PDA

View Full Version : A spokesman for the US eco right on climate change.



PeterSibley
02-22-2017, 05:08 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/national-press-club/

Perhaps of interest to our US friends.

PeterSibley
02-22-2017, 08:11 PM
No comments ? I thought it was a green shoot of hope.

skuthorp
02-22-2017, 08:18 PM
Donald will can it, maybe sack him if he can.

Osborne Russell
02-22-2017, 08:24 PM
No comments ? I thought it was a green shoot of hope.

Generally I don't click on bare links. Who said what and what do you think?

PeterSibley
02-22-2017, 10:01 PM
I don't know the US context but essentially a global warming message adapted to Christian right perspectives. I sounds hopeful.

''Lawyer and former US Congressman Bob Inglis addresses the National Press Club in Canberra on how conservatives can lead on climate action in the age of Donald Trump.''

PeterSibley
02-23-2017, 12:57 AM
Bump, the speaker has some good ideas.

Osborne Russell
02-23-2017, 01:04 PM
The so-called "stewardship" idea is as old as the Reagan Administration. Of course it sounds hopeful. It's the co-opting of the hopefulness of environmentalism as a fig leaf over good old rape and run middle eastern monotheism. Look, the Nazis are caring for unwed mothers -- so their sons can become soldiers.

Long time since Reagan and they haven't done Jack. They never intended to. Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, answerable only to the President, said when asked about future generations, "I don't know how many generations we can count on before the coming of the Lord."

PeterSibley
02-23-2017, 06:29 PM
True but I still distilled some hope from it.

TMny
02-23-2017, 06:29 PM
Thanks, Peter.

I've begun listening to 'longer takes' during meals (prep & munching), since then i'm a captive audience , but with split attention.....

Some months back i listened to Mr. Inglis in the 18-minute TED Talk format. He is sincere and somewhat enlightened.

In the National Press Club/Canberra address that you flagged, the questions posed by the representative from Canberra IQ spoke to me -- we need specifics!
The Question/answer segment was quite good.

Two elements of Mr. Inglis' policy stood out: (1) The border adjustment , (2) slashing the 12.5% existing regressive payroll tax.

I don't trust myself much as a policy analyst ... but the border adjustment sounds like a significant trade tariff ... and a similar proposal from the Right a month (or few months) ago (involving a California-based economist named IIRC 'Auberbach') was analysed by Professor Paul Krugman as being a significant tariff. It is possible that other nations ("China") would simply reciprocate, so this might be all right , but I'm not qualified to say.

Slashing the '12.5% payroll tax' should be translated to "gutting the revenue stream for Social Security" (which is all ready underfunded)... which , again might work -- but we have the spectacle of Representative Paul Ryan, whose fervor for privatizing Social Security was evidently not dampened by either the 2000 'Dot-com' market crash , or the 2008/'9 financial crisis {sooo, we're talking ideology/religion}.

On the other hand, it is wonderful that Mr. Inglis is concerned about regressivity in taxation, since only by significant effort was Pres Obama able to raise the top-income tax bracket marginal rate above that of high-middle earners (normal rich, vs billionaire squad).

It is absolutely wonderful that Mr. Inglis will consider a carbon tax. I think I heard him advocate ~$15.oo/tonCO2 , which would have had numerous positive effects circa 1990. For a year or few, the Shell Oil company has incorporated a $40.oo/tonCO2 rate of carbon tax into its' strategic/operational planning -- so they're plans/ops will not be derailed by a tax they expect to be forthcoming by government(s).

The notion of 'revenue neutrality' is quite popular, but may be sub-optimal. There are indications that Canadians and (some) Americans are not so concerned about the neutrality of the revenue, as that it Does fund developments to counter 'Climate Change' and Does Not get absorbed into 'general revenues'. This insight i derive from reading some posts by David Roberts, who writes for Vox (Paul Krugman mentioned Mr. Roberts in a column last summer).
{No quiz, just best stuff i've read.}

Roberts has delved into the CarbonTax issues in some detail; i list a few links below, i read two from April(2016) last summer, then others last fall:
(1.) http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/11446232/price-on-carbon-fine Putting a price on carbon is a fine idea. It's not the end-all be-all.
Three reasons to temper your enthusiasm. Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Apr 22, 2016,
(2.) http://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11470804/carbon-tax-political-constraints The political hurdles facing a carbon tax — and how to overcome them
Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Apr 26, 2016,
(3.) http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/11/2/13491818/carbon-taxes-british-columbia-experiment
What we can learn about carbon taxes from British Columbia’s experiment Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Nov 3, 2016,
(4.) http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-washington The left vs. a carbon tax
The odd, agonizing political battle playing out in Washington state. by David Roberts on November 8, 2016

Having both Not Implemented Means , and Not Fully Researched Means, to address the ClimateChange issue... we are nearing a point when we will only be able to deal with the consequences through a somewhat less elegant process than might have been available.
(1.) We probably need a significant nuclear power program. Fusion may materialize , or may not. The US has gained notable proficiency operating our first generation Plutonium producers, but they were always designed for parallel ops with 'breeder' reactors which would recycle-extend the fuel. I think we should give strong consideration to the Leslie Dewan/Mark Massie TransAtomic Power venture (since it derives from MIT just after Fukushima Daiichi). There are actually dozens of nuclear ventures in various development stages in the states now! Nuclear power requires investment in development, and Waste storage.
(2.) There are now existent several battery, and other electric storage means, which were not available 5 years ago. These and others over next decades will need investment for development.
(3.) The bright spot in renewables concerns the price of photovoltaic cells which are nearly competitive with coal energy. They only yield energy less than half the time (non-cloudy daytime), hence requiring massive energy storage facilities for days.... Currently net storage in US grid is about 1%/2% {i don't know if that's for an hour ?? or what} !
(4.) A Stanford group recently researched the feasibility of batteries vs hydrogen fuel-cells; they concluded for at least 15 years, fuel cells are too expensive. Much research is being done on how to efficiently split water molecules, so the H2><H2O can be a storage means incorporating fuel cells one way. This needs research funding.
(5.) Steven Chu, Pres Obama's first Secretary of Energy (physicist, Nobel laureate) gave a presentation within 24 months; he reported after a trip to China that their electrical grid (which employs a lot of high voltage DC links) wastes only one tenth as much power in distribution losses as does the US grid. Although there has been progress in windpower penetration in US (some areas have had occasional incidents of >30% wind penetration) , much of the capacity is Not connected when available, for a number of reasons. A large-capacity connection from the Atlantic to the Pacific (with Great Plains & Texas interconnect) would likely decrease the need for storage for wind and solar... this also could use funding.
(6.) Coal and Nat Gas generators can both experiment with CarbonCapture,Storage&Sequestration... but they also need funding.
(7.) We probably need a mandate for something like 1% of aviation, trucking, and shipping , to burn fuel synthesized from atmospheric CO2 by microbes or direct industrial chemical synthesis. It has been discovered that photosynthesis is only about 2% efficient, while solar PV is 14%-20%.
(8.) Retrofitting housing to Swedish standards of insulation will be messy and require funding and oversight/qualification.

Germany, a cloudy region, invested in Solar PV and windpower, to acclaim and some derision. Last fall the weather was such that the area was both windless and cloudy for several weeks at a time. It is now feared that their power plan is kind of a joke. Similarly the UK has scaled back its wind/solar plans somewhat.

Sir David J.C. MacKay ('Sustainable Energy – without the hot air') concluded that the nuclear option might be best for the U.K. The U.K. is of modest scale , and
is arrayed N/S/ 'vertically' , all within an hour or two time-wise. Some Greek researchers observed a few years ago that for windpower to be feasible, Dispersion was key , On All Scales. Dispersion also helps for solar arrays, to mitigate stormcloud effects. Grid interconnection over large distances is key to increasing the value of wind/solar , and decreasing the storage capacity required. A Chinese outfit recently wrote of a worldwide grid interconnect which would counteract the effect of earth's rotation shading nightime areas, for $50/$75trillion!

So the revenues from the carbon tax should fund programs which address ClimateChange , and surplus could be returned to citizens. It should allow the Electric Power utilities and Oil&Gas companies to spend freely on useful things they can do, possibly through nonprofit subsidiaries (not return to their stockholders). The idea would be to make progress in research, development, demonstration, and field roll out , hopefully soon enough to have some guiding/innovation/leadership effect, as late as it is. We know from the deleterious effects of historic energy price shocks (1973, 1979, 2008) that it is important Not to implement a tax too steep. We could allow Congress to ratchet the tax level down during recessionary periods. Far too much effort has been expended thinking about the emissions of other countries, far too little on 'getting to work' , as Sir MacKay advises.

President Trump is on record saying that he 'gets it' concerning ClimateChange. What that means is indeterminate, but we'll find out soon enough. Good policy is important for large scale efforts; energy accounts for 10-20% of economic activity.

Tom , in Trumpistan... (during the 'Trumpescene' as noted in the video!)

Peerie Maa
02-23-2017, 06:44 PM
e funding and oversight/qualification.

Germany, a cloudy region, invested in Solar PV and windpower, to acclaim and some derision. Last fall the weather was such that the area was both windless and cloudy for several weeks at a time. It is now feared that their power plan is kind of a joke. Similarly the UK has scaled back its wind/solar plans somewhat.



Factually incorrect. Solar cells work when the sun shines, they work when the sunlight is diffused by cloud or by a layer of snow. I have them installed on my roof and can check the power generated at any time. Check out the Fair Isle. They rely on turbines, with occasional use of a back up diesel gen set.

TMny
02-27-2017, 09:27 PM
Hello Peerie Maa-

I'm a strong proponent of renewables. I fear the necessary scale of dispersion might be about 2000Mi, East/West. Earlier plans were for large photovoltaic arrays in the Sahara to be linked to western Europe {my guess is that the err 'Muslim situation' in north Africa will work against that}. Siemens has made progress installing sections of a HVDC grid in some areas of W. Europe. I don't see a problem if the U.K. were linked to eastern Europe and the Mideast,
but that might not be feasible.
**

My source regarding Germany/'energiewende' is a translated comment by a German economist (it is available online at the leading link):

http://energypost.eu/end-energiewende/ The End of the Energiewende?
January 10, 2017 by Heiner Flassbeck
The prominent German economist Heiner Flassbeck has challenged fundamental assumptions of the Energiewende at his blog site makroskop.eu. According to Flassbeck, the former Director of Macroeconomics and Development at the UNCTAD in Geneva and a former State Secretary of Finance, a recent period of extremely low solar and wind power generation shows that Germany will never be able to rely on renewable energy, regardless of how much new capacity will be built.
Stable high-pressure winter weather has resulted in a confrontation. An Energiewende that relies mainly on wind and solar energy will not work in the long run. One cannot forgo nuclear power, eliminate fossil fuels, and tell people that electricity supplies will remain secure all the same.
We have attempted unsuccessfully to find Energiewende advocates willing to explain that inconsistency. Their silence is not easy to fathom. But maybe the events themselves have made the outcome inevitable.
With nuclear power no longer available, a capacity of at least 50 gigawatts is required by other means, despite an enormously expanded network of wind turbines and solar systems
This winter could go down in history as the event that proved the German energy transition to be unsubstantiated and incapable of becoming a success story. Electricity from wind and solar generation has been catastrophically low for several weeks. December brought new declines. A persistent winter high-pressure system with dense fog throughout Central Europe has been sufficient to unmask the fairy tale of a successful energy transition, even for me as a lay person.
This is a setback, because many people had placed high hopes in the Energiewende. I likewise never expected to see large-scale solar arrays and wind turbines, including those offshore, motionless for days on end. The data compiled by Agora Energiewende on the individual types of electricity generation have recorded the appalling results for sun and wind at the beginning of December and from the 12th to 14th:
AgoraGermanElectricity01-19December2016
Of power demand totaling 69.0 gigawatts (GW) at 3 pm on the 12th, for instance, just 0.7 GW was provided by solar energy, 1.0 by onshore wind power and 0.4 offshore. At noontime on the 14th of December, 70 GW were consumed, with 4 GW solar, 1 GW onshore and somewhat over 0.3 offshore wind. The Agora graphs make apparent that such wide-ranging doldrums may persist for several days.
You do not need to be a technician, an energy expert, or a scientist to perceive the underlying futility of this basic situation. You simply need common sense, shelving expectations and prognoses for a moment, while extrapolating the current result to future developments. Let us suppose that today’s wind and solar potential could be tripled by 2030, allowing almost all of the required energy to be obtained from these two sources under normal weather conditions. This is an extremely optimistic scenario and certainly not to be expected, because current policy is slowing down the expansion of renewable energy sources rather than accelerating it.
One cannot simultaneously rely on massive amounts of wind and sunshine, dispense with nuclear power plants (for very good reasons), significantly lower the supply of fossil energy, and nevertheless tell people that electricity will definitely be available in the future
If a comparable lull occurred in 2030 (stable winter high systems that recur every few years), then three times the number of solar panels and wind turbines (assuming current technologies) could logically produce only three times the amount of electricity. The deficiency of prevailing winds and sunshine will affect all of these installations, no matter how many there are. Even threefold wind and solar generation would then fulfill just 20% of requirements – again very optimistically – assuming that demand had not increased by 2030.
Redistribution effects
However, precisely the opposite can be expected, namely a massive increase in consumption due to the substitution of fossil fuels by electrically powered automobiles that require increased generation. The possibility of saving so much energy in this short time, enabling overall consumption to be decreased despite abandoning fossil fuels, can be confidently ignored. For that to happen, the price of fossil energy would have to rise dramatically, which is not to be expected, and one would have to compensate for the resulting redistribution effects that are politically even less likely.
Accordingly, Germany would end up with a catastrophic result 30 years after the start of the Energiewende. With nuclear power no longer available, a capacity of at least 50 gigawatts is required by other means, despite an enormously expanded network of wind turbines and solar systems under comparable weather conditions. Those other means according to current knowledge will be provided by coal, oil and gas.
In other words, one cannot simultaneously rely on massive amounts of wind and sunshine, dispense with nuclear power plants (for very good reasons), significantly lower the supply of fossil energy, and nevertheless tell people that electricity will definitely be available in the future. Exactly that, however, is what politics largely does almost every day. It is quite irresponsible to persuade citizens that from 2030 onwards only electrically-powered new cars may be allowed, as has recently been propagated in the highest political circles.
You can wish for a lot and always hope for a good outcome. But as important as wishes and hopes are, they are not yet solutions
The example of Energiewende once again demonstrates that the traditional political approaches of our democracies are ill-equipped to solve such complex problems. Consequently, they pursue what I have recently called symbolic politics: democracies do something that is supposed to point in the right direction without thinking it through and without even taking note of the system-related consequences. If it goes wrong, the political predecessors were guilty and nobody feels responsible.
That is why citizens need to remain vigilant and critical. You can wish for a lot and always hope for a good outcome. But as important as wishes and hopes are, they are not yet solutions. We likewise have to use our minds when we would prefer to turn them off because the conclusions are so depressing.
Editor’s Note
This article was first published on the German-language website www.makroskop.eu on 20 December 2016 and has been translated for Energy Post by Hamburg-based independent energy consultant Jeffrey Michel (jeffrey.michel@gmx.net).
+++*

Concerning the U.K., David MacKay:
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5bVbfWuq-Q 18:47
TEDxWarwick - David MacKay - How the Laws of Physics Constrain Our Sustainable Energy Options
Published on Mar 22, 2012
(2) When Professor McKay opts for nuclear solution (and maybe not bother with renewables) interview shortly before he expired:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyidsxIDtQ 23:21
David MacKay - final interview and tribute Mark Lynas Published on Apr 27, 2016
David MacKay's last interview, in conversation with Mark Lynas, before his death from cancer on 14 April 2016. Ends with photos and a tribute.

- T m