G
Guest
I think it is unfortunate that yet even more worthless 'spinning' of this issue will ensue with the release of those email. I don't see a conspiracy - I see peers discussing aspects of analysis AND reporting.
Every call to action costs money - and that pot of money needed to address the many calls to action that are being made is not only finite but it is realistically shrinking. When it comes to climate change, I do not doubt that the climate is changing. It has been changing throughout recorded history and even geological history. The point of absurdity in my opinion is that one can deduce that the rate of change (for the positive or negative) can be reliably predicted with the curren information we have at hand. I think frazil is right in saying leave climate change to the climate scientists but I offer that there needs to be a modicum of scrutiny placed on the assumptions placed in this change, especially with respect to the what is driving the system.
The other point I offer is: let's accept, for a moment, that climate change is being spurred by increased level of greenhouse gases and particularly carbon dioxide. I have yet to see how anyone can reliably describe how the climte system is behaving, namely, the notion that there is a critical criteria at which things will become 'undone'. I have seen several reports that suggest a critical concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as calls that suggest 'emissions' by industrialized countries need to be reduced to offset the impending crisis. I don't see how anyone can prescribe a level of reduction of such concentrations that will rehabilitate the impending apocalypse even if there is a valid causality between greenhouse gas emissions and 'catastrophic' climate change.
I think Al Gore had one point right in this debate. Addressing issues pertaining to climate change is a moral issue, on a personal level. It all comes down to how the changes in climate will ultimately affect each soverign nation's ability to endure the attendant problems with the change in climate (e.g. rise in sea level, loss in arable land, reduced food production, strong storm systems, etc.). If one pegs this impending, catastrophic change on our industrialization and the conveniences we expect from our accepted way of life then it is going to take a moral, global consciousness to accept rationed resources. Ultimately, that's where this comes down - do you want to give up your higher standard of living? Do you want to be held morally culpable for this escalation in climate change and effectively pay reparations through the dismantling of our fossil-fuel generated power capacity? Do you want to artificially constrain the rate at which your country's economy can grow and potentially flourish by onerous environmental regulations? Do you want to do all of this without really understanding the cause and effect?
I, personally believe that political solutions are not going to prevent the onset of any global calamity. When it becomes a matter of your 'nationlized' interests at stake, I do not get a warm, fuzzy feeling about our country being auctioned off in the name of global warming.
The plan as it has been laid out is to make fossil fuel generation more expensive through added regulation in order to make other technologies seem more palatable. In terms of cost, I offer the following costs to produce energy by fuel source:
fossil fuel: $45/MW
wind: $100/MW
solar: $500/MW
What is even more tragic is that these costs ARE passed on to the customers since the costs are recovered thru rate cases. A utlity does not make or lose money based on the cost of fuel. The added costs of regulation are not costs born by the utility, they are ultimately born by the consumer of the power.
JR
In agreeing with you, I would frame your perspective as such:
Every call to action costs money - and that pot of money needed to address the many calls to action that are being made is not only finite but it is realistically shrinking. When it comes to climate change, I do not doubt that the climate is changing. It has been changing throughout recorded history and even geological history. The point of absurdity in my opinion is that one can deduce that the rate of change (for the positive or negative) can be reliably predicted with the curren information we have at hand. I think frazil is right in saying leave climate change to the climate scientists but I offer that there needs to be a modicum of scrutiny placed on the assumptions placed in this change, especially with respect to the what is driving the system.
The other point I offer is: let's accept, for a moment, that climate change is being spurred by increased level of greenhouse gases and particularly carbon dioxide. I have yet to see how anyone can reliably describe how the climte system is behaving, namely, the notion that there is a critical criteria at which things will become 'undone'. I have seen several reports that suggest a critical concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as calls that suggest 'emissions' by industrialized countries need to be reduced to offset the impending crisis. I don't see how anyone can prescribe a level of reduction of such concentrations that will rehabilitate the impending apocalypse even if there is a valid causality between greenhouse gas emissions and 'catastrophic' climate change.
I think Al Gore had one point right in this debate. Addressing issues pertaining to climate change is a moral issue, on a personal level. It all comes down to how the changes in climate will ultimately affect each soverign nation's ability to endure the attendant problems with the change in climate (e.g. rise in sea level, loss in arable land, reduced food production, strong storm systems, etc.). If one pegs this impending, catastrophic change on our industrialization and the conveniences we expect from our accepted way of life then it is going to take a moral, global consciousness to accept rationed resources. Ultimately, that's where this comes down - do you want to give up your higher standard of living? Do you want to be held morally culpable for this escalation in climate change and effectively pay reparations through the dismantling of our fossil-fuel generated power capacity? Do you want to artificially constrain the rate at which your country's economy can grow and potentially flourish by onerous environmental regulations? Do you want to do all of this without really understanding the cause and effect?
I, personally believe that political solutions are not going to prevent the onset of any global calamity. When it becomes a matter of your 'nationlized' interests at stake, I do not get a warm, fuzzy feeling about our country being auctioned off in the name of global warming.
I am also in the power business and I can promise that the white house estimate that the propose climate bill will have on the average utility consumer is $15/month/household is an outright lie. This estimate assumes that a comparable, cleaner technology will be produced and implemented to be able to provide for baseload capacity. It is very foolhardy, IMHO, to assume a suitable, cleaner, equivalent cost alternative will be developed in the short term, near future.
The plan as it has been laid out is to make fossil fuel generation more expensive through added regulation in order to make other technologies seem more palatable. In terms of cost, I offer the following costs to produce energy by fuel source:
fossil fuel: $45/MW
wind: $100/MW
solar: $500/MW
What is even more tragic is that these costs ARE passed on to the customers since the costs are recovered thru rate cases. A utlity does not make or lose money based on the cost of fuel. The added costs of regulation are not costs born by the utility, they are ultimately born by the consumer of the power.
Interesting point - I have wondered about the ability to adequately model such a complex system when there are so many different variables that react in an 'uncoupled' way (e.g. not directly dependent).
I believe it is far easier to 'react' to changes in climate rather than try to pay to prevent those changes when you can't predict those changes reliably.
I just used that Akin's analogy yesterday to prove an absurd point!
JR
