Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TLP
climber
|
|
It's a huge digression to sidetrack into the many flaws in that piece, so how about starting off by advocating instantly eliminating all of the huge subsidies, depletion allowances, cheap sole source deals for public land, get-out-of-jail-free cards for environmental and health costs from air and water pollution, public costs for inadequately disposed coal wastes, and other bogus anti-free-market cash cows that the fossil fuel industries benefit from. Why do we just about never hear any "conservative" outcry about those? Gross hypocrisy for sure, and obviously being in on the cash take (at a minimum in terms of political campaign expenditures) is why.
There would be flaws in implementation, incidence, and so on of a carbon tax, but what we already have in terms of sweetheart deals for the fossil fuel industry is so totally corrupt, fraudulent, hypocritical, and costly to the public as it is, it could hardly be any worse. Fix those, or even if we just saw a lot of loud advocacy for fixing them from supposed free market advocates, and you'd see less of a clamor for carbon tax.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2018 - 06:25am PT
|
CoalSwarm published a report on September 26 warning that 259 gigawatts of coal power capacity – equivalent to the entire coal power fleet of the United States – is being built in China despite government policies restricting new builds.
This blog reported last month that China was building 46 gigawatts of coal power that had been shelved or suspended, and which was discovered by CoalSwarm through an analysis of satellite imagery.
The new estimate by CoalSwarm takes the 46 gigawatts found by satellite imagery and adds other projects in the pre-construction/construction phase, as well as 57 gigawatts of shelved projects that seem likely to go online in the near future.
Professor Yuan Jiahai of North China Electric Power University told chinadialogue that China loosened its restrictions on new coal-fired power construction in five provinces earlier this year. He is confident that China can keep its total coal power capacity within the 1100-gigawatt ceiling announced in the 13th Five-Year Plan, which runs through to 2020.
However, China’s coal power capacity already stands at 993 gigawatts, leading CoalSwarm to warn that the sector’s resurgence is wildly out of line with the Paris Agreement, which commits countries to limiting the average global temperature rise from climate change by 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial period.
Facts on the ground
Satellite imagery reveals that many coal-fired power projects that were halted by the Chinese government have quietly restarted.
Analysis by CoalSwarm estimates that 46.7 gigawatts of new and restarted coal-fired power construction is visible based on satellite imagery supplied by Planet Labs. The coal-fired power plants are either generating power or will soon be operational. If all the plants reach completion they would increase China’s coal-fired power capacity by 4%.
https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/10761-China-is-building-coal-power-again/en?fbclid=IwAR3VotOwyRDS-calIGhGCU6A34aEq4p4PlgrqyitbXBWmLGCjpfBnB5VxaY
|
|
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2018 - 08:08am PT
|
Didn't China sign on to the Paris climate change dealio? This is hilarious and totally predictable and, whether you like it or not, why Trump pulled out. The agreement is a joke, and the Chi-coms are laughing their asses off. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but anyone who thought differently, well, time to wake up and smell the climate change coffee. Bummer. #VANLIFE!
BAd
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2018 - 09:52am PT
|
Fix those, or even if we just saw a lot of loud advocacy for fixing them from supposed free market advocates, and you'd see less of a clamor for carbon tax.
There is no clamor for a carbon tax--except, maybe, among elites. Even here in liberal Washington State, I-1631 carbon tax at $15/ton was recently shot down overwhelmingly. And in France, the imposition of new fuel taxes to pay for alternative energy has opened up a whole can of anti-govt fervor. So, if you want nothing to get done about a very real problem, well, keep up with the whole govt carbon tax scheme.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2018 - 01:55pm PT
|
Actually the carbon fee was defeated in Washington 56% to 44%, decisive but not a landslide, even though it was actually a minor fee.
What this says to me:
Most people are too selfish and apparently expect some magical policy to fix this problem. It will be magic because they will never have to do anything until after everyone else has already complied.
This is actually the same thing I said on the first ST thread on this subject around 14 years ago. (A long-ago deleted thread).
Also, unless there is a USA federal push to limit GHGs, including an international enforcement mechanism, state unilateral policies such as this will only make a minor dent in slowing climate change.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/28/17899804/washington-1631-results-carbon-fee-green-new-deal
732 was the previous initiative in Washington a few years ago.
732 was a “revenue neutral” carbon tax, which means all the revenue raised by the tax would have been automatically returned as cuts in other taxes; the government would receive no new discretionary revenue to spend on carbon reductions or anything else. This is a longtime favorite climate policy among economists and wonks. It “taxes bads” and reduces distortionary taxes at once, all with no net increase in taxes, thus improving economic efficiency.
The tax under 732 would have started at $15 per ton in 2017, rising to $25 per ton in 2018, and then rising every year thereafter at 3.5 percent plus inflation, topping out at $100 a ton (in 2016 dollars). 732 was progressive — strongly so, maybe more so than the policy now being proposed in its stead. Its tax shifts (a cut in the state sales tax and full funding of the state’s working families tax rebate) were specifically designed to offset the regressive nature of the carbon tax. The net result would have left those lower on the income scale better off.
By contrast, 1631’s carbon fee would start at $15 per ton in 2020 and rise $2 a year (plus inflation) until 2035, where it would reach, depending on inflation, around $55. As long as the state is on track to hit its carbon targets, that’s where it will stay. After 732 failed, the 1631 coalition went all the way in the other direction from 732. Rather than returning all the carbon revenue in tax cuts, 1631 would return none of it in tax cuts. It would invest all of it. 1631’s lower carbon price means that it will rely a great deal on investment of the carbon revenue to achieve similar emission reductions.
“Frankly, this is an investment vehicle much more than a price signal,” said Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who publicly backed 1631. “It’s a relatively low price signal, well below the real social cost of carbon. But you get the [carbon] savings from the investment side..."
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2018 - 02:11pm PT
|
Didn't China sign on to the Paris climate change dealio? This is hilarious and totally predictable and, whether you like it or not, why Trump pulled out.
No, it is not why he pulled out. He completely denies climate change and would have pulled out even if every other country in the world were doing their part.
That was also the excuse given by Bush 43 why he pulled out of climate treaties. Pure rationalization. If Bush 43 had wanted an international agreement to work, he would have worked to improve it. Instead he ran away.
Some places such as the EU have been doing their part. Other rising countries like China and India are still greatly increasing coal usage.
If we want international policy on GHGs, there will have to be an enforcement mechanism. The west would have to gang up on China and India if they continue to build these coal plants, as they are doing. (This theoretical exercise assumes that the USA would do its part).
A very similar analog would be the WTO which is supposed to regulate free trade. China should never have been allowed into the WTO. It does not practice free trade. For 30 years they have promised to reduce all their protectionist policies and have extremely consistently failed to live up to their promises. The west has failed to agree as a whole on enforcement mechanisms. Trump is now attempting this, but he has made enemies everywhere and is mostly incompetent.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2018 - 02:26pm PT
|
I said "No one is really talking about "killing the planet" or the end of the world.
The issue is changing it very significantly, enough to change society as we know it, in which case the impacts and costs of adapting are more than the cost of reducing GHGs in the first place."
Malemute replied ^ wrong ...
Correct - there are possible truly catastrophic impacts that could wipe out much of civilization.
But those are not the consensus at this point.
The consensus is that we will only wipe out 10-20% of civilization if we continue on our present path. You would think that would be enough incentive to act, since it will be by far the biggest calamity ever. I'm just saying that to me killing the planet is more on the order of wiping out at least 40-50% of civilization. Shades of gray.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2018 - 02:43pm PT
|
So, Lituya, you don't advocate eliminating fossil fuel industry subsidies and other financial breaks that the rest of us pay for out of our pockets (or future pockets in the case of deficit spending that the Republican party has been wildly enthusiastic about starting with Reagan through Bush Jr. and now even worse with Trump)?
Seems to me that removing unfair and unjustified positive incentives to develop and burn ever more fossil fuels ought to be a popular idea on all sides, but I guess not since the so-called "conservative" political wing is actually in reality just the owned-by-the-fossil-fuel-industry political wing.
Edit to add: Splater is spot on, up a post or two. China and India are greatly increasing coal use (all the while China saying, but we're doing what we committed to). Bunch of BS, frankly. It is absolutely correct that it would take concerted trade action on the part of a lot of significant countries to reverse this suicide-by-coal, and the current regime in the U.S. is doing everything it possibly can to prevent such action and show by example that there is no hope for collective action, supporting increased fossil fuel use in every possible way. Personally, the one thing that's the most negative is the U-turn on vehicle fuel use standards, because had they remained, there would be a better chance of an electric or electric/on-board generator work vehicle of the type that I need to appear on the market.
The prognosis is extremely grim unless severe enough climate consequences occur in those super populous countries to be a reality check that they are screwing their own people worst in pursuit of a coal future. Even then, behind closed doors those leaders might very well be saying, oh well, we have too many people anyway, this megadisaster or annual toll of heat related deaths (in India) is kind of good for us.
|
|
clifff
Mountain climber
golden, rollin hills of California
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2018 - 10:15am PT
|
More Glaciers in East Antarctica Are Waking Up
East Antarctica has the potential to reshape coastlines around the world through sea level rise, but scientists have long considered it more stable than its neighbor, West Antarctica. Now, new detailed NASA maps of ice velocity and elevation show that a group of glaciers spanning one-eighth of East Antarctica’s coast have begun to lose ice over the past decade, hinting at widespread changes in the ocean.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/more-glaciers-in-antarctica-are-waking-up
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2018 - 12:59pm PT
|
This is hilarious and totally predictable and, whether you like it or not, why Trump pulled out.
You guys talking about the Rhythm Method? That might explain a lot! Trump may have trouble separating all this stuff out, and could explain why he called Paradise 'Pleasure'.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2018 - 01:23pm PT
|
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2018 - 01:23pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Wow, good post.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2018 - 09:48pm PT
|
^^ So, Moose, would love to hear more about your trip to Pakistan earlier this year. Also, looking forward to hearing about your trip to Corsica coming up in 2019! Self-restraint and sacrifice is for proles--right?
|
|
dgbryan
Mountain climber
Hong Kong
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2018 - 10:15pm PT
|
So, Moose, would love to hear more about your trip to Pakistan earlier this year. Also, looking forward to hearing about your trip to Corsica coming up in 2019! Self-restraint and sacrifice is for proles--right?
You're right ... this is why we're fooked. Personally deeply troubled by the astronomical rise in the price of long-haul business class seats out of Asia. Hard to lead the examined life when you're pretzled into economy with the hoi polloi.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2018 - 11:08pm PT
|
Here is the only voice that the USA government listens to:
In recent months, Marathon Petroleum also teamed up with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a secretive policy group financed by corporations as well as the Koch network, to draft legislation for states supporting the industry’s position. Its proposed resolution, dated Sept. 18, describes current fuel-efficiency rules as “a relic of a disproven narrative of resource scarcity” and says “unelected bureaucrats” shouldn’t dictate the cars Americans drive.
A separate industry campaign on Facebook was covertly run by an oil-industry lobby representing Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Phillips 66 and other oil giants.
The oil industry’s campaign, the details of which have not been previously reported, illuminates why the rollbacks have gone further than the more modest changes automakers originally lobbied for.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-oil-industry’s-covert-campaign-to-rewrite-american-car-emissions-rules/ar-BBQTYqn?ocid=spartanntp
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 12:10am PT
|
nice chart Edward, good representation of the fact that per capita US carbon emissions are more than double those of China. It is good that our emissions took a slight down tick. Hell, in hundred years we might be equal with China.
USA USA USA
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 11:39am PT
|
carbon credit offsets for flights are being implemented
I'm not Catholic, so please explain this whole carbon credits program for jet-setters. Would I be purchasing simony? or indulgences?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!