The answer needs to be market driven. Solutions such as feed in tariffs are inefficient. Add a revenue neutral carbon tax at the port of entry and let the market decide which solution is cheapest. Since the tax is revenue neutral it should come with a reduction in income tax. We would then move from taxing something we want to encourage (income) to something that is ultimately costly (carbon).
Yeah... Except that you are still trying to use consumption to measure demand (which still makes no sense).... the markets should correct and production should rise to meet demand which should level out the cost which clearly isn't happening. The cost chart seems to indicate that costs are rising exponentially (which does not mean yearly doubling - please look that up). That does tell us about demand. Consumption does not.
If the growth seen between 1983 and 2005 had continued we would have seen 10.2% growth in production between 2005 and 2011. Instead of 10.2%, actual growth between 2005 and 2011 was only 3.0%. So yeah, we've had growth, but not much, and certainly not enough to meet demand. Will we see growth return to historic levels or will gas price continue to rise? My crystal ball is broken so I'm not able to tell. But neither can you say with any confidence that we haven't hit peak oil. That remains to be seen.
I claimed that demand is rising exponentially. First you say:
Now you are willfully ignorant. Look at the damn graphs (of consumption). It is flat and down in the 2005-2008 years. That does not jive with *your* claim of exponential demand.
I say that flat consumption doesn't tell you anything about demand if you have hit peak oil. Now you say:
No, I have not stated it leveled off, and I posted evidence it has not.
So... Which should I believe? And this is all beside the fact that you can't measure demand by looking at consumption anyway, which should be obvious. If you have a point you should really state it clearly because you appear to be contradicting yourself every other post.
Wait - you can't find even ONE case where someone whose lung cancer was proven to have been caused by smoking? There are hundreds of thousands of smokers who have died of lung cancer. Surely there is ONE case where the lung cancer was proven to be the cause? No? If not, then how would you expect me to cite one drought that was directly tied to climate change? We know that drought is exacerbated by global warming in lower latitudes. We also know that droughts happen even without climate change. How would you prove that this one or that one wouldn't have happened even without climate change? How would you prove that this smoker or that smoker wouldn't have lung cancer even without smoking? Are you looking for a reasonable burden of proof?
That quote is straight from the scientific report in question. They are in fact caused by or linked to climate change according to the scientific literature.
I never discussed price, you might have, with someone else.
You responded post #46936177, but did not take issue with the statement: "You can't use consumption to measure demand. Consumption can't outpace production silly. Demand is best measured by price"
DEMAND is the way you determine demand
Really? What unit is "demand" measured in?
You must realize you are promoting a massive logic fail. If we have hit peak oil then of course consumption must level off. You are stating that since consumption has leveled off we must not have hit peak oil. See why this doesn't work?
You do realize that if you say "Prima facie your argument is wrong" it means that it may appear wrong on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper you may find that it is right. Perhaps you accidentally said what you meant?
And if there is no demand, they reduce product to keep prices reasonably up.
But if they reduce product without reducing demand then prices go up. Which is exactly what we've seen. That's right. Demand is outpacing production. Production has been flat since about 2005 despite some wiggles here and there. That is what 'peak oil' means.
Wait - are you still trying to use consumption as a proxy for demand even though consumption is constrained by production (which peaked a decade ago)? Here is demand: http://www.evsroll.com/images/...
Meanwhile demand continues to rise exponentially? Also note the general shape of the production curve is logarithmic. It plateaued in 2005 but the rate of increase was slowing since the start of the graph in 1965.
You are probably right. It seems he drew exactly the opposite conclusion from Cheney: "As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
What 2005 world recession? Citation definitely needed. Also, you can't use consumption to measure demand. Consumption can't outpace production silly. Demand is best measured by price: http://www.evsroll.com/images/...
Wait - 2005 is when the stagnation started. You can't accuse me of cherry picking and then try to use one regions oil production to somehow refute stagnation in global oil production. Or where you trying to provide an example of cherry picking? Regardless of how much oil the U.S. is producing it cannot make up for the global stagnation:
Ok. I can provide that, but first I'd like a citation of how even one case of lung cancer was tied to smoking. People get lung cancer all the time due to natural causes. How would you prove that any one case was due to smoking?
We were moving from a glacial period to an inter-glacial. Yes, sea level rise was high then (it rose 75 feet). Good thing we didn't have coastal cities. So what does this mean to you. Global warming can't be caused by CO2? We don't need to worry about accelerating sea level rise? Hopefully you realize that neither of these follow.
It looks like the GP does know what peak oil is. the following chart shows that the oil production has been decelerating for the last 50 years and growth seems to have stopped in about 2005: http://www.energytrendsinsider...
I agree with what you say, but at some point we are going to need to make the transition away from fossil fuels. The impacts up front are relatively mild. Even if we start now we won't be able to avoid them, but we may avoid the worst impacts down the road.
As a conservative I do not believe in borrowing from future generations. We would all benefit now from running massive deficits but future generations would suffer. Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" but that is clearly not true. At some point the hammer must fall.
That's what we are doing with the climate. We all enjoy the benefits of cheap fuel while our kids are forced to bear the brunt of climate change and make the transition to new energy sources. It is not a good legacy.
Even if I start a year earlier during the El Nino of 1998 we still get a warming trend of 0.14C over the period. Slightly lower, but still quite high for 16 years. Where do they come up with this nonsense?
a full 1/3rd. of the warming in the 1990's, on record, was actually due to water vapor in the air, vs. CO2 emissions and the like
Yup. Warmer air will hold more water vapour. So a small amount of warming from CO2 will be amplified by the water vapour feedback. This was anticipated by the models and can now be observed.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer needs to be market driven. Solutions such as feed in tariffs are inefficient. Add a revenue neutral carbon tax at the port of entry and let the market decide which solution is cheapest. Since the tax is revenue neutral it should come with a reduction in income tax. We would then move from taxing something we want to encourage (income) to something that is ultimately costly (carbon).
It also seems to require disdain for higher education.
Yeah... Except that you are still trying to use consumption to measure demand (which still makes no sense).... the markets should correct and production should rise to meet demand which should level out the cost which clearly isn't happening. The cost chart seems to indicate that costs are rising exponentially (which does not mean yearly doubling - please look that up). That does tell us about demand. Consumption does not.
If the growth seen between 1983 and 2005 had continued we would have seen 10.2% growth in production between 2005 and 2011. Instead of 10.2%, actual growth between 2005 and 2011 was only 3.0%. So yeah, we've had growth, but not much, and certainly not enough to meet demand. Will we see growth return to historic levels or will gas price continue to rise? My crystal ball is broken so I'm not able to tell. But neither can you say with any confidence that we haven't hit peak oil. That remains to be seen.
Now you are willfully ignorant. Look at the damn graphs (of consumption). It is flat and down in the 2005-2008 years. That does not jive with *your* claim of exponential demand.
I say that flat consumption doesn't tell you anything about demand if you have hit peak oil. Now you say:
No, I have not stated it leveled off, and I posted evidence it has not.
So... Which should I believe? And this is all beside the fact that you can't measure demand by looking at consumption anyway, which should be obvious. If you have a point you should really state it clearly because you appear to be contradicting yourself every other post.
Wait - you can't find even ONE case where someone whose lung cancer was proven to have been caused by smoking? There are hundreds of thousands of smokers who have died of lung cancer. Surely there is ONE case where the lung cancer was proven to be the cause? No? If not, then how would you expect me to cite one drought that was directly tied to climate change? We know that drought is exacerbated by global warming in lower latitudes. We also know that droughts happen even without climate change. How would you prove that this one or that one wouldn't have happened even without climate change? How would you prove that this smoker or that smoker wouldn't have lung cancer even without smoking? Are you looking for a reasonable burden of proof?
That quote is straight from the scientific report in question. They are in fact caused by or linked to climate change according to the scientific literature.
I never discussed price, you might have, with someone else.
You responded post #46936177, but did not take issue with the statement: "You can't use consumption to measure demand. Consumption can't outpace production silly. Demand is best measured by price"
DEMAND is the way you determine demand
Really? What unit is "demand" measured in?
You must realize you are promoting a massive logic fail. If we have hit peak oil then of course consumption must level off. You are stating that since consumption has leveled off we must not have hit peak oil. See why this doesn't work?
You do realize that if you say "Prima facie your argument is wrong" it means that it may appear wrong on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper you may find that it is right. Perhaps you accidentally said what you meant?
And if there is no demand, they reduce product to keep prices reasonably up.
But if they reduce product without reducing demand then prices go up. Which is exactly what we've seen. That's right. Demand is outpacing production. Production has been flat since about 2005 despite some wiggles here and there. That is what 'peak oil' means.
Right. Prices are the best way to measure demand. We discussed this several pages back.
Wait - are you still trying to use consumption as a proxy for demand even though consumption is constrained by production (which peaked a decade ago)? Here is demand: http://www.evsroll.com/images/...
Meanwhile demand continues to rise exponentially? Also note the general shape of the production curve is logarithmic. It plateaued in 2005 but the rate of increase was slowing since the start of the graph in 1965.
You are probably right. It seems he drew exactly the opposite conclusion from Cheney: "As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
What 2005 world recession? Citation definitely needed. Also, you can't use consumption to measure demand. Consumption can't outpace production silly. Demand is best measured by price: http://www.evsroll.com/images/...
Wait - 2005 is when the stagnation started. You can't accuse me of cherry picking and then try to use one regions oil production to somehow refute stagnation in global oil production. Or where you trying to provide an example of cherry picking? Regardless of how much oil the U.S. is producing it cannot make up for the global stagnation:
Doesn't it just mean transitioning to different energy sources and adopting new technologies? Innovation is also what America is about.
Ok. I can provide that, but first I'd like a citation of how even one case of lung cancer was tied to smoking. People get lung cancer all the time due to natural causes. How would you prove that any one case was due to smoking?
We were moving from a glacial period to an inter-glacial. Yes, sea level rise was high then (it rose 75 feet). Good thing we didn't have coastal cities. So what does this mean to you. Global warming can't be caused by CO2? We don't need to worry about accelerating sea level rise? Hopefully you realize that neither of these follow.
Ah, yes. RSS amplifies ENSO so the super El nino of 1998 is much higher there. Good job :)
"Peak Oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
It looks like the GP does know what peak oil is. the following chart shows that the oil production has been decelerating for the last 50 years and growth seems to have stopped in about 2005: http://www.energytrendsinsider...
All the while demand is increasing exponentially.
I agree with what you say, but at some point we are going to need to make the transition away from fossil fuels. The impacts up front are relatively mild. Even if we start now we won't be able to avoid them, but we may avoid the worst impacts down the road.
As a conservative I do not believe in borrowing from future generations. We would all benefit now from running massive deficits but future generations would suffer. Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" but that is clearly not true. At some point the hammer must fall.
That's what we are doing with the climate. We all enjoy the benefits of cheap fuel while our kids are forced to bear the brunt of climate change and make the transition to new energy sources. It is not a good legacy.
Even if I start a year earlier during the El Nino of 1998 we still get a warming trend of 0.14C over the period. Slightly lower, but still quite high for 16 years. Where do they come up with this nonsense?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
a full 1/3rd. of the warming in the 1990's, on record, was actually due to water vapor in the air, vs. CO2 emissions and the like
Yup. Warmer air will hold more water vapour. So a small amount of warming from CO2 will be amplified by the water vapour feedback. This was anticipated by the models and can now be observed.
https://xkcd.com/1321/