Here's the gas price in Toronto over the last 30 days. Cap and trade started on Jan 1st. Notice that the price today is the same as in December. Where do you live that you're seeing a 20C/L rise? Your local pump may be price gouging
It is not likely that the data would become tained. More likely the new administration would just stop collecting inconvenient data, or change the metric as described in the summary.
Ok. Good to know. Either way, you are paying that much because your province is choosing to do so with complete disregard for the market. It's a good way to encourage a new industry and FIT programs like these may be partly or largely responsible for the dramatic drop in cost over the last decade. Now that the technology is competitive without the FIT it no longer makes sense to keep the program.
The best way to end fossil fuel use is with a market driven program such as a revenue neutral carbon tax. This allows the market to decide the optimal solution and lets you drop taxes on activities that you ought to be encouraging such as earning and spending. It looks like instead the province has opted to keep the FIT, add cap and trade, and keep the revenue. Not the best. Hopefully Michael Chong will run for Premier and kick the libs to the curb.
We're still paying 0.528kWh for solar here in Ontario
That's not market value. That a legislated price from five years ago. It's now down to about 35 c/kWh and dropping. Even at this price it is quite lucrative for anyone considering rooftop solar because people are making a profit at just 13 c/kWh.
Saudi Arabia is modernizing their energy sector.Three years ago, Saudi Arabia announced a goal of building, by 2032, 41 gigawatts of solar capacity, slightly more than the world leader, Germany, has today. According to one estimate, that would be enough to meet about 20 percent of the kingdom’s projected electricity needs
Commonly accepted by who? The science has favoured Human impact as the explanation since before the turn of the century. Even Wikipedia shows this as the consensus view.
Maybe this is an Australian thing? This idealized view of the native community would probably be considered mildly racist elsewhere.
Yet, you got lied to and believed that climate change wiped out the Australian megafauna.
Lied to? By whom? Seems like Human impact has been the favoured explanation since before the turn of the century: Pleistocene Extinction of Genyornis newtoni: Human Impact on Australian Megafauna. Largely on account of the fact that climate change was modest over the period of extinction: "More than 700 dates on Genyornis eggshells from three different climate
regions document the continuous presence of Genyornis from more than
100,000 years ago until their sudden disappearance 50,000 years ago, about the
same time that humans arrived in Australia. Simultaneous extinction of Genyornis
at all sites during an interval of modest climate change implies that
human impact, not climate, was responsible."
Most people were probably not aware of this one way or another before reading this Slashdot post. Those that looked it up on Wikipedia would have found that Humans are thought to be the cause: "Analysis of oxygen and carbon isotopes from teeth of megafauna indicate the regional climates at the time of extinction were similar to arid regional climates of today and that the megafauna were well adapted to arid climates.[5] The dates derived have been interpreted as suggesting that the main mechanism for extinction was human burning of a landscape that was then much less fire-adapted; oxygen and carbon isotopes of teeth indicate sudden, drastic, non-climate-related changes in vegetation and in the diet of surviving marsupial species. However, early Australian Aborigines appear to have rapidly eliminated the megafauna of Tasmania about 41,000 years ago (following formation of a land bridge to Australia about 43,000 years ago as ice age sea levels declined) without using fire to modify the environment there,[7][8][9] implying that at least in this case hunting was the most important factor. It has also been suggested that the vegetational changes that occurred on the mainland were a consequence, rather than a cause, of the elimination of the megafauna.
The problem is that change is generally costly - regardless of the change. We set up infrastructure for the climate of today. If you have a farm that can no longer produce then your asset is sunk. If you find that your property in northern Ontario is now suitable for farming grapes, that may also damage your asset if it is currently a ski slope.
China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. In 2015 China became the world's largest producer of photovoltaic power, at 43 GW installed capacity. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No individual event can be linked to climate change, but the trend can certainly be attributed to climate change. There is a physical basis for the correlation.
Similarly, it is impossible to know whether a person wouldn't have died of lung cancer anyway, even if she hadn't smoked a pack a day. But on aggregate we know that smoking dramatically increases the chance of lung cancer. We are certain that many more people are dying of lung cancer as a result of smoking.
The U.S. has experienced a rising number of events that cause significant amounts of damage. From 1980–2016, the annual average number of billion-dollar events is 5.5 (CPI-adjusted). For the most recent 5 years (2012–2016), the annual average is 10.6 events (CPI-adjusted). The year 2005 was the most costly since 1980 due to the combined impacts of Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis, as shown in the following time-series. The year 2012 was the second most costly due to the extreme U.S. drought ($30 billion) and Sandy ($65 billion) driving the losses.
(Dec 2007) This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
We're actually going to be 20C warmer in six months
No. The globe does not warm or cool by 20C as the seasons change. In fact, when the Earth was just 4.5C cooler, your house was under 1/2 a mile of ice. XKCD described this as an "Ice Age Unit"
Slashdot Mirror
I hope this is not true. A strong president should not fear an informed electorate. The pages are still up now. This is the space to watch: https://www.epa.gov/climatecha... and https://www.epa.gov/climatecha...
The memo was made public by those who received it. Department officials do not deny that the memo was sent, just that "The ARS guidance was not issued in coordination with other offices at the USDA."
Here's the gas price in Toronto over the last 30 days. Cap and trade started on Jan 1st. Notice that the price today is the same as in December. Where do you live that you're seeing a 20C/L rise? Your local pump may be price gouging
In Ontario cap-and-trade will drive the price of gasoline up 4.3 cents per litre, and push up costs for people who heat with natural gas or furnace oil by an average of $5 per month. The Alberta tax is revenue neutral, so the average household tax will rise by $0, and some households would see their tax decrease. That's the right way to do this.
Investment in coal is on the decline
Right. Trump is going against the market by propping up Coal. He's "picking winners and losers", but more the latter and not so much the former.
It is not likely that the data would become tained. More likely the new administration would just stop collecting inconvenient data,
It looks like it's already begun. Government scientists have just been barred from sharing publicly funded science.
And independent analysis shows that the NOAA analysis is extremely accurate and even better than the competition.
It is not likely that the data would become tained. More likely the new administration would just stop collecting inconvenient data, or change the metric as described in the summary.
Ok. Good to know. Either way, you are paying that much because your province is choosing to do so with complete disregard for the market. It's a good way to encourage a new industry and FIT programs like these may be partly or largely responsible for the dramatic drop in cost over the last decade. Now that the technology is competitive without the FIT it no longer makes sense to keep the program.
The best way to end fossil fuel use is with a market driven program such as a revenue neutral carbon tax. This allows the market to decide the optimal solution and lets you drop taxes on activities that you ought to be encouraging such as earning and spending. It looks like instead the province has opted to keep the FIT, add cap and trade, and keep the revenue. Not the best. Hopefully Michael Chong will run for Premier and kick the libs to the curb.
We're still paying 0.528kWh for solar here in Ontario
That's not market value. That a legislated price from five years ago. It's now down to about 35 c/kWh and dropping. Even at this price it is quite lucrative for anyone considering rooftop solar because people are making a profit at just 13 c/kWh.
As long as we're looking backwards, why not resurrect the gin gang?
Saudi Arabia is modernizing their energy sector. Three years ago, Saudi Arabia announced a goal of building, by 2032, 41 gigawatts of solar capacity, slightly more than the world leader, Germany, has today. According to one estimate, that would be enough to meet about 20 percent of the kingdom’s projected electricity needs
Meanwhile USA is investing in ... Coal? This while Solar is closing in on price parity with the likes of coal — with full-cycle, unsubsidized costs of about 13 cents per kilowatthour, versus 12 cents for advanced coal plants
Yup: Trump’s energy policy to focus on boosting fracking, reviving coal sector
Commonly accepted by who? The science has favoured Human impact as the explanation since before the turn of the century. Even Wikipedia shows this as the consensus view.
Maybe this is an Australian thing? This idealized view of the native community would probably be considered mildly racist elsewhere.
Like what? How is any of this political?
Yet, you got lied to and believed that climate change wiped out the Australian megafauna.
Lied to? By whom? Seems like Human impact has been the favoured explanation since before the turn of the century: Pleistocene Extinction of Genyornis newtoni: Human Impact on Australian Megafauna. Largely on account of the fact that climate change was modest over the period of extinction: "More than 700 dates on Genyornis eggshells from three different climate regions document the continuous presence of Genyornis from more than 100,000 years ago until their sudden disappearance 50,000 years ago, about the same time that humans arrived in Australia. Simultaneous extinction of Genyornis at all sites during an interval of modest climate change implies that human impact, not climate, was responsible."
Most people were probably not aware of this one way or another before reading this Slashdot post. Those that looked it up on Wikipedia would have found that Humans are thought to be the cause: "Analysis of oxygen and carbon isotopes from teeth of megafauna indicate the regional climates at the time of extinction were similar to arid regional climates of today and that the megafauna were well adapted to arid climates.[5] The dates derived have been interpreted as suggesting that the main mechanism for extinction was human burning of a landscape that was then much less fire-adapted; oxygen and carbon isotopes of teeth indicate sudden, drastic, non-climate-related changes in vegetation and in the diet of surviving marsupial species. However, early Australian Aborigines appear to have rapidly eliminated the megafauna of Tasmania about 41,000 years ago (following formation of a land bridge to Australia about 43,000 years ago as ice age sea levels declined) without using fire to modify the environment there,[7][8][9] implying that at least in this case hunting was the most important factor. It has also been suggested that the vegetational changes that occurred on the mainland were a consequence, rather than a cause, of the elimination of the megafauna.
I'm afraid Poe's Law rules climate discussions.
This graph starts in 1980. it counts number of events as well as cost. Look at the trend.
The problem is that change is generally costly - regardless of the change. We set up infrastructure for the climate of today. If you have a farm that can no longer produce then your asset is sunk. If you find that your property in northern Ontario is now suitable for farming grapes, that may also damage your asset if it is currently a ski slope.
China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. In 2015 China became the world's largest producer of photovoltaic power, at 43 GW installed capacity. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here's a good primer on the economics of climate change (costs and benefits) http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/...
Similarly, it is impossible to know whether a person wouldn't have died of lung cancer anyway, even if she hadn't smoked a pack a day. But on aggregate we know that smoking dramatically increases the chance of lung cancer. We are certain that many more people are dying of lung cancer as a result of smoking.
You want evidence of the last glacial maximum? Srsly?
The changing frequency of billion-dollar disaster events
The U.S. has experienced a rising number of events that cause significant amounts of damage. From 1980–2016, the annual average number of billion-dollar events is 5.5 (CPI-adjusted). For the most recent 5 years (2012–2016), the annual average is 10.6 events (CPI-adjusted). The year 2005 was the most costly since 1980 due to the combined impacts of Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis, as shown in the following time-series. The year 2012 was the second most costly due to the extreme U.S. drought ($30 billion) and Sandy ($65 billion) driving the losses.
(Dec 2007) This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
Here's how 2012 ended up. Looks like he was not too far off!
We're actually going to be 20C warmer in six months
No. The globe does not warm or cool by 20C as the seasons change. In fact, when the Earth was just 4.5C cooler, your house was under 1/2 a mile of ice. XKCD described this as an "Ice Age Unit"