Is there any realistic way to fight global warming?

GIGObuster · January 3, 2014, 6:43am

The real kicker comes from organizations that have experience in the issue, once again here is the Union of concerned scientists:

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2013/got-science-august-2013.html

Next up: Arizona

In a number of states recently, utilities have sought to fight back by charging extra fees to customers with rooftop solar panels. Moves to change so-called net metering arrangements were notably beaten back this spring in both Louisiana and Idaho — hardly states known for liberal politics or environmental activism.

The latest battleground is Arizona, where the state’s largest electric utility — Arizona Public Service Company — has similarly asked regulators to raise electric rates for residential customers who install solar photovoltaic systems at their homes. And, as in Georgia, the battle lines are forging some surprising alliances. In this case, Barry Goldwater, Jr. the son of the late politician who served five terms in the U.S. Senate and whose name is practically synonymous with conservatism in America, is among those leading the fight for solar power in his state, heading a recently formed organization called TUSK — “Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed.”

Jacobs notes that the populist nature of rooftop solar power seems to be causing a paradigm shift in many people’s political perspective. “Instead of being forced to buy power from a monopoly, people now have a real option to go buy rooftop solar panels as they would a television or a refrigerator. There’s no question,” he says, “that this aspect is particularly appealing to a segment of the population that prefers the free market and doesn’t want utilities or government to mandate what they do.”

While Koch-funded groups like AFP are unlikely to heed the message anytime soon, there is every indication in the solar energy field that the political terrain is starting to shift dramatically.

It is clear why the Forbes writer had to reach for half cooked ideas like his debunked “contrapositive” point about the south west in the USA. That political terrain shift has to be prevented by the merchants of doubt.

Chief_Pedant · January 3, 2014, 12:32pm

So if you are a subsea hydraulics engineer, you can’t be one of GIGObuster’s “experts” that get to be quoted? I would say the article comes off as more pro-nuclear than pro-oil, but neither is the point. The point is that Germany’s solar initiative is an environmental disaster.

I recommend reading all opinions and evaluating them as they stand on their own, instead of simply using ad hominems to clear the room, leaving only “experts” that agree with you. That’s classic Great Cause behaviour.

In any case, the numbers are sobering. Despite this massive initial effort and trillions in projected cost (2.5% of a large GDP per year, for 50 years for this effort), Germany currently gets only a few percent of its energy needs from solar. Until they get further down the road, they’ll be adding carbon emissions (because none of us will wait, including Germans, to live comfortably), including carbon from forests we’re chopping down in the name of AGW. That road is long (decades long).

And this is your index case! Germany is your Emperor, who has no clothes but many sycophants who reassure him he has dressed regally.

You haven’t countered a single fact in Carlyle’s analsysis except to suggest his job distorts his opinion (OK; but which fact is incorrect?) and you think he is opposed to solar in Arizona. This latter characterization of yours is badly wrong, and inded in the summary statement Carlyle makes it “clear solar should definitely be part of our (energy) generation mix.”

As with many AGW alarmists, when it comes to actual solutions that are realistic, you are blinded by couching all news as good news so the masses don’t actually have to face the fact that there are too many of us wanting to be live as comfortably as Al Gore. Without collective sacrifice until we get the grid fixed first, AGW gasses will continue to increase indefinitely and (like our debt problem) progress will always be Right Around the Corner, Real Soon Now.

And we will not sacrifice meaningfully. At least, Al and I won’t.

Shodan · January 3, 2014, 2:51pm

The curious universe is one where people save money by using the higher-cost alternative.

From the Forbes cite at which you waved your hands -

Yes, it is heavily subsidized, which covers up the real cost and makes it appear that it is economical.

Sure, in the sense that a $75,000 car is more competitive with a $30,000 car than it would be if it cost $175,000.

Regards,
Shodan

GIGObuster · January 3, 2014, 4:43pm

That is his opinion still, and misinformed too. As science reporter Peter Hadfield showed a log time ago there is a very good reason why experts on other fields have be looked with suspicion when many of the items they mention are way off base.

History is full of many examples of powerful interests pushing opinions from expert looking guys that confuse many, FUD in action.

GIGObuster · January 3, 2014, 5:05pm

When I look at the context it is clear that the shutdowns are not complete or permanent, the context and other info also shows that people are still in support of this as the Prime Minister that oversees this was reelected. And that shows that this is more on the money:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Germany-Hits-59-Renewable-

Peak-Grid-Does-Not-Explode

Electricity prices plunge to 2.75 cents per kilowatt-hour as renewable energy dominates on Germany’s Reunification Day.

Eric Wesoff
October 30, 2013

Wind and solar power peaked at 59.1 percent of German power generation earlier this month, according to an analysis by Bernard Chabot which can be found here. It happened at noon on a very windy and sunny October 3, which is the German holiday commemorating reunification. (Germany also hit peaks of 61 percent, a record, and 59 percent earlier this year.)

Solar and wind provided 36.4 percent of total electricity generation over the entire day, with PV accounting for 11.2 percent.

The electrical grid appears intact but electricity prices took a tumble. According to Chabot of BCCONSULT, low demand from large conventional power plants drove the electricity price index covering Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland to 2.75 cents per kilowatt-hour at 2:00 p.m.

Germans Love Their Solar & Wind Power — Myth About Solar Subsidy ‘Backlash’ Is BS

Imagine this: your national and local economies are benefiting from a shift to renewable energy, your air and water are getting cleaner, your electric grid is becoming more democratized, you and your neighbors are benefiting financially from becoming solar power producers, you get to cast of the shackles of guilt that come from burning fossil fuels, and the whole world is looking up to you as the leader you are in stimulating a solar power market and bringing down solar power prices.

Surely, this all makes you want to change course 180° and badmouth the solar policy that got you there, right?

Of course not, but that’s what much of the US believes. That’s what fossil fuel and utility leaders in Germany and elsewhere are saying. That’s what conservative German politicians are saying. That’s what misinformed reporters are saying. But, quite frankly, that isn’t the case.

When you see talk of a “backlash to solar subsidies” in American media (all too common), you never actually see any polls or studies cited, do you? No, you simply receive quotes from conservative politicians, certain heads of the energy industry, sometimes anonymous sources in the energy industry, and professional disinformers.

And, from One of German Our Writers, Why Energy Prices Have Risen:

Respondents answered according to the following split:
33.6% – corperate greed, monopolies, market failure
22.9% — fundamental changes in energy markets (e.g. rising costs for fossil energy sources)
7.9% — renewable energy subsidies

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/poverty-an-issue-for-social-policy-not-energy-policy/150/537/73112/

The German welfare system would thus put a family of four nearly 50 percent above the poverty level in the United States, which was just over $23,000 a year in 2011 (PDF). For a single person living alone, the poverty level in the US was around $11,500, which is also a full 10 percent below the approximately $13,000 a year that that person would receive in Germany according to the online calculator above.

Here’s something the New York Times did not tell you: that German guy, who gets his power from the German subsidiary of Swedish firm Vattenfall, can switch power providers at the end of the month to get a cheaper offer. I went over to German electricity consumer portal Verivox to compare Vattenfall’s basic product in Berlin to the competition. The portal found 40 providers who would have been cheaper over the year, eleven of them by at least €12 euros a month.

So why are so many German households having their power cut off? How much is a lot? According to the latest figures (PDF), 312,059 households in Germany had their power cut off in 2011, equivalent to around 0.7 percent of the country’s roughly 40 million households. Unfortunately, there are almost no similar figures from the US. One occasionally stumbles across a trickle of examples, such as this report about Seattle from Wednesday, which says that Seattle City Light "cut power to about 7,000 households for nonpayment” in 2012, equivalent to around 1.7 percent of the utility’s roughly 400,000 metered customers. The reconnection fee in Seattle is $164, compared to the average of €32 (around $42) in Germany.

If things are not that bad, why are so many Germans up in arms about the cost of the energy transition? Germans are not up in arms about the cost of the energy transition. In fact, in the recent TV debate between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Social Democrat opponent, the issue “was hardly mentioned,” as an astonished (and otherwise also completely misinformed) journalist at the British Telegraph recently stated. The Germans realize that €10-20 a month is not much compared to the absolutely wild estimates of German liability in the current euro crisis, which one paper has put at up to €1 trillion (others say it is closer to 70 billion, which is still nearly €1,000 per person).

Germans have bigger problems than the cost of renewable electricity anyway. One major thing on the agenda is the cost of childcare. German news weekly Die Zeit published the results of a survey this week and says it was overwhelmed by reader participation – an obvious sign of how important this issue is. It turns out that households spend an average of €277-329 a month on kindergartens and day care centers. The cost of electricity pales in comparison, not to mention the extra cost of green power.

Healthcare costs are another major concern in Germany. German health insurers posted 1.2 billion euros in excess revenue last year, bringing their total stockpile of liquid reserves up to €29 billion at the end of June – equivalent to around €750 per household. Nonetheless, insurers continue to raise monthly insurance bills (mine have risen from just over €300 in 2009 to €420 a month now).

If Germans have so many other things to worry about, why are the media so focused on the cost of the energy transition? The media in Germany are not; we have very good reports over here on television and in the press, with the big exception being, unfortunately, Der Spiegel, which also happens to be one of the only German news organizations that publishes regularly in English.

ralph124c · January 3, 2014, 6:30pm

I wonder how much of this solar energy development is being driven by the shutdown of the German nuclear plants? The government is committed to shutting them down, and cola fired plants are verboten.
It sounds like Germany is looking to cripple itself, by tying its fortunes to unreliable wind and solar power.
Wind farms in Spain are being abandoned-I wonder when rationality will take over and lead to the adoption of clean, safe nuclear power?

GIGObuster · January 3, 2014, 6:54pm

Not really, one of the problems they have is one of overproduction of energy, hence the investments also directed to improve the electrical grid and recent news show that many critics were wrong with their prediction of rolling blackouts caused by that “problem” of overproduction on peak hours.

Nuclear power in Spain:

Spain is doing the right thing IMHO, nuclear power is still there and the long term plan is to wait until renewals increase to do any decommissions.

Speaking of solar and wind, it seems to me that while it is true that solar and wind are not developing much in Spain now, a look at the chart in the Wikipedia article shows that the most fair assessment is that the slowdown had a lot to do with the extreme recession in Spain (less power needed then, less demand to justify deploying more); and even with that, renewals are keeping the pace with nuclear, or, in other words, they are not being abandoned.

Chief_Pedant · January 3, 2014, 9:09pm

His conclusion is based on the facts about solar energy in Germany.

Which one is wrong, or misstated?

Your a priori decision to look at an expert “from another field” with “suspicion” reflects your pollyannish attitude toward all “good” news, and your ad hominen attacks on all who don’t bear that good news is quite a lame approach as opposed to pointing out which fact is wrong, and why.

Which fact, about Germany’s solar program, is false or misleading, suggesting that this review is biased?

To give you an example of two eye-openers: When you read rah rah articles about Germany’s solar, it sounds like they are producing an excess of solar energy to be sold off b/c the program is so successful, and the curve of adoption is climbing exponentially.

When you read the facts, you realize that less than 5% of their energy needs are being met by solar, the excess is causing a huge amount of waste, the public subsidy burden is enormous, the storage problem for excess energy isn’t even close to being solved, total carbon emissions will rise instead of fall for the forseeable future, the price of solar is so onerous thousands of people literally cannot afford electricity anymore, forests are being cut down in the name of environmentalism, and the growth curve for adoption is likely to level off sharply as the return for putting in solar diminishes…and for the most part no one is sacrificing anything of substance (except for the folks forced into sacrifice b/c they cannot afford electricity anymore).

Again; which fact is wrong, and what am I missing about the lack of success for this fabulous index case you’ve been touting the last few posts?

IMHO you’ve got blinders on, and your glasses are so rose colored that even a strategy like Germany’s that costs trillions, burns up forests, and adds to CO2 pollution looks beautiful to you. As Carlyle says, Germany’s solar solution gives ammunition to the enemy.

Damn facts…so hard to brush away with a wave of the ad hominem attack.

GIGObuster · January 3, 2014, 9:33pm

I already pointed at several, you are only showing all how adept you are at avoiding cites that contradict your uninformed position. His point about the number of people losing service was misleading in the extreme as in places of the USA with not much of a concerted effort have worse rates of people losing service. Hi implication that then Germans are opposed to this is also misleading as it is the omitted bit that many Germans see that number on the loss of service and realize that it is not as big as the contrarians say, and many look at ways to close that gap for the poor instead of dropping the developing of solar power.

That should had been enough to show how unreliable opinions shown at Forbes are. Your misrepresentation here is to claim that I do not look at the facts, the reality is that the sources you rely on do misrepresent the facts. Even by personal experience I can tell you that in many previous discussions I found Forbes and Der Spiegel mislead so much and push so much debunked information on this subject that it really makes look anyone relying on them for information on this issue are not deserving of attention.

Vahrenholt misrepresents the scientific evidence, in this case Kirkby and CERN’s results, which Kirkby himself states “says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.” The interviewer catches Vahrenholt in this misrepresentation, and Vahrenholt responds by claiming some research exists which supports his myth, and that the IPCC is ignoring it. In reality, the IPCC has discussed the issue in great detail, as demonstrated above.
Vahrenholt is Indeed Duped

In short, we end the way we began, wondering why anybody takes Vahrenholt’s comments on the climate seriously. Not only does he lack expertise in the subject, but he clearly has not done his research, and misrepresents most of the sources he references. Toward the end of the interview, Vahrenholt provides a comment which Der Spiegel used in the title of the article:
"...I feel duped."
Indeed Vahrenholt has been duped, by his own shoddy research, and has also duped many of his readers in the process.

Why some meteorologists still deny global warming

Just before Thanksgiving, many conservatives seized on a new study examining the climate views of members of the American Meteorological Society. It’s no secret that there’s a schism between climate scientists and weather forecasters over climate change, and the study captured this, to skeptics’ delight. The fact that a sizable percentage of AMS members disagree with mainstream climate science represented “the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist,” according to Forbes blogger and Heartland Institute fellow James Taylor.

Yet a closer look at the study—conducted by researchers at George Mason University, Yale, and the AMS itself—shows that its main punch line is quite different. The research was chiefly focused on trying to understand why the meteorological community as a whole (the AMS includes climate scientists, academic meteorologists, forecast meteorologists, and general atmospheric scientists, among others) features such disparate views on global warming. And one of its principal findings is that AMS members who publish less peer-reviewed climate research, or less peer-reviewed research in general, are more likely to be climate skeptics.

GIGObuster · January 3, 2014, 10:03pm

Ran out of edit time there:

I was saying that it should had been enough for that whopper about what that number of people losing service means in context.

It does show how unreliable opinions posted at Forbes are. Your misrepresentation here is to claim that I do not look at the facts, the reality is that the sources you rely on do misrepresent the facts.

Even by personal experience I can tell you that in many previous discussions I found Forbes and Der Spiegel to mislead so much and push so much debunked information on this subject that it makes anyone relying on them for information to be not reliable with their “say so’s” also.

I still remember a Google vomit full of Forbes’ debunked cites from an opponent in the past. And yes, all of them were full of misrepresentations and lies.

Shodan · January 3, 2014, 10:30pm

This is known as a tu quoque, and it is a logical fallacy.

It does nothing to refute the point that solar power is significantly more expensive than other sources of energy. Germany has chosen to pursue this nonetheless. Partly as a result, their rates are higher than the rest of Europe, who rely on more cost-effective sources of energy.

Your opinion on the value of cites that contradict you is duly noted, and given the weight it deserves.

And here is an example -

Who gives a shit? We’re talking about how much German solar power costs.

Regards,
Shodan

GIGObuster · January 3, 2014, 11:13pm

That is nice, I would say the writer was doing it. And you are avoid the rest of why it was misleading.

And in context the overall point about the rates is based on an exaggeration and misses a lot of context.

Apparently the Chief, you are ignoring that I’m replying to him. But you are intentionally ignoring that there is plenty of evidence to show that sources like Forbes and Der Spegel are unreliable besides being biased.

GIGObuster · January 3, 2014, 11:22pm

The point stands: that item of the 300,000 disconnections is misleading and on top of everything what the other cites report, Forbes does omit the context that it is not a big number compared to all the ones getting service, that people have the option to get help and change plans and politicians are looking to get more help to the needy and they do not plan to stop their solar development.

Chief_Pedant · January 4, 2014, 3:54am

So aside from disagreeing with the number of people who have lost power, you don’t find fault with the facts that:

Solar is insanely expensive in Germany, and as penetrated as it is only because of huge subsidies,
The country is increasing carbon output for the forseeable future because solar has only displaced nuclear
They are burning firewood (aka , forests) for 38% of their renewable energy
Their massive effort, projected to cost 4.5 Trillion dollars, is only producing 5% of their total energy so far and looks like it might taper off
Much of the overage on good days is wasted
There is no good way to store the overage
From an environmental standpoint, not one single thing has improved (unless you hate nuclear) and will not improve until some vague future date

Alrighty then…

I am not surprised other nations are not chasing Germany’s solar dream, and I am not surprised you love their example.

Do you have any other examples of how we can realistically win the war on global warming?

Do you have any numbers at all showing that this war can be won given the number of people who want more energy to live more comfortably?

Or is just a matter for you of ridiculing opposing views as “suspicious” and holding up your own experts as trustworthy?

May I recommend you stop quoting experts to promulgate your Great Cause and begin thinking/analyzing for yourself? It feels to me like a a zealot from any other religion faithfully quoting his religious leaders or Sacred Texts.

GIGObuster · January 4, 2014, 5:11am

Lets stop there as it is really instructive, you really are not reading or resorting to strawmen, I did not say that I disagreed with that number, only that it does not mean like what the misleading writer wanted you to get. And so I can begin to dismiss everything else you are misrepresenting.

The report I quoted showed why:

What I understand is that the Forbes opinion is implying that the cuts are here to stay and a result of the high prices, but then the German people are telling you that they do not see the renewals as the reason for the high prices.

The Forbes article does not tell you that in reality this is a situation similar to having to move to a different company when one can not continue with the one that likely had better service, but when one gets into hard times some can not continue with the old one. IIUC they then change to less expensive electric providers that do get support from the government to help poor people, the Forbes piece also does not tell their readers that this item regarding the poor is a blind spot for the welfare system as the system does not asks for the electricity expenses in their application, the groups that do help poor people over there are demanding that his be changed, but those same groups do not then demand that the investing in renewals to be stop.

Even they realize that that number is not as impressive as the misleading Forbes article makes it to be.

As for your “Do you have any other examples of how we can realistically win the war on global warming?” Did you notice that the Forbes guy does not offer any? He disparages the slow growth in the USA when in many places it is growing so fast that the power companies are relying on groups like ALEC to stop that progress.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/04/conservative-group-alec-pushes-stealth-tax-on-homeowners-who-install-solar-panels/

That would not be happening if the Forbes writer was accurate on his “I insist we examine the contrapositive: if solar power is only taking off slowly in the US, even with significant subsidies/incentives and one of the world’s best solar resources, then the Germans should be building even less solar capacity.” As a Nixon administration member could say, that say so is no longer operative.

The writer also reported how the system would fall apart, but once again that was not the truth as the latest reports tell us, and that is because the writer missed that Germany is also put the money in improving the grid.

And this is only touching a few of all the misrepresentations on the article you cited, you see, you are wrong in one basic thing, I do not jump to ad hominems first, first I look for whoppers like the 300,000 number as being a disaster and when I notice them it is then pertinent to mention how unreliable is the source that you are relying on. It is a lot like finding a brown M&M in the bowl.

And so it is in this example, finding that misrepresentation of that number told me to look for other botched lines from the Forbes article, not hard to find.

Chief_Pedant · January 4, 2014, 4:11pm

The number of people having their electricity cutoff has little or nothing to do with why solar is a disaster in Germany. It’s an incidental, isolated fact presented in that Forbes article.

Germany’s solar initiative is a disaster b/c:

Solar is insanely expensive in Germany, and as penetrated as it is only because of huge subsidies,
The country is increasing carbon output for the forseeable future because solar has only displaced nuclear,
They are burning firewood (aka , forests) for 38% of their renewable energy
Their massive effort, projected to cost 4.5 Trillion dollars, is only producing 5% of their total energy so far and looks like the growth curve might taper off
Much of the overage on good days is wasted
There is no good way to store the overage
From an environmental standpoint, not one single thing has improved (unless you hate nuclear) and will not improve until some vague future date

These, and other, facts are sobering when Germany is your archetype of a job well done and an AGW solution well-implemented.

As with many alarmists, you want to pick on some isolated “misrepresentation” so that you can dismiss out of hand any sobering realities.

As I mentioned, this is classic Great Cause behaviour. Your enthusiasm for Saving the World is admirable. The ability to save it from AGW gasses may be theoretically possible, but it won’t happen because we will not make collective sacrifices to live less comfortably until we solve the energy grid.

Germany is a great example of not solving the energy grid, and why currently there is no realistic way to win the fight against AGW. The effort in Germany should certainly help in the long run, because they are in the vanguard, and they are basically taking a “money is no object” approach. But to pretend their current solution is a success is bullshit. It couldn’t possibly be replicated anywhere with less money, particularly given the complete lack of AGW gas reduction so far.

Simply because neither Carlyle nor I have the “right answer” for how to solve this problem does not mean bullshit is an acceptable answer.

GIGObuster · January 4, 2014, 5:35pm

As you missed the point of the M&M it is not surprising, that was also a warning for you, Carlyle is not telling the whole history and so it leads to misleading bullshit declarations.

Most of your and his Gish gallop do have misrepresentations and as I pointed out we only have scratched the surface, indeed I was not lying about other botched lines, most of of your points remark on problems that are being solved, and already responded in previous cites.

So we will look why yet another point of those that is also a whopper from Forbes:

Grossly misinformed, if we want to be generous.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/u-s-energy-policy-should-take-a-lesson-from-germany-s-energiewende.html

Well I guess you will resort now to the old “that has little or nothing to do with why solar is a disaster in Germany.” like the misrepresentation of the number of people losing power, only that this sorry point looks like a deception, not a misrepresentation coming from Forbes and the other sources you rely on.

Chief_Pedant · January 5, 2014, 5:40am

GIGObuster:

As you missed the point of the M&M it is not surprising, that was also a warning for you, Carlyle is not telling the whole history and so it leads to misleading bullshit declarations.

Most of your and his Gish gallop do have misrepresentations and as I pointed out we only have scratched the surface, indeed I was not lying about other botched lines, most of of your points remark on problems that are being solved, and already responded in previous cites.

So we will look why yet another point of those that is also a whopper from Forbes:
"Originally Posted by Chief Pedant
4. Their massive effort, projected to cost 4.5 Trillion dollars, is only producing 5% of their total energy so far and looks like the growth curve might taper off"

Grossly misinformed, if we want to be generous.
Well I guess you will resort now to the old “that has little or nothing to do with why solar is a disaster in Germany.” like the misrepresentation of the number of people losing power, only that this sorry point looks like a deception, not a misrepresentation coming from Forbes and the other sources you rely on.

Not sure (as usual) what point you are making above…

Germany’s solar power produces something like 5.3 % ( as of July 2012) of their total electricity demand. The various other numbers you see for solar power are happy numbers like a summer day at peak consumption, or something. I believe the hope is that by 2050 this might rise to 25%.

The “renewables” you mention include such things as burning forests–some biomass energy in Germany is from burning firewood (because a forest counts as renewable).

As to jobs: any huge government investment can create jobs. I believe part of the current pain Germany is experiencing over solar is that China is undercutting German solar panel manufacturers, and that some of those jobs are being lost, currently.

Chief_Pedant · January 5, 2014, 6:01am

And just a reminder that Germany’s CO2 emissions have grown the last two years…they are getting rid of nuclear, so they have to burn more coal and build more coal plants.

Source here.

We are not going to freeze our asses off while we figure out greener ways to avoid global warming.

*"To fill the gap, her government wants utilities to build 10,000 megawatts of modern gas- and coal-fired generators this decade, replacing older plants. She also unleashed a boom in wind and solar power construction.

Coal vs Gas

So far, mainly coal plants have gotten the go-ahead. Gas plants, which run mostly in the middle of the day when demand peaks, are losing money as the surging number of wind and solar plants flood the grid with cheap power.

Operators of coal-fired plants will make a profit of 8.89 euros a megawatt-hours if they run their units next month, based on current coal, power and emission prices for the period. Gas-fired plants post a loss of 18.74 euros a megawatt-hour, according to a calculation by Bloomberg.

“Climate change has quite frankly slipped to the back burner of policy priorities,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said on June 10.

Coal is favored because the cost of pollution is so low. Certificates to offset a ton of CO2 on the European Union emissions control market have averaged $4.32 so far this year compared with $17.18 in 2008."*

GIGObuster · January 5, 2014, 6:03am

And just a reminder that I already replied to that.

Topic		Replies	Views
Global Warming - Let's talk specifics Great Debates	11	1494	February 23, 2007
Simple global warming question Great Debates	22	904	June 25, 2004
Anthropogenic global warming: what difference does it make? The BBQ Pit	37	2813	November 14, 2007
Can anthropogenic global climate change be signficantly mitigated? Great Debates	35	1421	April 22, 2007
What will it (realistically) take: Global Warming Great Debates	59	2510	June 29, 2006

Is there any realistic way to fight global warming?

Related topics