Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Denmark and Socialism?
You're certainly aware that Denmark usually had coalition governments during the last decades, with a conservative/liberal majority. (Though there were Socialist governments after WWII and around 1980.)

Not that I think - but I didn't ask you in first place but responded to okies posts.
So you think the Muslim minority has to do with climate change? (You didn't ask okie about this but me about the German minority.)

By socialism I mean high taxes, cradle to grave security, wage and price controls, social parity, etc. etc. etc. I didn't mean the definition of their government. The only reason I brought up the German minority is because you did, and I just wondered what you thought that had to do with climate change or energy policy. Otherwise why bring it up here? (And please lets don't divert the discussion to Muslims.)

Getting back to the subject though, it is really difficult to look at a very small, flat, sparsely populated country surrounded on three side by a windy ocean and say that any country can emulate that small country in energy policies or efforts for climate control.

The point Okie was making, and I agree, was that if a country like Denmark can't make a significant dent in their energy needs by utilizing wind power, it would be insane for the USA to believe that it could do that.

Denmark started using wind-turbines to get energy - but other countries do as good or even better.

The question is what you call 'significant' when a country has an "energy source mix". But even without that: in Denmark wind energy IS significant.

Well that's surprising Walter. You seem to know everything else.

If you say 14% is significant, then okay. I rather think that massive effort and expense that produces just 14% of one's energy needs could be better expended on developing an energy source that does considerably better than that and leave exploration of the less efficient energy source to private initiative.

It's the principle of the law of diminishing returns. Diversification is great and I'm all for it. But I'm also for devoting precious public resources to where they will do the most good whether or not that produces as much diversification. Even better, confiscate fewer resources from the public and provide incentives and encouragement for the private sector to get it done.

Okay. Since we (= you) on the example Denmark: what was the Danish "massive effort"? What the "massive expense"? Do you have a better (= different) cost-benefit analysis then Denmark got for the Danish energy strategies?

(And do you think the officicial dat by the Danish government to be wrong [re "14%"]?)

Huh? I don't have an opinion on the German minority, and am not really that concerned about that pressing matter, Walter. Its not as if I can do anything about it, not akin to the energy problem here, that I am concerned about.

Since you are wanting opinions, and since you are an expert on matters here, what is your opinion on how to raise wheat in Oklahoma, Walter. I am sure all the farmers in Oklahoma can't wait for your opinion.

Well, okie, it was you who made the Muslim minority in Denmark a topic.


And you made your comments based on your personal experiences there - I've only flown over Oklahoma [if at all9, but since you asked me so kindly, I'll read a bit about the questioned topic and reply later when I looked it up in the library.

Pick wet years to plant and pray the hail hits the next county over.

Looks like the New Mexico wheat crop will be a little behind schedule this year. The farmers say that's because of the cold winter and a really mild spring.

I did not claim to be an expert. I simply made an observation, based upon what anyone could learn by reading a little information. You are here on this board making opinions all the time about stuff here that you are not all that educated on, but am I disqualified from commenting on anything in Europe?



Great, and you might want to go to Oklahoma State University and major in agriculture while you are at it, if you want to get really up to speed on it.

Huh? I go to my (university) library and/or get the source via my online account. (I can't get all scientific papers from my home computer, thus I have to use an university computer as well.)

I didn't know they raised wheat much in New Mexico? Probably over around Clovis or Portales, or Roswell? Agreed on the later spring this year. Global warming I'm sure is the cause! After all, it causes snow storms, I remember reading that one time. If its too hot, its global warming, if its too cold, its global warming, because global warming causes unstable weather, Foxfyre.

Yes a lot of dryland winter wheat along the northern part of the east side, some irrigated wheat further south. You don't see much past the first tier of counties though--once you drop off the caprock, the climate is much different. (I really learned about wheat in Kansas though--we used to help farmer friends plow, cultivate, and drill.)

But yeah, it doesn't seem to matter whether its wet or dry, colder or warmer, more storms, less storms, or whatever, the AGW religionists seem to be convinced that its global warming.

Thanks for having a sense of humor, Walter.

Okie wrote:


One other very very important point, Parados, generating capacity does not equal actual generation of power. Wind is typically much lower in output vs capacity than other plants, such as nuclear, natural gas, and coal, because it is so variable. I think it is in the range of only 20 to 40%, so whatever your capacity is, the actual output is only a fraction of that, much worse than other types of plants.

All of this information is available to Obama if he would look into it.

*************************************************************

Parados will not admit that the Socialistic Drive by OB is doomed to failure, Okie. Note the following:


Obama Aims for a Global Consensus Article


By STEPHEN POWER
The Obama administration takes a crack at forging consensus on how to fight climate change, when the State Department hosts the "Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate" this week in Washington.

The meeting, called for by President Barack Obama last month, seeks to reinvigorate a process that began under George W. Bush but that was seen by much of the world as lacking credibility because of Mr. Bush's refusal to support economy-wide curbs on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

The clock is ticking on Mr. Obama to show he can produce results. In December, governments from around the world meet in Denmark to forge a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement that established legally binding commitments by participating nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.


Getty ImagesMr. Obama, as a presidential candidate, said his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." But in recent weeks, some members of his party have balked at the leading proposal in Congress to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Friday, the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), called the proposal "a tax, and...a great big one."

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's aides are trying to manage the world's expectations of what he can deliver. In an interview last week, Todd Stern, the top U.S. negotiator of international climate-change agreements, pointed to the recent economic-stimulus package, which contained tens of billions of dollars for low-carbon energy, and moves by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles, as evidence that the new administration is moving swiftly to combat climate change.

At the same time, Mr. Stern, who will be leading this week's talks, said he is telling fellow diplomats that "what the U.S. is going to do in terms of commitments to reducing greenhouse gases is going to fundamentally be framed by what Congress does." This week's talks aren't likely to produce any breakthroughs, he said, but rather a chance for governments to engage one another in a more informal, intimate way than is possible during the larger, noisier proceedings organized by the United Nations.

"I'm not actually making promises that are unaligned with what's going on" on Capitol Hill, Mr. Stern says. Referring to Kyoto -- a pact he helped fashion as a member of the Clinton administration but that President Bill Clinton never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification -- Mr. Stern says, "International action unaligned with our domestic congressional action environment is a route we've tried before, and it didn't work."
*******************************

AND

Parados doesn't have the slightest idea to do with something like this that throws the Goristas into a panic:

It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The reversal, or "backflip," has caused Mr. Rudd much embarrassment. He may still push ahead with legislation in some form, as he promised when running in the 2007 election. But it's becoming clear the proposal won't be a shoo-in despite all the votes Mr. Rudd won when he campaigned as an anti-carbon apostle.

This is yet another example of politicians elsewhere cashing in politically on the current anti-carbon enthusiasm, only to discover that support diminishes as the real-world costs become clear.
********************************************************************* BUT MORE TO THE POINT AND ILLUSTRATIVE OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG CONCERNING CHINA-

A REPORT FROM A REAL LEFT WINGER---PAUL KRUGMAN--

NYTimes


Published: May 14, 2009
Paul Krugman


I have seen the future, and it won’t work.

These should be hopeful times for environmentalists. Junk science no longer rules in Washington. President Obama has spoken forcefully about the need to take action on climate change; the people I talk to are increasingly optimistic that Congress will soon establish a cap-and-trade system that limits emissions of greenhouse gases, with the limits growing steadily tighter over time. And once America acts, we can expect much of the world to follow our lead.

But that still leaves the problem of China, where I have been for most of the last week.

Like every visitor to China, I was awed by the scale of the country’s development. Even the annoying aspects " much of my time was spent viewing the Great Wall of Traffic " are byproducts of the nation’s economic success.

But China cannot continue along its current path because the planet can’t handle the strain.

The scientific consensus on prospects for global warming has become much more pessimistic over the last few years. Indeed, the latest projections from reputable climate scientists border on the apocalyptic. Why? Because the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are rising is matching or exceeding the worst-case scenarios.

And the growth of emissions from China " already the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide " is one main reason for this new pessimism.

China’s emissions, which come largely from its coal-burning electricity plants, doubled between 1996 and 2006. That was a much faster pace of growth than in the previous decade. And the trend seems set to continue: In January, China announced that it plans to continue its reliance on coal as its main energy source and that to feed its economic growth it will increase coal production 30 percent by 2015. That’s a decision that, all by itself, will swamp any emission reductions elsewhere.

So what is to be done about the China problem?

Nothing, say the Chinese. Each time I raised the issue during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels. After all, they declared, the West faced no similar constraints during its development; while China may be the world’s largest source of carbon-dioxide emissions, its per-capita emissions are still far below American levels; and anyway, the great bulk of the global warming that has already happened is due not to China but to the past carbon emissions of today’s wealthy nations.

And they’re right. It is unfair to expect China to live within constraints that we didn’t have to face when our own economy was on its way up. But that unfairness doesn’t change the fact that letting China match the West’s past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it.

Historical injustice aside, the Chinese also insisted that they should not be held responsible for the greenhouse gases they emit when producing goods for foreign consumers. But they refused to accept the logical implication of this view " that the burden should fall on those foreign consumers instead, that shoppers who buy Chinese products should pay a “carbon tariff” that reflects the emissions associated with those goods’ production. That, said the Chinese, would violate the principles of free trade.

Sorry, but the climate-change consequences of Chinese production have to be taken into account somewhere. And anyway, the problem with China is not so much what it produces as how it produces it. Remember, China now emits more carbon dioxide than the United States, even though its G.D.P. is only about half as large (and the United States, in turn, is an emissions hog compared with Europe or Japan).

But if Parados thinks that the Chinese are the only problem, he hasn't reckoned with the increasing number of Moderate Democrats who are adamantly opposed to a cap and trade system.

Note:

But if Parados thinks that the Chinese are the only problem, he hasn't reckoned with the increasing number of Moderates who are adamantly opposed to a cap and trade system.



OPINION MAY 15, 2009 Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade
No honest person thinks this will make a dent in climate change.
By MITCH DANIELS -Governor- Indiana.
This week Congress is set to release the details of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that purports to combat global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions. I'm not a candidate for any office -- now or ever again -- and I've approached the "climate change" debate with an open-mind. But it's clear to me that the nation, and in particular Indiana, my home state, will be terribly disserved by this cap-and-trade policy on the verge of passage in the House.

The largest scientific and economic questions are being addressed by others, so I will confine myself to reporting about how all this looks from the receiving end of the taxes, restrictions and mandates Congress is now proposing.

Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers -- California, Massachusetts and New York -- seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. "Closed: Gone to China" signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories.

Our state's share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

And for what? No honest estimate pretends to suggest that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime will move the world's thermometer by so much as a tenth of a degree a half century from now. My fellow citizens are being ordered to accept impoverishment for a policy that won't save a single polar bear.

We are told that although China, India and others show no signs of joining in this dismal process, we will eventually induce their participation by "setting an example." Watching the impending indigence of the Midwest, and the flow of jobs from our shores to theirs, our friends in Asia and the Third World are far more likely to choose any other path but ours.

Politicians in Washington speak of a reawakened appreciation for manufacturing and American competitiveness. But under their policy, those who make real products will suffer. Already we observe the piranha swarm of green lobbyists wangling special exemptions, subsidies and side deals. The ordinary Hoosier was not invited to this party, and can expect at most only table scraps at the service entrance.

No one in Indiana is arguing for the status quo: Hoosiers have been eager to pursue a new energy future. We rocketed from nowhere to national leadership in biofuels production in the last four years. We were the No. 1 state in the growth of wind power in 2008. And we have embarked on an aggressive energy-conservation program, indubitably the most cost-effective means of limiting CO2.

Most importantly, we are out to be the world leader in making clean coal -- including the potential for carbon capture and sequestration. The world's first commercial-scale clean coal power plant is under construction in our state, and the first modern coal-to-natural gas plant is coming right behind it. We eagerly accept the responsibility to develop alternatives to the punitive, inequitable taxation of cap and trade.

Our president has commendably committed himself to "government that works." But his imperial climate-change policy is government that cannot work, and we humble colonials out here in the provinces have no choice but to petition for relief from the Crown's impositions.

The funny part of it is okie. I used the word "if" in my statement. You however made a claim about what Obama said and have NOT provided a source.

You are arguing a strawman in that you made up something from Obama and are now arguing he can't achieve something he never said.

Please provide your source that says Obama will replace 20% of ALL energy with renewables. I find where he is talking about electrical.