IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Box's favorite climate researcher has a new "discussion paper" out.
ACPD (121 page .pdf):

We conclude that the 2◦ C global warming “guardrail”, affirmed in the Copenhagen Accord (2009), does not provide safety, as such warming would likely yield sea level rise of several meters along with numerous other severely disruptive consequences for human society and ecosystems. The Eemian, less than 2 ◦ C warmer than pre-industrial Earth, itself provides a clear indication of the danger, even though the orbital drive for Eemian warming differed from today’s human-made climate forcing. Ongoing changes in the Southern Ocean, while global warming is less than 1◦ C, provide a strong warning, as observed changes tend to confirm the mechanisms amplifying change. Predicted effects, such as cooling of the surface ocean around Antarctica, are occurring even faster than modeled.

Our finding of global cooling from ice melt calls into question whether global temperature is the most fundamental metric for global climate in the 21st century. The first order requirement to stabilize climate is to remove Earth’s energy imbalance, which is now about +0.6 Wm^−2 , more energy coming in than going out. If other forcings are unchanged, removing this imbalance requires reducing atmospheric CO_2 from ∼400 to ∼350ppm (Hansen et al., 2008, 2013a).

The message that the climate science delivers to policymakers, instead of defining a safe “guardrail”, is that fossil fuel CO_2 emissions must be reduced as rapidly as practical. Hansen et al. (2013a) conclude that this implies a need for a rising carbon fee or tax, an approach that has the potential to be near-global, as opposed to national caps or goals for emission reductions. Although a carbon fee is the sine qua non for phasing out emissions, the urgency of slowing emissions also implies other needs including widespread technical cooperation in clean energy technologies (Hansen et al., 2013a).

The task of achieving a reduction of atmospheric CO_2 is formidable, but not impossible. Rapid transition to abundant affordable carbon-free electricity is the core requirement, as that would also permit production of net-zero-carbon liquid fuels from electricity. The rate at which CO_2 emissions must be reduced is about 6%yr^−1 to reach 350ppm atmospheric CO_2 by about 2100, under the assumption that improved agricultural and forestry practices could sequester 100 GtC (Hansen et al., 2013a). The amount of CO_2 fossil fuel emissions taken up by the ocean, soil and biosphere has continued to increase (Fig. S23), thus providing hope that it may be possible to sequester more than 100GtC. Improved understanding of the carbon cycle and non-CO_2 forcings are needed, but it is clear that the essential requirement is to begin to phase down fossil fuel CO_2 emissions rapidly. It is also clear that continued high emissions are likely to lock-in continued global energy imbalance, ocean warming, ice sheet disintegration, and large sea level rise, which young people and future generations would not be able to avoid. Given the inertia of the climate and energy systems, and the grave threat posed by continued high emissions, the matter is urgent and calls for emergency cooperation among nations.


(via ThinkProgress)

Cheers,
Scott.
New global taxes again, whats his attraction to global taxes?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New Simple.
1) It's a global problem.
2) Fossil fuels are too cheap for other, less damaging, fuels to quickly and substantially displace under the current circumstances.
3) People and industries respond to price signals.

Therefore, a global carbon tax is sensible a way to more-rapidly phase-out the burning of fossil fuels.

How would you address the problem summarized in 1-3 above?

Cheers,
Scott.
New wealth transfer from the 1% to the wannabee 1% meanwhile poor people get screwed again
nukes
How well do taxes work?
When Gore was foaming at the mouth that we should tax the crap out of gasoline so people would have to pay $2 a gallon for gas and he was berated soundly for the idea. What is the current cost of gs and how much less gasoline are we using currently?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Expand Edited by boxley July 30, 2015, 08:39:28 AM EDT
New -0.64
The price elasticity of demand for gasoline in the long term. If the price goes up 10%, this turns into a reduction of gasoline usage by 6% over the long run. http://economics.about.com/od/priceelasticityofdemand/a/gasoline_elast.htm

When gas hit $4, people started driving fewer miles and buying more efficient cars.

Unfortunately, gas taxes do hit the poor and middle class harder.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Regressiveness is an issue.
It can be handled, though, by cutting taxes in other areas. E.g. Make the gas tax a percentage of the price instead of $0.18/gal or whatever it is in your locality. Reduce the sales tax by an amount to make it revenue neutral in that locality. Make up the difference, if any, by increasing property taxes on homes valued at over $1M (or whatever number makes sense in a particular area).

It's not an insurmountable problem, and as you show, making gas (and coal and oil and natural gas) more expensive to burn will cause people to use less of it and make renewables/solar/wind relatively cheaper.

Cheers,
Scott.
     Box's favorite climate researcher has a new "discussion paper" out. - (Another Scott) - (5)
         global taxes again, whats his attraction to global taxes? -NT - (boxley) - (4)
             Simple. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                 wealth transfer from the 1% to the wannabee 1% meanwhile poor people get screwed again - (boxley) - (2)
                     -0.64 - (malraux) - (1)
                         Regressiveness is an issue. - (Another Scott)

I didn't think that word took a modifier.
107 ms