Suffering because of climate change?

[retep]

About as handy as a wet fart,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/27/colossal_expensive_windfarms_produce_whopping_one_percent_of_eu_energy/

[unbeliever]

 

Probably due to green taxes.

 

What facts have I dismissed?

[El Cid]

What facts have I dismissed?

 

 

You seem to know more about Norways green subsidies than wiki

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway

[Cyclone]

I think energy efficient homes and low emission vehicles are good for all society, even if climate change does not exist, dont you?

 

I prefer to think about the entire lifetime environmental impact.

 

Strip mining China in order to make the batteries for zero emissions cars, that are charged with power from a coal fired power station isn't exactly environmentally friendly when you consider the big picture.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2015 at 11:41 ----------

 

The fundamentals of climate change are sound, and the taxes on co2 help asthmatics breath easier, and people and live happier and longer.

 

Really. Perhaps this is why the discussion is floundering. You don't seem to really know much about the topic...

[unbeliever]

You seem to know more about Norways green subsidies than wiki

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway

 

google "energy subsidies norway"

They subsidise both fossil and renewables heavily. The renewables are especially heavily subsidised. Their electricity is expensive, but they pay for a lot of it through taxes rather than bills. They also have a surplus of gas which is bound to make their fossil power cheaper.

 

"Green taxes" have actually driven people out of petrol cars and into diesel cars over the last 10-20 years. The diesel cars are much, much worse for air quality, but they produce less CO2.

Still think climate change driven policy is good for Asthma and general health?

 

Are you not worried about paying more for electricity than rent, being permanently priced out of car ownership, seeing the price of absolutely everything rise dramatically, and massive state spending cuts to free up money for new low CO2 infrastructure?

Edited July 31, 2015 by unbeliever

[TimmyR]

google "energy subsidies norway"

Are you not worried about paying more for electricity than rent, being permanently priced out of car ownership, seeing the price of absolutely everything rise dramatically, and massive state spending cuts to free up money for new low CO2 infrastructure?

 

And what evidence do you have that that will happen?

 

All of the above could result from diminishing supply of fossil fuels, surely heavy investment in renewable technologies, efficient homes, electric cars i.e. low CO2 infrastructure could well help keep the economy buoyant should the supply of fossil fuels become jeopardized.

Edited July 31, 2015 by TimmyR

[El Cid]

And what evidence do you have that that will happen?

 

None, because the Government dare not even tax aviation fuel. There is no solution to climate change, other than reducing the population, and that is very unlikely too.

[TimmyR]

None, because the Government dare not even tax aviation fuel. There is no solution to climate change, other than reducing the population, and that is very unlikely too.

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of your first point and I think your second point is a bit defeatist.

 

There's three possibilities looking at this simply:

 

Don't do anything about climate change. Climate change happens due to human activity and kills many, economies collapse etc

Don't do anything about climate change, climate change doesnt happen we're all happy and no cost to world economies

Do do something about climate change, climate change doesn't happen we're all happy but there is a cost to world economies.

 

It is wise to risk the first merely to avoid the third?

Edited July 31, 2015 by TimmyR

[unbeliever]

And what evidence do you have that that will happen?

 

All of the above could result from diminishing supply of fossil fuels, surely heavy investment in renewable technologies, efficient homes, electric cars i.e. low CO2 infrastructure could well help keep the economy buoyant should the supply of fossil fuels become jeopardized.

 

As El Cid helpfully pointed out on the other thread, Norway is the a particularly heavy user of renewables. They spend £9 billion per year on renewable subsidies to get their electricity cost down to reasonable levels.

They have a gas (and oil) surplus.

The population of Norway is 5 million. £9 billion is almost £2000 per man, woman and child in the country. That's more than we spend on electricity and gas combined.

And that's with a system which still makes heavy use of fossil fuels.

 

Renewable energy is extremely expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_o...city_by_source

On top of that you have the completely unfunded need for a massive energy storage system for when it's neither windy (or too windy), nor sunny.

Energy storage is insanely expensive.

These costs are unavoidable. My predictions as to the personal financial consequences for the UK people are entirely justified.

 

The supply of natural gas is vast. The lithium for the batteries needed for the electric cars is likely to run out long before we run low on methane.

 

If you must reduce CO2, nuclear is the only practical way. It's only about twice as expensive as fossil and doesn't have an intermittency problem.

 

---------- Post added 31-07-2015 at 12:24 ----------

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of your first point and I think your second point is a bit defeatist.

 

There's three possibilities looking at this simply:

 

Don't do anything about climate change. Climate change happens due to human activity and kills many, economies collapse etc

Don't do anything about climate change, climate change doesnt happen we're all happy and no cost to world economies

Do do something about climate change, climate change doesn't happen we're all happy but there is a cost to world economies.

 

It is wise to risk the first merely to avoid the third?

 

This is a variant on Pascal's wager.

I think when you consider the scale of the costs involved, you'll see that the third is far more likely and far more devastating than you think.

 

But set that aside. We can switch to nuclear. It's expensive, but not economically devastating like renewables.

The fourth option: Spend a sensible amount of money over a reasonable period on something that we know will work.

If CAGW does turn out to be correct, we've lost far less and there's no great harm done.

 

How about a fifth: The increase in average global temperatures is due to AGW+nature. We spend vast amounts of money all but eliminating AGW and the temperature keeps rising (more accurately starts rising again since it's hardly budged in the last 20 years). This effect "kills many, economies collapse etc" and we can't cope because we spent all our money on wind farms and solar panels.

Edited July 31, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

It is wise to risk the first merely to avoid the third?

 

I do agree in green taxes, because they mean people may use cars less, and home insulation saves people money, and the fewer resources that we use, the better it is for biodiversity which brings great joys and helps keep the food chain stable.