US Climate Change Policy

[Glenstache]

This thread is to discuss climate change policy. Carbon taxes, limits on emissions, fuel economy standards, insurance regulation, zoning, infrastructure, transit, etc.

The most recent policy proposal, and where this thread will start is the Green New Deal, which is a resolution (statement of principles rather than actual enforceable law).

Here is the actual text of the GND:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
And the summary, as written in the resolution:

Introduced in House (02/07/2019)

This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of

    achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
    establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
    investing in infrastructure and industry;
    securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
    promoting justice and equality.

The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including

    building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
    upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
    removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
    cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
    ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
    providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.

Here's an interesting take on it from the NYT opinion section.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/opinion/green-new-deal-ocasio-cortez-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

I think that piece is correct at the 30,000 foot view that it takes. A GND or equivalent policy needs to be broad to be effective. It also needs to be an economic document as much as an emissions document. It also needs to be as bold as the situation demands. Current technical assessments suggest that this should be a driving agenda over the next generation or more.

Fire away!

[nereo]

ptf.

This thread can't possibly become controversial!

[cats]

From what I have seen of the GND, I like the goals.  I have seen some criticisms that it is short on details/poorly thought out or too ambitious.  I don't think either of those are valid.  In terms of details, I view the GND as a mandate and then we figure out smaller pieces of legislation for various components.  In terms of ambition, well yes, it's ambitious, but we failed to take more modest steps back in the 1990s and so now we need to be this ambitious or we will quite likely go extinct as a species (maybe we will anyway, but we might still have some chance to prevent that outcome...if we take it seriously).

My one complaint with GND is that it doesn't have a carbon tax (that I have seen, maybe I missed it).  So okay, it makes green options more available and more viable and gets carbon out of the electric grid, but we also need to make carbon intensive activities more expensive (implement a carbon tax or stop subsidizing the oil & gas industry, or both).  There is other legislation around proposing a carbon tax, my hope would be for GND *and* a carbon tax.

[RetiredAt63]

Glenstache, may I make a suggestion?  Could you please put "US" in the title?   Because those of us elsewhere may have opinions/input on this, but we have no formal say in your policy, and it would be nice for people to come in knowing this is going to be a US-centric discussion.

[Glenstache]

Glenstache, may I make a suggestion?  Could you please put "US" in the title?   Because those of us elsewhere may have opinions/input on this, but we have no formal say in your policy, and it would be nice for people to come in knowing this is going to be a US-centric discussion.

I made that change. However, I would really like to see examples from other countries, especially policies that have been implemented. One thing I would like to get out of this discussion is learning ideas beyond what I have come across.

[RetiredAt63]

Glenstache, may I make a suggestion?  Could you please put "US" in the title?   Because those of us elsewhere may have opinions/input on this, but we have no formal say in your policy, and it would be nice for people to come in knowing this is going to be a US-centric discussion.

I made that change. However, I would really like to see examples from other countries, especially policies that have been implemented. One thing I would like to get out of this discussion is learning ideas beyond what I have come across.

I'm sure lots of people in countries with more experience will have lots to say.  It just gives a heads-up as to the focus.  Thanks for changing it.

[MasterStache]

IMHO there needs to also be a focus on animal agriculture as well. The government heavily subsidizes factory farming. The Trump administration has rolled back regulations on the "organic" classification in particular making it more difficult for small scale, local farms to compete. It should be a multifaceted approach. 

[Glenstache]

Dead man walking!

I know enough (I used to work on contract for the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program) to know that I don't know enough to adequately state what the federal policy should be.
But this looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Care to elaborate?

[GuitarStv]

Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.

Until it's possible to convince people of the existence of the problem that all available data shows, I doubt many effective measures will be implemented.

[nereo]

Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.

Until it's possible to convince people of the existence of the problem that all available data shows, I doubt many effective measures will be implemented.

I would like very much to see two things:
1) for wider acceptance of anthropogenic climate change within the US.  Like GuitarStv said - it's disheartening just how many people challenge this very notion, despite the vast preponderance of evidence

2) acknowledgment that NOT doing anything has and will continue to result in enormous economic costs.  I keep hearing arguments from the right about how any mitigation efforts would be 'too costly' - yet we are already incurring considerable costs and these will grow exponentially over the next several decades.

[Travis]

Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.

Conveniently forgetting that there's this north/south hemisphere thing when it comes to our seasons so their remarks are bullshit.

[LG89]

IMHO there needs to also be a focus on animal agriculture as well. The government heavily subsidizes factory farming. The Trump administration has rolled back regulations on the "organic" classification in particular making it more difficult for small scale, local farms to compete. It should be a multifaceted approach.

Agreed, these subsidies should be cut or significantly rolled back. Direct those dollars elsewhere (vegetables, fruit, grains, plant meat, etc). It also seems that people want to talk a big game about this but when it comes to things they control in their own lives, no action. Stop eating meat and go plant based.

[pecunia]

ptf.

This thread can't possibly become controversial!

Nuclear Power - Newer type nuclear plants can alleviate climate change to a large extent.

[anisotropy]

Dead man walking!

I know enough (I used to work on contract for the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program) to know that I don't know enough to adequately state what the federal policy should be.
But this looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Ya for those of us (i say us but really me) that worked/work in energy the resolution is really blah. and all the inclusion and equity bs, oh and environmental racism!!! ecosocialism!!!

green house gas emission is complicated, you gotta deal with agriculture, power generation, transportation, and manufacturing (concrete and steel).
 
be pragmatic, start with replacing coal using natural gas and nuclear on the power gen front in the us and developing countries. oh and also eat less meat if you want.

build more wood houses instead of concrete and steel? we got more forest now.

[Abe]

@anisotropy: why do you think most of the oil & gas companies are not interested in renewables? Is it because the profit margins are not there, they lack a long-term strategic plan, or corporate inertia (or some combination of the above plus other reasons?)

I get that this plan is DOA since it's over-ambitious and has too much social baggage. Also battery storage is not scalable enough to stabilize energy delivery. With those caveats, do you think it's feasible to create a more practical one that energy companies would like, or is it going to be like fusion reactors and never happen?

[Poundwise]

PTF, I'm not a climate change warrior but I'm here to learn.

[anisotropy]

@anisotropy: why do you think most of the oil & gas companies are not interested in renewables? Is it because the profit margins are not there, they lack a long-term strategic plan, or corporate inertia (or some combination of the above plus other reasons?)

Most large oil&gas comps are interested and have stakes in some forms of renewables. Shell and Total for example are "known" for their solar tech and batteries, BP their wind farms, Chevron and Exxon for their "alternative energy" w/e those may be, ranging from bioengineered algae (I know, totally nuts, Exxon has many more of those projects) to geothermal to hydrogen fuel cell to next gen batteries.

Collectively these 5 supermajors along with the next tier large comps like Statoil, Suncor, etc spend about 10 billion a year doing basic researching on "clean/renewable" energy sources. They also spend about the same amount on researching ways to reduce emission and improve energy efficiency in existing projects. It is very much part of the long term strategy, the shift accelerated in the late 90s and early 2000s when BP tried to be cute and rebranded itself as "Beyond Petroleum" after a bunch of mergers.

Other than basic research, they also own and operate existing renewable energy farms. Suncor is one of the largest wind power owner in Canada (at least in Alberta), and Total is pretty much the undisputed king of solar. These operations are almost all unprofitable. Typically, a well run major has a net profit margin of about 10%, not bad, but not great either. So yes, profitability plays a role here.

However, they don't do it purely for PR reasons, they do it because they could also benefit if they made a breakthrough. A lot of these  remote productions sites suffer from logistic issues so if they could get energy on site it would be great. In the past, often the by-product gas one extract along with oil was not immediately useable and would require some sort of upgrader on site, so they were usually flared off.

But things had been quite different for almost 2 decades now, especially in northern alberta where steam is required to move oil, they've come up with clever ways to utilize the gas as an energy source. In West Tx (where Permian plays locate), many companies have begun using solar in their fracking operations, you almost never see that prior to 2014 (well yes, price crashed so they had to cut cost).

The oil&gas companies (at least the big ones) have been de-carboning for decades now, and are very involved in alternative energy research, but regardless of how much emission they reduce per unit of production, the more you produce, the more emission you are going to have, and this unfortunately ties back to population and 3rd world nations trying to industrialize their way out of poverty.

There is a misconception, actually I don't think that's the right word, that big oil lied to the public about climate change. It's more complicated than that. The Earth had been warmer (also cooler) naturally through out it geological history, climate change is always happening. The oil comps just weren't convinced what we were experiencing was truly anthropogenic.

The problem, you see, is that these climate models came with huge uncertainties (error bars wider than measured increase). Basically, people came up with models that fit past observations (history matching), then used it for forecasting purposes (forced and unforced temp, etc), most were crap. It's essentially the same process many use to time the stock market. It wasn't until people began to notice that recent observations tended to be in the upper limit/range of the predictions that we became more alarmed, ie, worst-case scenarios are the most accurate.

You can see a list of the "best performers" here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

[soccerluvof4]

Simply something I don't know enough about. I follow our local rules for recycling and have no problem doing whats better for our climate and have been for all the changes with emissions etc if not just because its a lot nicer than seeing all that shit spew out of mufflers like back in the 70's when I was growing up. So going to follow along as well to see if some of whats said makes more sense than the crap I hear people arguing about. To @GuitarStv point, the minute this gets brought up it seems to immediately turn into an argument. So also will be interesting to see if this subject can stay civil on here and not side bashing.

[MasterStache]

There is a misconception, actually I don't think that's the right word, that big oil lied to the public about climate change. It's more complicated than that. The Earth had been warmer (also cooler) naturally through out it geological history, climate change is always happening. The oil comps just weren't convinced what we were experiencing was truly anthropogenic.

That isn't a misconception at all. This is the proverbial "it's happened before so it must be happening again" farce. Shell and Exxon in particular, knew as far back as the early 1980s when their own scientist started examining the effects of CO2 emissions. They were forecasting catastrophic damage to the ecosystem caused by a significant rise in man made CO2. Of course this information was never made public. A Dutch researcher dug up the Shell report in 2015 and released it to the public. Not ironically it was marked "confidential." Exxon's report was also leaked in 2015 and was never intended for the public.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

The problem, you see, is that these climate models came with huge uncertainties (error bars wider than measured increase). Basically, people came up with models that fit past observations (history matching), then used it for forecasting purposes (forced and unforced temp, etc), most were crap. It's essentially the same process many use to time the stock market. It wasn't until people began to notice that recent observations tended to be in the upper limit/range of the predictions that we became more alarmed, ie, worst-case scenarios are the most accurate.

https://skepticalscience.com/how-well-have-models-predicted-gw.html

[shenlong55]

Dead man walking!

I know enough (I used to work on contract for the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program) to know that I don't know enough to adequately state what the federal policy should be.
But this looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Ya for those of us (i say us but really me) that worked/work in energy the resolution is really blah. and all the inclusion and equity bs, oh and environmental racism!!! ecosocialism!!!

green house gas emission is complicated, you gotta deal with agriculture, power generation, transportation, and manufacturing (concrete and steel).
 
be pragmatic, start with replacing coal using natural gas and nuclear on the power gen front in the us and developing countries. oh and also eat less meat if you want.

build more wood houses instead of concrete and steel? we got more forest now.

The Green New Deal Is Impractical, But ‘Practical’ Solutions Haven’t Worked Either

Take, for instance, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which formed in 2006 as a lobbying organization that spoke for a diverse group of interests big enough to include both the Natural Resources Defense Council and BP America. The partnership eventually led to the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that would have introduced a cap-and-trade system for controlling greenhouse gas emissions and provided federal funding for research and development of renewable energy.

But that bill didn’t pass the Senate. And there’s been little forward momentum on climate legislation since then. Instead, the scope “practical” solutions has just gotten smaller and smaller. Even the more recent Climate Solutions Caucus — a bipartisan congressional group aimed at showing that people of many political stripes can agree on combating climate change — declined to criticize the Trump Administration for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. “That should have been an easy lift,” Jaffe said.

And if bipartisan, practical, detail-oriented climate solutions aren’t working, are they really practical? “I think that’s a fair observation,” Jaffe told me.

[sol]

There is a misconception, actually I don't think that's the right word, that big oil lied to the public about climate change. It's more complicated than that. The Earth had been warmer (also cooler) naturally through out it geological history, climate change is always happening. The oil comps just weren't convinced what we were experiencing was truly anthropogenic.

Oh they definitely lied.  A thousand times in a thousand different ways.

Not only did they suppress their own internal scientific reports, they literally lied to Congress about it.  I won't go into details for privacy reasons, but I assure you that oil company scientists and government scientists worked together once upon a time to identify climate change risks to the oil and gas industry, identified a list, identified proposed mitigation strategies and costs, and then denied that any of the work ever happened.  They deliberately withheld this information from their stock prospectus.  They testified falsely in the US capitol about it.  They hired the same lobbyists that the tobacco industry used to convince people smoking wasn't bad for you.  They absolutely lied, over and over and over again.

Buy lying is far from the worst thing an oil company has done in the name of profit.  Shell literally murdered environmental activists in Africa in the 1990s, for opposing the development and exploitation of tribal lands.  And I mean literally, as in they hired men with guns to go shoot them.  Who's going to miss a few black African dudes, when there are billions of dollars on the line?  They eventually paid a few million in fines for human rights violations, but that's just the cost of doing business, amirite?

And don't even get me started on the "we wanted to wait and see to be sure" argument.  That's the most disingenuous way possible to stall cleaning up your messes.  This is basic chemistry that we've understood since the late 1800s; when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it will heat up as a necessity of the laws of physics.  You might as well argue that you didn't bother to empty your outhouse because you "wanted to wait to be sure" it was actually going to fill up, or refuse to put out the fire in your kitchen because you wanted to wait to be sure it wouldn't spread to the rest of the house if you ignored it while continuing to cook more bacon.  Not only did we collectively refuse to acknowledge the inevitable consequence of fossil fuel burning, we continued to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate long after we knew what the consequences were.  Like a smoker with emphysema who decides to smoke twice as much because he doesn't have cancer yet.

I have a remarkable amount of sympathy for oil companies, as necessary agents of our technological progress.  But they are also unfairly subsidized and hugely profitable enterprises that have deliberately misled the country and irrecoverably damaged our planet in the pursuit of making even more money.  They're already the most profitable businesses on the planet, why did they also need to lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order be even more successful?

[anisotropy]

Look I am not here to gaslight people or even talk about human rights abuses in the past.

Yes the basic chemistry is known (known, not understood) for over 50 years, but so is factor investing. I am making the comparison to say that just because something is shown to work in theory doesn't mean it will (for abe, its like many drug research had a good theoretical base but very few actually provide beyond marginal benefits), how many people made it rich doing factor investing? Climate, much like the stock market, is largely chaotic, so you can understand when a model's error bars are wider than it's predicted changes, naturally you are going to get a ton of push backs and disbelief.

To go a little deeper regarding the "known" chemistry. The weird thing is that the CO2 predictions tended to over-predict while temp models tended to under-predict (observed temp rose more than it should based on CO2 increases), this begs the question just how accurate some of these initial models were. Ironically, that turned out to be partially the reason why more people in the oil&gas industry started to accept anthorpogenic climate change, because when you look at it from that perspective, it's saying none of the existing models are aggressive enough to explain the climate change.

Decades ago Jeffreys used Bayesian techniques to deduce the likelihood of lung cancer being caused by smoking, in the early 2000s a group of people did the same for climate change caused by human activities, they arrived at the chance being ~35% likely. That might look low, but it is actually significant given how Bayesian works, and brought more people over.

In case you missed it, that skeptical science article is a re-post of the link I provided. It even says so, do you ever read other people's links before you speak? These are the "most accurate" models out of many many more. Personally I wrote two papers detailing my own model back in the day. When it became fashionable, everyone in my grad department was involved in their own model one way or another. It's like predicting the stock market, we only remember the forecasts that were more right than wrong.

Lastly, on the Exxon documents,

"Our assessment of ExxonMobil's peer-reviewed publications and the role of its scientists supports the conclusion that the company did not 'suppress' climate science—indeed, it contributed to it. However, on the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did."

"The company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil's advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil's own"

Yes Exxon promoted mostly the uncertainties to the non-scientific public and I am not saying it's good. But it is really no different from well, many things (IQ, GMO, and all things political). There is a reason why people stopped using Bayesian techniques (and resorted to a more deterministic method) to assert human influences on climate -- the general public is largely scientifically illiterate, and it is very difficult for people to understand the uncertainties in many of these models. Notice how the other side of the coin is also true regarding the pro-anthorpogenic crowd, they almost never talk about uncertainties in any detail.

My point is, once people noticed the models tend to under-predict the rate of delta temp (temp increase moving beyond error bars), people have become more open to accept the idea. And large o&g comps in general have been in the forefront of developing alternative energy sources and reduce emission in operations.

[pecunia]

I guess the climate change thing has been known for quite some time.  The oil companies didn't even have to lie about it.:

Svante Arrhenius:

In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[3][21][22] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science.[23][24

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

[MasterStache]

In case you missed it, that skeptical science article is a re-post of the link I provided. It even says so, do you ever read other people's links before you speak?

I did miss it, thanks for pointing that out. Looks like I responded in earnest as you debunked your own claim about climate models not being very accurate.

Yes Exxon promoted mostly the uncertainties to the non-scientific public and I am not saying it's good. But it is really no different from well, many things (IQ, GMO, and all things political).

Wow, just wow! That's the very thing the climate denial campaign loves. The Heartland Institute uses that very same tactic of sewing a little bit of doubt to undermine the proven link between smoking and cancer, climate change etc. DuPont harped on the uncertainties of the danger of their teflon products to claim they were safe (despite their own research proving otherwise). Meanwhile people were dying (and still are). They fucking poisoned their own employees. But hey, hey there was a bit of doubt so it's all good.

So yes Exxon fucking lied. And they lied to protect their profit. They lied because they don't want to appear complacent in the potential catastrophic destruction of our ecosystem. They did it because of greed, not because there was a tiny bit of uncertainty. Good grief!

[waltworks]

We should be spending money on mitigation (gmo crops, moving people away from problem areas) and geoengineering.

The ship sailed on the emissions front a long time ago.

-W

[anisotropy]

lol ok. I don't know what your background is, but uncertainty is key to all things science related. In fact, back when I was in Uni, there was a required course on uncertainty for all science students before 1st year class even began.

It was not a matter of "a little doubt", the error bars were wider than the predicted change, do you even understand what that means?

I have said repeatedly, the emission problem is complex, Exxon's emission accounts for only a tiny fraction of the big picture. They are just a scapegoat. You gotta deal with agriculture, power generation, transportation, and manufacturing (concrete and steel) to make any progress. Now where would Exxon's emission be categorized here? none, it falls under "industry", which is maybe 10% collectively at most.

Get over your own self-righteousness and start thinking rationally. I don't think you understand what i mean by most models are bad, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of models that people came up with, most were way off base, Arrhenius is actually a good example. His simple model (over 100 years ago) predicted the temps would rise 2x as much given a lower co2 emission. Was he in the ballpark? ya sure by a factor of 2. Is that something to build policies around? Nope.

If you actually want policies, look beyond the o&g industry, start eating less red meat (especially no organic or humane meat), make less buildings using steel and concrete, and replace coal power plants with natural gas and nuclear. Oh, you can also try to persuade 3rd world countries from industrializing and tell them to stay in abject poverty. lol

[sol]

The ship sailed on the emissions front a long time ago.

Sure, but you don't keep on cooking bacon after you start a grease fire.  Step one is to stop making it worse.  Step two can be about trying to make it better.

The "Green New Deal" that started this thread is definitely about both of those things.  Despite all of the fearmongering on Fox News about how liberals are going to take away your car and outlaw hamburgers, the actual document itself looks pretty reasonable to me.  It just says we should try to solve this problem, and even a trump style climate denialist who thinks it's all a Chinese hoax should be on board with that idea, I think.  Even if you refuse all evidence, and believe that climate change is 100% natural and humans can't be responsible, you still have to recognize that climate IS changing, and that those changes are causing problems, and that we're going to have to deal with those problems.

At this point, it's almost silly to argue over the causes of climate change anymore.  It happened.  It's going to continue happen, and you can blame sunspots or the hollow earth if you really want to but we're still going to have to deal with heat waves and flooding and permafrost melting and pine bark beetles and glacier losses and ocean acidification and a hundred million people in Bangladesh who will need to relocate.  The portions of the Green New Deal document that say "we should deal with these problems before they get any more expensive" should probably be universally accepted, from every wing of the political spectrum.

[waltworks]

Sol, I agree with everything you said there. But we've been trying the same sort of stuff for the last 20+ years and emissions are HIGHER now than they were. A lot higher.

It's not working.

It's time for a plan B. We can still do our best to cut back emissions and develop new clean tech. But I want to be ready for that plan to fail.

-W

[anisotropy]

And now time for the nuclear reply:

It's not working.

It's time for a plan B.

That's why people voted for Trump, because things weren't working no matter who was in charge ;)

I am not a big fan of this argument, because it pretty much says the end justifies the means.

[sol]

It was not a matter of "a little doubt", the error bars were wider than the predicted change, do you even understand what that means?

You're confusing different kinds of error bars.  The aggregate climate predictions show a range of future temperatures, but that range is not an error bar.  That range is the natural variability of year to year climate.  Then there are error bars on where the edges of that range lie.

Starting in about the mid 2000s, the error bars on aggregate model predictions started to shrink considerably, even as the range of future temperatures continued to hold pretty constant.

Also of note, the the range of possible future temperatures will be entirely above the former range starting in the 2030s.  That means that the coldest year in the 95% CI in the 2030s will be hotter than the hottest year in the 95% CI from the pre-1980 baseline. 

These changes are already in progress.  At this point it's pretty impossible to argue that climate change isn't happening, though people spent decades arguing over every little wiggle.  The only debate now is what do do about it, and the answer to that question is somewhat tied up in the reasons for the changes we've seen thus far. 

I have said repeatedly, the emission problem is complex, Exxon's emission accounts for only a tiny fraction of the big picture.

You might as well argue that Hitler wasn't responsible for most of the World War II deaths because he didn't personally murder them.  He was responsible for the underlying forces that led to most of them, though, and as such he bears more responsibility than what can be literally attributed to his own hands.

Exxon is in the same boat.  Exxon and other global oil companies are responsible for extraction all of those gigatons of C out of the ground, and making it available to everyone else to burn.  Just because they sold it before it was burned doesn't mean they aren't responsible.

[anisotropy]

Starting in about the mid 2000s, the error bars on aggregate model predictions started to shrink considerably, even as the range of future temperatures continued to hold pretty constant.

Also of note, the the range of possible future temperatures will be entirely above the former range starting in the 2030s.  That means that the coldest year in the 95% CI in the 2030s will be hotter than the hottest year in the 95% CI from the pre-1980 baseline. 

These changes are already in progress.  At this point it's pretty impossible to argue that climate change isn't happening, though people spent decades arguing over every little wiggle.  The only debate now is what do do about it, and the answer to that question is somewhat tied up in the reasons for the changes we've seen thus far. 

Just to be clear, I am not arguing climate change isn't happening, I have been very clear on that. What you just described here is precisely what I am trying to convey, the error bars shrunk in recent years relative to the delta temp, making predictions more significant and more falsifiable, and people became much more open to AGW partly because of it.

Using stock market as an example, if I were to tell you that s&p would hit 4000 next month because of x y and z, and other person told you it would hit 2780 next year because of a b and c. Say both turned out to be right, which "prediction" would you say is more significant?

[nereo]

Starting in about the mid 2000s, the error bars on aggregate model predictions started to shrink considerably, even as the range of future temperatures continued to hold pretty constant.

Also of note, the the range of possible future temperatures will be entirely above the former range starting in the 2030s.  That means that the coldest year in the 95% CI in the 2030s will be hotter than the hottest year in the 95% CI from the pre-1980 baseline. 

These changes are already in progress.  At this point it's pretty impossible to argue that climate change isn't happening, though people spent decades arguing over every little wiggle.  The only debate now is what do do about it, and the answer to that question is somewhat tied up in the reasons for the changes we've seen thus far. 

Just to be clear, I am not arguing climate change isn't happening, I have been very clear on that. What you just described here is precisely what I am trying to convey, the error bars shrunk in recent years relative to the delta temp, making predictions more significant and more falsifiable, and people became much more open to AGW partly because of it.

Using stock market as an example, if I were to tell you that s&p would hit 4000 next month because of x y and z, and other person told you it would hit 2780 next year because of a b and c. Say both turned out to be right, which "prediction" would you say is more significant?

I'm just going to chime in here and say that comparing the stock market to climate predictions is going to be inherently flawed.  Perhaps a better analogy would allow this conversation to be more productive.

[Travis]

In economic terms, it's fine to take on more debt provided your net worth grows at the same or better pace.  Unfortunately, our planet's oceans and atmosphere can't do the same thing.  As the population grows and industrial production grows we're pretty much destined to increase CO2 productive in absolute terms.  I have no idea about the numbers on this, but it would seem that pollution policy would need to address a reasonable amount of growth in CO2 simply because we can't avoid it (unless a member of the G20 volunteers to return to the Middle Ages).  Unless somebody can explain to me a way for us to have a growing population, growing global economy, and a neutral or negative growth in emissions?

While the US produces a considerable amount of the CO, CO2, and CH4 emissions being discussed, the side opposing any significant reforms would put their foot down if the rest of the world didn't have to take an equal cut on relative or absolute terms.  Why should the US put thousands out of work to reduce pollution if a) the other countries don't have to as well or b) they're allowed to simply make up the difference in whatever we just cut.  Wasn't that one of the outcomes on the Kyoto and Paris agreements?

[anisotropy]

Perhaps a better analogy would allow this conversation to be more productive.

I think the analogy are close enough to get my point across, both are predominately driven by human and largely chaotic. But if you disagree that's fine, you can come up with your own versions.

Not sure how productive the conversation can get when many people that just can't get over their self righteousness. On individual level, have less children, eat less red meat (especially the free roam kind), always fly coach, keep your home temp <65F . Oh, also ditch all of your cryptos to me, I will bear your crypto sins for you free of charge cuz i am nice.

Policy-wise you can try to abolish private planes or even first class seats, build less rails and roads not more (except in heavily populated corridors with enough demand), set limits on how big a house (or living space per person) can be, etc. When I was doing school in the UK my entire flat was the size of my master bathroom today, smaller homes usually translate to smaller footprint.  You could also go after the farmers/ranchers for their share of carbon-tax, but i gotta warn you, that's going to push them further to Trump.

You could try to balance it out for the rural folks by making it easier for them to sell the electricity they generate back to the grid to bring the emission down on the power generation front. But then of course you run the risk of people flooding the grid if the numbers aren't right, also effectively people with abundant land would benefit.

[Syonyk]

Trump might just do some good here if he manages a thumping global recession... that's a pretty good way to bring down emissions by a decent bit.

One of the biggest problems, and a source of extensive (as far as I let external things bother me, which isn't much) frustration is just how staggeringly moronic the anti-climate-change types are in their proposals and lifestyles - or, a better term, the "optics" of their proposals.

It's quite rare to find any of the "climate activists" who live a particularly low impact lifestyle - Al Gore is a particularly high lightening rod here, but it's quite common to find people who consistently live a "Do as I say, not as I do!" lifestyle, when it comes to carbon emissions.  Gunhild Stordalen being one of the more recent examples - demand everyone eat a meat-free diet, fly around the world on her and her husband's private jet, fly friends around for a party, etc.  I'm not actually opposed to private aviation when it makes sense, but I'll suggest that if you are demanding other people do something to have a fairly minor impact on global emissions, living a genuinely carbon-intensive party lifestyle may reduce the traction your message gets.  People, like it or not, are rather sensitive to hypocrisy, and it's found in great quantities among those who demand others do things.

Al Gore is the common example, because despite (flying) around the country to give presentations on carbon emissions, it's remarkably difficult to tell, by his lifestyle, that he actually believes it's a problem.  Yes, sure, he works from home... I've heard the list of excuses for why a remarkably energy hungry 10k sq ft house is "required" for him to do stuff, and I'll suggest that most people on this forum have a far lower impact that he does.  Plus, yes, he put solar panels on - but they were a fairly small array that made a rather tiny dent in his energy consumption.  Sure, they were expensive, but he had the money he could have done a proper offsetting system, even a decade and change ago.  So, when people who are the figureheads of the movement won't put their money where their mouth is, why would other people believe they actually care and aren't just looking for a lever to use to control other people?

The utter obsession over carbon (and inability to talk about anything but carbon, even to an audience that doesn't care) reminds me of the joke about colored elephants.  How do you kill a blue elephant?  With a blue elephant gun.  How do you kill a red elephant?  Choke it until it's blue and then use a blue elephant gun.  If you're attempting to make a point to an audience that don't consider "But CARBON!!!!" as a valid reason to change their lifestyle, perhaps consider something other than carbon?  Know your audience and all that.

I've got a Volt in a pretty deep red area of the country.  I interact with people who don't believe carbon is a particular problem.  My approach doesn't involve pointing out that they should first care about carbon then... buy a Tesla, or whatever the proper action to show you Care(TM) is.  It's pointing out the other merits of plug in hybrid/electric transportation, talking up homeowner installed solar (the solar companies out here are criminally expensive), pointing out the benefits of ebikes (which, to be fair, I need to get my high speed runner built), etc.  We manage a fairly low carbon footprint out here, but it's not something I bludgeon people with, because most people I talk to don't care.  Now, the energy/food independence stuff we're working towards?  That's of substantial interest, so, I tend to sell that side of things.  And I work from home, so my commute is more or less non-existent.

I also own an area-appropriate truck (F350, CCLB, 7.3 Powerstroke diesel).  It's not a problem, and isn't seen as a point of hypocrisy, because I don't use it for things that don't require a truck - nor am I telling people they should Definitely Sell the Truck (as is common in certain circles).  I just point out that I don't use it as a commuter, because it's damned expensive to run, and if I can accomplish something without the truck, I will.  It's an area of the country with larger lots, so having a few vehicles isn't a big deal.  Having a commuter car (electric or PHEV) and a truck just isn't that difficult out here.

But, seriously, people who don't live their lives like they give two shits about carbon, lecturing other people on why they can't have hamburgers?  I'm not at all surprised they haven't managed to make a damned bit of difference.  And, no, paying for carbon indulgences doesn't help the optics of it.

Not sure how productive the conversation can get when many people that just can't get over their self righteousness. On individual level, have less children, eat less red meat (especially the free roam kind), always fly coach, keep your home temp <65F . Oh, also ditch all of your cryptos to me, I will bear your crypto sins for you free of charge cuz i am nice.

Oh, man, I'm going to have to upgrade my air conditioner to keep it under 65 in the summer...

So, simple question: Do you do all those things?

Policy-wise you can try to abolish private planes or even first class seats, build less rails and roads not more (except in heavily populated corridors with enough demand), set limits on how big a house (or living space per person) can be, etc. When I was doing school in the UK my entire flat was the size of my master bathroom today, smaller homes usually translate to smaller footprint.  You could also go after the farmers/ranchers for their share of carbon-tax, but i gotta warn you, that's going to push them further to Trump.

The problem isn't so much private aviation, as private jets.  A good turboprop is still far faster than flying commercial, and is quite a bit more efficient than a jet.  You can't directly compare L/passenger/mile numbers, as almost all commercial trips are spoke and hub, with far more miles flown than you'd fly straight line.  Even comparing to driving, the whole "straight from where you are to where you want to be" thing screws with the numbers.

I'm not picking on you in particular, but if you care about carbon emissions, why do you live in a house that has a larger master bath than your previous apartments?  It's not the sort of thing that really reduces planetary impact...

You could try to balance it out for the rural folks by making it easier for them to sell the electricity they generate back to the grid to bring the emission down on the power generation front. But then of course you run the risk of people flooding the grid if the numbers aren't right, also effectively people with abundant land would benefit.

The rural grid generally isn't suited to large scale transmission of power.  It tends to be built out "about enough to work," and isn't going to handle massive power flows into populated areas without transmission upgrades - which then means large industrial scale solar, which isn't the sort of thing you can do in your back 40.  On the other hand, that's still a far better use of money than rooftop solar.  Large scale solar is around $1/W installed, residential is $3-4/W installed.  You get far, far more bang for your buck with the big farms.

[anisotropy]

Hi @Syonyk, I apologize for the miscommunication, the 65F I referred to was for in the winter as in now, I was not talking (at least not intended to) about year round, especially in the summer. Sorry about the confusion, I can see that would be a ridiculous notion in the summer.

Your other criticisms are also valid, although i would quibble with your turbopop comment in terms of emission on a per capita basis. selling power back to the grid was just an idea to "give back" some to the rural folks if policies do end up going after them for carbon taxes. Transmissions and storage limitations are definitely large obstacles and likely wont be overcome without major upgrades.

As to whether i follow my own suggestions on the personal level, the answer is yes. I am currently sitting on my coach under 3 layers of blanket and wearing gloves as i type. I fly almost exclusively coach even though I could afford much better. I stay away from various "organic" or "humane" meat and I am childfree (as far as i know).

EDIT: i might be wrong but i think you mistook me for a crazy environmentalist, i am not! I agree with your take on "climate activists", please read my other posts in this thread to see where i stand. thanks.

[diganminombre]

This poll needs extra options, to include "...but it won't matter"

Because it won't, really. I guess a really aggressive world-wide climate policy shift might lessen the extreme end of the impact or the turn-around time, but really, we're way too late. We're toast. I think we've already doomed most larger species, including man.

[Syonyk]

Hi @Syonyk, I apologize for the miscommunication, the 65F I referred to was for in the winter as in now, I was not talking (at least not intended to) about year round, especially in the summer.

Yeah, I got it...

Your other criticisms are also valid, although i would quibble with your turbopop comment in terms of emission on a per capita basis.

Even with the emissions from it, I'm still a large fan of business aviation.  I'd just rather see the jets pulled back in favor of the turboprops - they're a good bit more efficient, and tend to haul more load.  I get the appeal of a Citation X, but edging along the Mach barrier just isn't a very efficient way to fly.  The things look like someone stuck a pair of DC-9 engines on a lawn dart for a reason.

selling power back to the grid was just an idea to "give back" some to the rural folks if policies do end up going after them for carbon taxes.

As one of those "rural folks," have you actually talked to anyone to find out what would be useful, or just assumed that letting them sell unreliable power to the grid would be of use?  I'm currently in battles with my power company over solar capacity (they limit based on panel STC nameplate, I'm doing a weird looking system and arguing that I should be able to limit based on inverter capacity), but it's a weird little corner for most people out here.  Though, if you actually tax carbon fairly (including in manufactured goods), cities don't look so hot.  At least they can pay double the price for everything without too much more than grumbling.

I wouldn't mind a bit of investment in EV charging infrastructure out where I live, but see "Volt."

As to whether i follow my own suggestions on the personal level, the answer is yes. I am currently sitting on my coach under 3 layers of blanket and wearing gloves as i type.

I've lived at 45F for a winter, can't say I thought it was enjoyable.  I just couldn't afford heat.  I question if that's the best way to reduce impact, though - natural gas heating is pretty efficient, though the generation side emissions on NG tend gross.

[anisotropy]

As one of those "rural folks," have you actually talked to anyone to find out what would be useful, or just assumed that letting them sell unreliable power to the grid would be of use?

Nope, I am just an urbanite coming up with dumb ideas to screw over rurals. Because that's what we snobby elites do. ;)

Seriously though, ya it's a bad, at least, premature idea and won't do people much good. But please note the sarcasm (and pre-condition) in that post. I just want to be clear so you understand my position, I am not advocating for some carbon tax targeting farmers and ranchers directly, if anything, that tax should come on the consumer end.

[Leisured]

Cats is right to point out there is no carbon tax, and abe is right to point out that there is too much social baggage. Same here in Australia, the Greens are concerned about environment matters, but muddy the waters with left wing politics. When the US entered WW2, the government did not bother with social policy, they increased taxes and spent big on the armed forces.

Today, heavy spending on carbon mitigation will employ a lot of people. Employ people on good wages, and a lot of social problems fade to the back row.

[Leisured]

In Australia, state governments have offered subsidies for roof top solar for years. People have pointed out, that residential solar is not a good idea because people are out at work when the sun is shining, although recent advances in battery storage will solve that problem.

Subsidies for roof top solar make more sense for hospitals, schools, shopping malls, office blocks and industrial buildings, mainly because people work in these buildings when the sun shines. I expect that as the price of solar falls further, property developers will install roof top solar as standard.

Syonik, you quoted prices of $1 a watt for large scale solar and $3 a watt for roof top solar. Do you have as reference? Now I think about it, large scale solar will buy solar panels in bulk.

[Syonyk]

Syonik, you quoted prices of $1 a watt for large scale solar and $3 a watt for roof top solar. Do you have as reference? Now I think about it, large scale solar will buy solar panels in bulk.

Google it.  Residential is $3-$4/W in most areas, you're doing amazing to find $2/W.  Look at industrial nameplate capacity vs cost - it's $0.80/W to $1.50/W - far, far cheaper, and has trackers to better follow the sun.

[Hirondelle]

In economic terms, it's fine to take on more debt provided your net worth grows at the same or better pace.  Unfortunately, our planet's oceans and atmosphere can't do the same thing.  As the population grows and industrial production grows we're pretty much destined to increase CO2 productive in absolute terms.  I have no idea about the numbers on this, but it would seem that pollution policy would need to address a reasonable amount of growth in CO2 simply because we can't avoid it (unless a member of the G20 volunteers to return to the Middle Ages).  Unless somebody can explain to me a way for us to have a growing population, growing global economy, and a neutral or negative growth in emissions?

While the US produces a considerable amount of the CO, CO2, and CH4 emissions being discussed, the side opposing any significant reforms would put their foot down if the rest of the world didn't have to take an equal cut on relative or absolute terms.  Why should the US put thousands out of work to reduce pollution if a) the other countries don't have to as well or b) they're allowed to simply make up the difference in whatever we just cut.  Wasn't that one of the outcomes on the Kyoto and Paris agreements?

The reason why the USA could be a gamechanger IMO is because they are one of the largest countries population wise AND have one of the highest per capita emissions. Countries with higher or similar emissions (Australia, Luxembourg) all have way lower population numbers while countries with larger populations (India, China) may have higher total emissions but way lower per capita emissions. So the first countries could try to cut back emissions, but won't have as much impact due to their population size (which doesn't mean they shouldn't do anything) while the most populated countries aren't doing that bad on an individual basis (plus have other problems to care about, like massive poverty).

The other big one I'd say is the EU, but compared to the USA we already pollute way less (on average, heavily dependent on the country you're looking at), we already have more ambitious plans (to my knowledge), plus we're a bunch of independent countries so it's much harder to get to 1 overall policy.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is is that if there's one country for whom it makes the least sense to make the statement of "why would we have to do the majority of the work if others don't", it's the USA because they do have the best options to make a big impact. Other countries will certainly have to do their part to, but without the country that's responsible for 20% of emissions with only 5% of the world's inhabitants (not sure anymore where I got this statistic from) it's gonna be a tough fight.

If it's gonna make any difference in the end... I don't know. 

[nereo]

This poll needs extra options, to include "...but it won't matter"

Because it won't, really. I guess a really aggressive world-wide climate policy shift might lessen the extreme end of the impact or the turn-around time, but really, we're way too late. We're toast. I think we've already doomed most larger species, including man.

I’m an optimist at heart, and I don’t share your sentiment that we’re all doomed.  We certainly aren’t too late, and we already have the technology and understanding to curb the worst of climate change’s effects.  What we lack (currently) is the political will.  However, even here I retain some optimism, as public opinion can shift dramatically in just a few short years. We’ve seen such shifts in the US regarding gay marriage, about entering both world wars, about owning people as slaves.  I’m guessing at some point we’ll hit a critical threshold and the majority will see climate change as (the) major national priority. 

As for humans becoming extinct - even under the worst case scenarios I don’t see that happening.  Hundreds of millions may become refuges, about as many will starve, but we’ll survive as a species.

[MasterStache]

Syonik, you quoted prices of $1 a watt for large scale solar and $3 a watt for roof top solar. Do you have as reference? Now I think about it, large scale solar will buy solar panels in bulk.

Google it.  Residential is $3-$4/W in most areas, you're doing amazing to find $2/W.  Look at industrial nameplate capacity vs cost - it's $0.80/W to $1.50/W - far, far cheaper, and has trackers to better follow the sun.

I installed rooftop solar back in 2011/2012 for less than $3/watt. That was with ridiculous county requirements like hiring a structural engineer to inspect our trusses. Just as a point of reference. We sold the house and it added quite a bit of value.

[Syonyk]

Was that your cost for doing it yourself, or having someone else do it?

I got a local quote from a company:

8.68kW roof mount/grid tie
$38,687
28 Premium Silfab 310W Triple-Black panels with Enphase IQ 6 microinverters

So... old gen inverters, $4.45/W.  And the "savings" involve some pretty sketchy assumptions about how much grid power goes up year over year (they actually calculate 3% YoY increase for the life of the system in order to estimate power costs).

You can see why I'm not excited about that sort of thing.  I can do a hybrid system with batteries, myself, for far less money, while having far more capability.  Or, their system for under $15k.

[MasterStache]

Was that your cost for doing it yourself, or having someone else do it?

I got a local quote from a company:

8.68kW roof mount/grid tie
$38,687
28 Premium Silfab 310W Triple-Black panels with Enphase IQ 6 microinverters

So... old gen inverters, $4.45/W.  And the "savings" involve some pretty sketchy assumptions about how much grid power goes up year over year (they actually calculate 3% YoY increase for the life of the system in order to estimate power costs).

You can see why I'm not excited about that sort of thing.  I can do a hybrid system with batteries, myself, for far less money, while having far more capability.  Or, their system for under $15k.

I did it myself. Really isn't that hard. I did all the spec work, obtained the permits, electrical calculations etc. Installing was fairly easy and straightforward. My brother in law helped and we knocked out 28 panels and all the electrical work in less than 2 weekends. I used micronverters as well.

[Johnez]

I'm impressed, over 80% of Mustachians agree with the absolute need to address climate change.

The problem with admitting there is a problem, and setting about changing the problem is that this forces us to deal with another problem we have: too much shit.  We have too many cars, driving too many miles, consuming too much junk. We also have too much food.  I was just listening to NPR today, there are food banks in Virginia/Kentucky (both states mentioned) that are receiving too much milk.  These food banks have to expend gas and resources to go and pick up the milk, and then to store the milk-sometimes in tractor trailers idling ALL NIGHT!  There are way too many shit producing factories making crap we don't need.  Every holiday is an orgy of spending, all the "new" things to buy, gift, and decorate with.  Every season, Americans flush with cash buy the latest thing, the cool gadget, the new hobby toy, and then let it pile up in the garage to gather dust.  I myself am guilty of it, but am trying to reform. 

If an economic tsunami wiped out half the economy, I'm pretty sure the Earth and its inhabitants (including us humans!) would be better off in the long run.

[Abe]

I'm impressed, over 80% of Mustachians agree with the absolute need to address climate change.

The problem with admitting there is a problem, and setting about changing the problem is that this forces us to deal with another problem we have: too much shit.  We have too many cars, driving too many miles, consuming too much junk. We also have too much food.  I was just listening to NPR today, there are food banks in Virginia/Kentucky (both states mentioned) that are receiving too much milk.  These food banks have to expend gas and resources to go and pick up the milk, and then to store the milk-sometimes in tractor trailers idling ALL NIGHT!  There are way too many shit producing factories making crap we don't need.  Every holiday is an orgy of spending, all the "new" things to buy, gift, and decorate with.  Every season, Americans flush with cash buy the latest thing, the cool gadget, the new hobby toy, and then let it pile up in the garage to gather dust.  I myself am guilty of it, but am trying to reform. 

If an economic tsunami wiped out half the economy, I'm pretty sure the Earth and its inhabitants (including us humans!) would be better off in the long run.

I agree with your main sentiment, but isn't the whole point of Mustachianism to avoid the second problem and thus help with the first? My family hasn't bought material gifts for an adult in at least 10 years, and I'm sure many others here are similar. The second one is almost certainly incorrect - economic depressions usually cause significant suffering.

On a similar note, NPR had a story on how the Salvation Army in NYC has to maintain a large fleet of trucks and a massive warehouse to deal with all the stuff people try to donate. An unfortunately high fraction ends up in a landfill anyway, after wasting everyone at the charity's time and energy. Also, 6% of NYC's landfill volume is clothing!

[Leisured]

Some posters have thought that a warmer Earth will kill off humanity. This will not happen. Below is a link to a discussion of estimated  carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere over geological time, and in the article is a further link to methods of estimating ancient carbon dioxide concentrations.

These estimation methods are inevitably shaky, but have indicated that there have been times when carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere have been much higher than at present, but life went on.

A warmer Earth in the future will mean a more comfortable climate near the poles, and perhaps a lethal climate near the equator. The impact on humanity will be big, and there may even mean a fall in world population, but humanity will continue. At the moment, the climate near the poles is close to lethal.

Canada, northern Europe and Russia will benefit from a warmer world, and these countries know it. The infamous Lord Monckton, a notorious and flamboyant climate denier, comes from Scotland, which he knows will benefit. Countries nearer the equator, nearly all poor, will suffer.

But life goes on.