument that the activists are onto something — that restrictive supply-side (RSS) climate policies have unique economic and political benefits and deserve a place alongside carbon prices and renewable energy supports in the climate policy toolkit.

“In our experience,” the authors write, “the climate policy community has for too long been excessively narrow in its preference for certain kinds of policy instruments (carbon taxes, cap-and trade), largely ignoring the characteristics of such instruments that affect their political feasibility and feedback effects.” I have written the same thing many times, so I think a climate policy argument that takes politics seriously deserves a close look.

To understand it, it helps to have a framework for classifying climate policies.

The four quadrants of climate policy
Climate policies can apply to the supply side (production of fossil fuels) or the demand side (consumption of FF), and they can be restrictive or supportive. That creates a grid with four quadrants:

1. Restrictive supply side: policies that cut off FF supply, including declining quotas, supply taxes, and subsidy reductions
2. Restrictive demand side: policies that restrict demand for FF, including carbon prices and declining emission caps
3. Supportive supply side: policies that support the supply of FF alternatives, like renewable energy subsidies and mandates
4. Supportive demand side: policies that support demand for FF alternatives, like subsidies for purchase of energy-efficiency appliances or favorable government procurement policies...


https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... uel-supply

(Thanks to sig at asif for this)

Discuss... :-D
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17488
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby GHung » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 09:32:25

..... united in their belief that such strategies are economically suboptimal and politically counterproductive.


Ay, there's the rub, eh? Something about having cakes and eating them too.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2285
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 11:38:27

The esscence of any of these policies is making FF energy less affordable for the end consumer. The problem with such an effort is that it unevenly penalizes the low income and middle income FF consumers and pretty much does NOTHING whatsoever to discourage the 1%.

An example from real life. In 1996 I bought a 4-cylinder Jeep Wrangler TJ for my daughter while she was in high school. In 2003 I bought another Wrangler TJ for myself, a higher end 6-cylinder model with a hardtop, A/C, and power everything. So I have 22 years of history on what it costs to fill a 19-gallon capacity Jeep Wrangler fuel tank.

The original cost was less than $20, adding about 15 gallons of fuel when the little "low fuel" LED illuminates. You got change from a $20 bill and regular grade gasoline was about $1.25 per gallon. A few years later when my kid was in college in the MidWest, gasoline had grown to an astonishing $5.67 at the corner station and filling that same fuel tank (in California) cost more than $80, although it was cheaper in the MidWest. Today at $3.30 per gallon, it is about $50. My kid bicycled around campus back then.

Since I was still working then, and gasoline was a major expense for me when commuting, I ended up taking the diesel commuter train, the light rail, and a free work campus diesel shuttle furnished by my employer. I also had commuter ticket subsidies from my employer that offset about half my train and lightrail costs.

Note that the $80 per tank cost pretty much shut down my daughter who was on a tight college budget, she ended up leaving the Jeep here and I ended up driving it to work (occasionally not regularly) for two years while me, her Mother, and myself struggled to pay tuition for herself and her Mother, who was pursuing an Accounting degree. It allowed me to retire the 1984 Plymouth station wagon that had died, gone beyond economical repair. I liked it so much I ended up buying another Jeep for myself after driving the original TJ cross-country to her, paying $40-$50 per tank on the highway.

By then we were a 3-Jeep family, although these were NOT economical vehicles to own, her Mother had chosen a 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee, a mid-sized high end SUV. But with two people working, we could afford gasoline.

Today it still costs about $50 per tank to fill either my wife's Jeep or my own, and she grumbles about it as she is the only one working and driving daily. My daughter traded in her Wrangler on a 6-cylinder Jeep Liberty SUV in the MidWest, and drives her twins around in it, and they struggle to keep gasoline in two cars, one of which is an economical Prius her husband drives to work at UW in Winter (he bicycles in Summer).

The payoff to this long-winded story has arrived. Suppose, in the quest to "save the planet", you were to add $5 or $10 or $20 in carbon taxes to the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

For me personally, who is retired and drives minimally, the impact of those three carbon tax rates at my approximately 50 gallons per year gas consumption would be +$250, +$500, or +$1000. I would still drive my uneconomical Jeep because it does the things I need it to do, including going offroad and plowing snow in the MidWest. I would have no significant motivation to either upgrade my vehicle or to drive any less, as I have already minimized fuel use.

For my wife, who uses about 10X the gasoline I use in her Jeep SUV, the carbon tax impacts would be +$2500, +$5000, and +$10,000. My guess is that she would become a train/bus commuter, or quit her job.

Although I don't really know how often she fills her tank, my daughter is probably looking at about the same financial impacts as my wife. Since most of her fuel consumption is shopping, well baby exams, and pre-school, she really has no viable alternatives and her lifestyle as a struggling Mother would suffer greatly.

As for the 1% in this country, zero impact. THEY don't care about fuel costs, you could even add $200/gallon carbon tax, and they would still be driving, happily enjoying the uncrowded roads, although you and I would not be, because the $100,000 per year carbon tax would stop us.

----> Carbon taxes unevenly penalize the low and lower middle incomes, and do nothing to discourage the one percenters.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 14:14:43

I don't think its politically feasible to choke off the supply of fossil fuels in the US at this time.

We just went through 8 years with a D president where the US supply of fossil fuels grew more rapidly then at any time in history. Now we an R president who supports an even more aggressive domestic energy policy.

Since neither the Rs or the Ds will take action to reduce the supply and use of fossil fuels, most likely nothing like this will happen.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21409
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 15:56:14

KaiserJeep wrote:The esscence of any of these policies is making FF energy less affordable for the end consumer. The problem with such an effort is that it unevenly penalizes the low income and middle income FF consumers and pretty much does NOTHING whatsoever to discourage the 1%.

So the world isn't perfect, so we should just ignore a huge problem which is slowly destroying much of the biosphere?

First, tax credits for the truly poor could offset much or even more than any financial harm due to higher CO2 taxes. Done right, such tax credits could make a poor person who rides a bike or walks or takes the bus get a nice net annual payday from a CO2 tax on gasoline, for example.

Second, tax credits could also offset much or all of the cost for lower middle class people. The same principle applies. People who heat their home to 80 degrees and drive a giant pickup or SUV would pay a LOT more tax than people who ride a bike or take the bus or drive a used Corolla or Prius or LEAF.

And for the rich, a FF tax designed correctly could make the 1% care, at least to the extent that they use blatant amounts of fossil fuels. If it ended up costing some billionaire literally $100 a gallon to fuel up their private jet, for example -- they just might decide to spend their time burning a LOT less jet fuel.

...

Now, such a system would need to keep track of fossil fuels purchased, have a rapidly increased level of taxation based on how much is used, and have some sort of tax credits to help out low income people (for example) -- but it could certainly be done.

But for most politicians and consumers alike, it's far easier to claim that any carbon tax is "unfair", ignore the problem, and continue to deny the problem exists or blame everyone else as climate change worsens. And that is exactly the route we're generally taken, including with Paris "kick the can" Climate Accords.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 16:01:59

KaiserJeep wrote: Since most of her fuel consumption is shopping, well baby exams, and pre-school, she really has no viable alternatives and her lifestyle as a struggling Mother would suffer greatly.

Really? So selling the jeep and buying a used Corolla or Prius, and saving a LOT of money per gallon of fuel not burned isn't a viable alternative? So doing more of her shopping via the internet to save fuel (given the strong financial motivation) isn't viable? At all?

Let's not confuse "I don't want to change" or "inconvenience" with "no viable alternative", because they are completely different things.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 16:27:42

You assume that having a Carolla or Prius would be sufficient. Did you miss the fact that Dad's car WAS IN FACT a PRIUS? He has owned a 1st generation Prius since it was new.

The facts are that a Prius is not enough space. Heck, the small Jeep SUV is not enough space. Two adults fill the front buckets, and two child seats that meet current standards fill the rear bench, and the "baby bag" of supplies and snacks takes up a third of the rear cargo space of the small Jeep SUV, and completely fill the minimal cargo space in the Prius, leaving zero room for shopping.

This is why when the wife and I visit them, we rent a Large SUV. Frankly, the Chevy Suburban 3-row 4WD we rented two years ago fits the role best. Four adult seats plus a 3/4 bench in the middle that barely held both child car seats, and enough odd cargo spaces that by stashing cleverly, you could go to Costco and get everything in one trip. BTW, they extensively shop online, as do the wife and I, and I have an alternative Amazon delivery address for them that we use a lot.

What do you expect people to do who have more than 2 kids? What do you expect people to do who live in rural areas on unpaved roads where it not only snows, but mud is a huge factor in Spring? What do you expect contractors and plumbers and electricians to drive? What would YOU prescribe for ME to drive when I need to personally plow snow on a rural unpaved driveway that is 1/4 mile or more long?

I am eternally tired of silly urban or suburban residents who are OH SO EAGER to prescribe what others should drive, when they really have no idea what the requirements are for those other people and the places they live.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 16:36:52

KaiserJeep wrote:You assume that having a Carolla or Prius would be sufficient. Did you miss the fact that Dad's car WAS IN FACT a PRIUS? He has owned a 1st generation Prius since it was new.

The facts are that a Prius is not enough space. Heck, the small Jeep SUV is not enough space. Two adults fill the front buckets, and two child seats that meet current standards fill the rear bench, and the "baby bag" of supplies and snacks takes up a third of the rear cargo space of the small Jeep SUV, and completely fill the minimal cargo space in the Prius, leaving zero room for shopping.

This is why when the wife and I visit them, we rent a Large SUV. Frankly, the Chevy Suburban 3-row 4WD we rented two years ago fits the role best. Four adult seats plus a 3/4 bench in the middle that barely held both child car seats, and enough odd cargo spaces that by stashing cleverly, you could go to Costco and get everything in one trip. BTW, they extensively shop online, as do the wife and I, and I have an alternative Amazon delivery address for them that we use a lot.

What do you expect people to do who have more than 2 kids? What do you expect people to do who live in rural areas on unpaved roads where it not only snows, but mud is a huge factor in Spring? What do you expect contractors and plumbers and electricians to drive? What would YOU prescribe for ME to drive when I need to personally plow snow on a rural unpaved driveway that is 1/4 mile or more long?

I am eternally tired of silly urban or suburban residents who are OH SO EAGER to prescribe what others should drive, when they really have no idea what the requirements are for those other people and the places they live.

So, rant aside, the bottom line is you want to claim people can't possibly exist without driving huge, gas guzzling cars (or jeeps).

As though fuel efficient hybrids of various sizes don't exist.

And I never said anything about plowing snow, now did I? You were talking about driving to day care, shopping, etc. as examples. You, driving a tiny amount of miles, are already basically solving the problem for your use. I didn't say anything about YOUR Jeep, now did I?

More logic and consistency and less emotion work better in such discussions, IMO.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 16:47:13

Outcast_Searcher wrote:-snip-
So the world isn't perfect, so we should just ignore a huge problem which is slowly destroying much of the biosphere?

First, tax credits for the truly poor could offset much or even more than any financial harm due to higher CO2 taxes. Done right, such tax credits could make a poor person who rides a bike or walks or takes the bus get a nice net annual payday from a CO2 tax on gasoline, for example.

Second, tax credits could also offset much or all of the cost for lower middle class people. The same principle applies. People who heat their home to 80 degrees and drive a giant pickup or SUV would pay a LOT more tax than people who ride a bike or take the bus or drive a used Corolla or Prius or LEAF.

And for the rich, a FF tax designed correctly could make the 1% care, at least to the extent that they use blatant amounts of fossil fuels. If it ended up costing some billionaire literally $100 a gallon to fuel up their private jet, for example -- they just might decide to spend their time burning a LOT less jet fuel.

...

Now, such a system would need to keep track of fossil fuels purchased, have a rapidly increased level of taxation based on how much is used, and have some sort of tax credits to help out low income people (for example) -- but it could certainly be done.

But for most politicians and consumers alike, it's far easier to claim that any carbon tax is "unfair", ignore the problem, and continue to deny the problem exists or blame everyone else as climate change worsens. And that is exactly the route we're generally taken, including with Paris "kick the can" Climate Accords.


I think you are naive to believe that such a taxation system would not impoverish all US citizens other than the 1%. You are actually talking about INCOME REDISTRIBUTION not taxation when you say that people who don't even own fuel burning vehicles will get money from Carbon Taxes. You are also ignoring the fact that fuel taxes will increase the cost of EVERYTHING we grow, eat, import, buy online, or have delivered.

I do not believe that such a scheme can even be made to work. I look at the total failure of the Carbon Taxes in every country that has tried such, especially Australia. I look at the total failure of every "big government" program in the USA, most recently the Obamacare fiasco (which destroyed affordable healthcare) and the Clean Power Plan (which was so unpopular among voters that Obama imposed it by Executive Order, and Trump reversed it almost immediately also by EO).

I understand that you are desperate and that you feel that we are in the midst of a huge emergency that justifies taking huge risks. But I believe that you need to come up with a carrot and not a stick. You need to incent people to do the right thing, and not impoverish those who for one reason or another cannot make the changes you want.

Also understand that you and I agree about a lot of things, including I believe that we both hate coal (of which unfortunately we have about a 200-year supply) and believe that we are running out of affordable oil (within a scant few decades).
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 17:00:06

Outcast_Searcher wrote:-snip-
So, rant aside, the bottom line is you want to claim people can't possibly exist without driving huge, gas guzzling cars (or jeeps).

As though fuel efficient hybrids of various sizes don't exist.

And I never said anything about plowing snow, now did I? You were talking about driving to day care, shopping, etc. as examples. You, driving a tiny amount of miles, are already basically solving the problem for your use. I didn't say anything about YOUR Jeep, now did I?

More logic and consistency and less emotion work better in such discussions, IMO.

In fact I am completely familiar with hybrid vehicles, everything from the afore-mentioned Prius to the hybrid city busses used by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which I have written about several times in these pages.

Don't overlook the fact that for comparably sized vehicles with equal payloads and equal performance, the hybrid technology brings about approximately a 25% maximum benefit over other technologies that enhance fuel efficiency. That percentage benefit applies to everything from personal scooters to city busses. Definately an efficiency benefit, but at the cost of lugging around two powertrains (ICE and electric), which degrades handling, braking, acceleration, and vehicle safety. Not to mention it causes MORE THAN 20% price increase in the vehicle itself versus straight ICE tech.

Also, don't forget that Hybrids are 100% powered by petroleum fuels. Which is why I favor EVs and electric vehicle tech. This reduces the need for FF's and increases power grid off peak utilization.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 17:08:10

Wow, thanks for the great discussion.

I actually agree that, barring other components, that taxes and higher prices hit the poorest the hardest. But as OS points out, this could be ameliorated in various ways. Meanwhile, the long-term costs that GW will put on the poor globally will be extreme indeed.

For urban and suburban areas, mass transit (and just traveling less) should be the main way reductions occur. Electric and, in some cases, carefully and locally produced biofuels can facilitate needed travel.

As P points out, though, national politics is and has been marching steadily in pretty much the opposite direction... :(
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17488
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 17:29:20

OK, I can agree with the gist of what you are saying, although we could argue forever about the details. But I want to make another point.

The USA survived the Great Depression because it was not nearly as urbanized as it is today, and what we disparage today as "affluent suburbs" have always existed, although by Depression-era standards, they were once considered the "wealthy people's homes". In fact the first home I bought in 1980 was a delightful old late 19th Century Victorian with leaded glass windows and plaster walls and mostly intact woodwork. Every bit of plumbing it had was added after it was built with a two-story outhouse that was periodically emptied by the city it was located in. In fact there was an alley behind the row of similar homes, and this was a former "Upper/Middle" neighborhood, and the alley was for the smelly truck (formerly a horse-drawn wagon) that emptied the lined vault-style outhouses that still existed in many yards after city water and sewer were dug in under the streets.

Well anyways, my point was that not only do we need to Not Discourage people from living in rural areas, we need to offer services and transport that encourages this. In particular if we want some old person gardening and bartering his excess food for fuel or whatever, we should encourage this. We should be deliberately courting the type of rural lifestyle that allowed us to survive the Great Depression.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 23:02:36

KJ, you are making me think of this essay, some of which you might enjoy:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006- ... n-farmers/

Fifty Million Farmers

...In America in 1900, nearly 40 percent of the population farmed; the current proportion is close to one percent.

Do the math for yourself. Extrapolated to this country’s future requirements, this implies the need for a minimum of 40 to 50 million additional farmers...


...also, the essay "What Are People For" by Wendel Berry, though I can't find a copy of it online.

also note:
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/urban ... index.html
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17488
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby asg70 » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 09:47:50

Climate policy?? In the era of Trump?

I really have manifesto-fatigue when it comes to environmentalism. None of this bloviating amounts to a hill of beans.
[space to store bad short-term prediction currently vacant]
asg70
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 12:42:06

asg70 wrote:Climate policy?? In the era of Trump?

I really have manifesto-fatigue when it comes to environmentalism. None of this bloviating amounts to a hill of beans.

Given the "level" of climate advocacy by liberals in the US (pretend to be for AGW mitigation, but not enough to prevent being elected), I'm not convinced it matters who is in control, re real, rapid, meaningful change -- that is mandated by legislation.

When the world is hailing the Paris Climate Accord can kicking as "a success", it can only be called a win for the status quo seekers.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:26:42

Astute observation. It doesn't matter what the rest of you say or think, nor if we ever debate AGW/CC again.

Because I didn't even need to win the argument, the way the world works is that 6/7ths of the human race will not lay down and die willingly to preserve the 1/7 that remain.

Politics doesn't get any realer than that.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 12:39:31

KaiserJeep wrote:Astute observation. It doesn't matter what the rest of you say or think, nor if we ever debate AGW/CC again.

Because I didn't even need to win the argument, the way the world works is that 6/7ths of the human race will not lay down and die willingly to preserve the 1/7 that remain.

Politics doesn't get any realer than that.

Hell, the vast majority of the US won't even pay a modest level of tax increase to combat climate change (much less lay down and die). After all, that might be inconvenient. One might have to, say, buy a slightly smaller boat or home or car, and we can't have THAT. :roll:
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 14:46:19

OS, time for a reality check. How willing are YOU to relinquish:

Your ICE vehicle.
Your heated/cooled home with running water and odorless waste disposal.
The power grid.
The information network.
Video entertainment.
Imported and pre-packaged foods.
Wine, beer, and distilled spirits.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Stopping the burning of FF's would take most of those things from you. Giving them up volutarily, along with everybody else, would stop AGW in its tracks. So when will you give them up?
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby baha » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 16:12:31

KJ, it really isn't an all or nothing proposition. There are shades of grey.

Your ICE vehicle.
One way or another I will have an EV...even if it has to be a golf cart.

Your heated/cooled home with running water and odorless waste disposal.
I have a PV powered home with a well...damn that trash stinks :(

The power grid.
I'll share if you will.

The information network.
PV powered server farms, no problem.

Video entertainment.
I'm looking out the window right now :)

Imported and pre-packaged foods.
I gave that up years ago, that stuff isn't very good for you.

Wine, beer, and distilled spirits.
I could make this with a little corn, but I'd rather grow my own...

You said yourself we should have several decades to work this out. Population can change over decades all by itself if you can get people going in the proper direction.

Not sayin' it will happen, but it could.
A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!
The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.
I will see your google and raise you an infinity!

https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db
User avatar
baha
Solar Advocate
Solar Advocate
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 02:00:00
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: It's time to choke of the supply of fossil-death-fuels

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 08 Apr 2018, 16:16:19

KaiserJeep wrote:I am eternally tired of silly urban or suburban residents who are OH SO EAGER to prescribe what others should drive, when they really have no idea what the requirements are for those other people and the places they live.
...
I think you are naive to believe that such a taxation system would not impoverish all US citizens other than the 1%. You are actually talking about INCOME REDISTRIBUTION not taxation when you say that people who don't even own fuel burning vehicles will get money from Carbon Taxes. You are also ignoring the fact that fuel taxes will increase the cost of EVERYTHING we grow, eat, import, buy online, or have delivered.

I do not believe that such a scheme can even be made to work. I look at the total failure of the Carbon Taxes in every country that has tried such, especially Australia.
High fuel taxes have been working for decades in other countries. And the US is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to buying large vehicles. The rest of the world is poorer than the US and yet they still make do with higher fuel taxes and smaller & more efficient vehicles. Turkey has a gasoline tax 8 times higher than in the US and yet their income is 5 times lower than in the US.

In the U.S. today, about 70% of car and truck sales sport six- or eight-cylinder engines. In Europe, 89% of vehicles sold have a four-cylinder or smaller engine. A main reason Europeans buy smaller, diesel-powered vehicles is that fuel taxes are heavier. Indeed, while auto advertisements increasingly tout fuel efficiency -- General Motors Corp. flaunts the fuel economy of its Chevrolet Silverado pickup, even though the truck doesn't get better than 21 mpg -- consumers still appear to put a priority on size and power. In a recent Consumer Reports survey, 70% said they plan to seek a more fuel-efficient vehicle, but only about half said they would sacrifice size or performance in that quest.
Can U.S. Adopt Europe's Fuel-Efficient Cars?

Americans appear to have a big appetite for bigger cars. Larger vehicles accounted for 63 percent of total US sales. Meanwhile, large vehicles only accounted for 25.4 percent of all vehicles sold outside the US during the same year. 88 percent of all pickups sold in the US were full-size models. Overseas that rate shrank considerably to 17.7 percent.
Why Americans buy bigger cars than the rest of the world

The U.S. combined gas tax rate is actually a lot lower than rates in other industrialized countries. According to data from the OECD, the average gas tax rate among the 34 advanced economies is $2.62 per gallon. In fact, the U.S.’s gas tax is the second lowest (Mexico is the only country without a gas tax) and has a rate less than half of that of the next highest country, Canada, which has a rate of $1.25 per gallon. On top of excise taxes, all OECD countries levy their value added tax (VAT) on gasoline consumption. In the United States, only a few states (Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan) levy an additional sales tax on gasoline purchases. This means that the difference between taxes paid on gasoline in the United States and other OECD countries is even larger than the data on just excise taxes implies.
How High are Other Nations’ Gas Taxes?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tuike and 16 guests