News article here: http://www.theguardian.com/env... "Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.” Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”
Energy subsidies are sizable in nearly all countries, advanced and developing economies alike. The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.
News article here: http://www.theguardian.com/env... "Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.” Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”
Energy subsidies are sizable in nearly all countries, advanced and developing economies alike. The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.
Blame the neoliberals. Hayek and Mises started the ideology which has destroyed incentive for everyone except the rich. Here's a good history and insight into the problem: http://www.theguardian.com/boo... "Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve." "Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."
They are escaping significant environmental cleanup obligations as this article in the Washington Post explains: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Also this: Peabody’s Chapter 11 filing may also excuse it from its environmental cleanup obligations, which total nearly $1.4 billion, according to the company’s SEC filings. “Bankruptcy restructuring could provide coal companies with a way of escaping obligations to restore land,” according to Steven Mufson and Joby Warrick of the Washington Post. According to the Sierra Club, the company has $900 million unfunded cleanup liabilities in Wyoming alone, and public interest groups plan to monitor the Chapter 11 proceedings to pressure the company to keep its obligations.
The problem is that the coal industry is leaving taxpayers with pension obligations and mine cleanup obligations. They will go bankrupt and leave us with the bill. Remember Capitalism = Privatize Profits and Socialize Losses
It's fun to watch the deniers heads assplode with each new piece of evidence confirming climate change. Their mental gymnastics to avoid cognitive dissonance are amusing and get more convoluted with each passing day.
The Guardian is a newspaper. It's reporting on a scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal. If you don't like The Guardian, you can read the original article (both are linked in the summary). If you don't like science... well, I don't know what to say.
Looks like we do have concensus... or settlement... (whatever you want to call it). http://www.theguardian.com/env... http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N?=?2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
A Tesla charged with electricity solely generated by coal is still cleaner than a petrol car. However, average electricity from coal in the US is only 33% (and dropping) so not an issue. Tesla has already solved your four challenges with battery recycling, supercharging, longer runtime. I can drive my Tesla anywhere with stops at convenient superchargers. There is already sufficient electric infrastructure to charge more electric cars than will be produced in the next 5 years. Electric utilities currently have a problem with too much electricity at night (in Texas they give away free electricity at night)... precisely the time when most people charge their electric cars. This may change in 5-10 years but that's plenty of time to make the necessary investments.
Tesla had a problem with not enough lubrication in the drive train gears for a few months production (late 2013). Those cars developed a noticeable "milling" noise in the gears. Tesla replaced the entire drive train in those cars since it is very easy to just drop out the entire assembly and bolt in a new one. The factory is better equipped to take apart the assembly and replace the faulty gears.
Tesla is extremely cautious. Their only prior recall was for a loose seat belt bolt. They found one car with a loose bolt and out of an abundance of caution, they had all of the other cars inspected. AFAIK only that first car had a loose bolt.
Interesting item from the SpaceX post launch press conference. They had just landed the booster successfully on the barge for the first time. Elon said they thought they had about a 60% chance of success. He said they had fixed all of the things which caused past failures but there were always potential new causes of failure. They can learn from the Model X and S but there can always be new things. I think Elon himself is realistic but many of his fans take it to extremes.
Reminds me of a medical software application I know of where if they didn't know the birthday, they would just enter January 1. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Garbage data.
How about people stop being so hung up about bathrooms. Just make one unisex bathroom. Go there and mind your own business. Be polite. Is that so hard?
Except Ebola hasn't gone extinct. There are still new cases reported and it could break into an epidemic at any time. Foolish Republicans won't fund both Zika and Ebola research... it's their crusade against government spending (and the poor).
The problem has always been that some people always promote the idea that smoking is NOT bad for you and some people always promote the idea that we are NOT changing the environment. The proposed solutions all have a cost (to some people... tobacco and fossil fuel companies) and benefits to others. Narrow self interest leads individuals to come to irrational obfuscations.
Slashdot Mirror
China's coal use has declined for the past several years. This is a deliberate policy.
I keep repeating it. It's very well documented in this 42 page paper:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...
News article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”
Energy subsidies are sizable in nearly all countries, advanced and developing economies alike.
The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.
No, not tax credits. It would be good if you would read the paper first:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...
News article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”
Energy subsidies are sizable in nearly all countries, advanced and developing economies alike.
The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.
Fossil fuels receive $5 trillion subsidy annually (according to IMF). We need to remove this market distortion.
An EV powered by coal emits less pollution than an oil powered car. Plus, as more renewables come online, the EV becomes more efficient.
Comes pre-installed (and working) on Raspberry Pi.
Blame the neoliberals. Hayek and Mises started the ideology which has destroyed incentive for everyone except the rich.
Here's a good history and insight into the problem:
http://www.theguardian.com/boo...
"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."
"Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."
They are escaping significant environmental cleanup obligations as this article in the Washington Post explains:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Also this:
Peabody’s Chapter 11 filing may also excuse it from its environmental cleanup obligations, which total nearly $1.4 billion, according to the company’s SEC filings. “Bankruptcy restructuring could provide coal companies with a way of escaping obligations to restore land,” according to Steven Mufson and Joby Warrick of the Washington Post. According to the Sierra Club, the company has $900 million unfunded cleanup liabilities in Wyoming alone, and public interest groups plan to monitor the Chapter 11 proceedings to pressure the company to keep its obligations.
The problem is that the coal industry is leaving taxpayers with pension obligations and mine cleanup obligations. They will go bankrupt and leave us with the bill.
Remember Capitalism = Privatize Profits and Socialize Losses
It's fun to watch the deniers heads assplode with each new piece of evidence confirming climate change.
Their mental gymnastics to avoid cognitive dissonance are amusing and get more convoluted with each passing day.
The Guardian is a newspaper. It's reporting on a scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal. If you don't like The Guardian, you can read the original article (both are linked in the summary). If you don't like science... well, I don't know what to say.
Looks like we do have concensus... or settlement... (whatever you want to call it).
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N?=?2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
I never change pages... I just read the same page over and over... I still don't get it.
Nikola Tesla also invented the AC electricity distribution system.
A Tesla charged with electricity solely generated by coal is still cleaner than a petrol car. However, average electricity from coal in the US is only 33% (and dropping) so not an issue.
Tesla has already solved your four challenges with battery recycling, supercharging, longer runtime. I can drive my Tesla anywhere with stops at convenient superchargers.
There is already sufficient electric infrastructure to charge more electric cars than will be produced in the next 5 years. Electric utilities currently have a problem with too much electricity at night (in Texas they give away free electricity at night)... precisely the time when most people charge their electric cars. This may change in 5-10 years but that's plenty of time to make the necessary investments.
Tesla had a problem with not enough lubrication in the drive train gears for a few months production (late 2013). Those cars developed a noticeable "milling" noise in the gears. Tesla replaced the entire drive train in those cars since it is very easy to just drop out the entire assembly and bolt in a new one. The factory is better equipped to take apart the assembly and replace the faulty gears.
Tesla is extremely cautious. Their only prior recall was for a loose seat belt bolt. They found one car with a loose bolt and out of an abundance of caution, they had all of the other cars inspected. AFAIK only that first car had a loose bolt.
Interesting item from the SpaceX post launch press conference. They had just landed the booster successfully on the barge for the first time. Elon said they thought they had about a 60% chance of success. He said they had fixed all of the things which caused past failures but there were always potential new causes of failure.
They can learn from the Model X and S but there can always be new things. I think Elon himself is realistic but many of his fans take it to extremes.
Reminds me of a medical software application I know of where if they didn't know the birthday, they would just enter January 1. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Garbage data.
How about people stop being so hung up about bathrooms. Just make one unisex bathroom. Go there and mind your own business. Be polite. Is that so hard?
B12?
Is that the best you have?
If people stopped eating meat, the planet could support ten times the current population.
Now who is elite for insisting that they must eat meat?
Except Ebola hasn't gone extinct. There are still new cases reported and it could break into an epidemic at any time.
Foolish Republicans won't fund both Zika and Ebola research... it's their crusade against government spending (and the poor).
Most electric cars use about 250 Wh/mile. Driving 60 miles uses 15 kWh, not 50.
The problem has always been that some people always promote the idea that smoking is NOT bad for you and some people always promote the idea that we are NOT changing the environment.
The proposed solutions all have a cost (to some people... tobacco and fossil fuel companies) and benefits to others. Narrow self interest leads individuals to come to irrational obfuscations.