Nocturtle posted:

quote:

Next ‘Renewable Energy’: Burning Forests, if Senators Get Their Way

The president’s plan to reduce emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation’s power sector could be undone within a matter of weeks by an unlikely bipartisan collection of senators that includes staunch Republican climate change deniers as well as Democrats who support the administration’s strategy.

What’s the problem? They want to force the government to assume that burning forests to generate electricity does not add carbon dioxide to the air but is instead “carbon neutral.” As long as forests that have been cleared are regrown rather than turned into, say, subdivisions, language proposed by the senators argues that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department should recognize the wood and other organic matter pulled from a forest “as a renewable energy source.”

If they succeed, from next year to 2030 they will have added a cumulative total of at least 830 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air, according to calculations by the Partnership for Public Integrity, an energy policy analysis group, based on a model used by the government’s Energy Information Administration to assess the impact of the Clean Power Plan.

That amounts to 64 million additional tons of carbon dioxide a year, on average, about the same amount that was produced by forest fires in the lower 48 states in 2013. It makes for a big hole in a plan that is supposed to cut annual emissions from the power sector by some 250 million tons between now and 2030.

...

“It’s a double whammy, because you remove an active sink that was sucking carbon out of the air,” said Mary S. Booth, director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, which opposes the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral. “Under the most conservative assumptions you are worse off for 40 to 50 years.”

The world simply does not have that kind of time.

eNeMeE posted:

It's too little too late because per capita only matters if it results in absolute decreases and that graph looks like it shows population/gdp increasing faster than required to make the overall multiplier 1 or lower (about 1.1 from a quick look).

Actually it's too little too late because we've done hosed up a long time ago but at least there's some progress.

Nocturtle posted:

You don't have to wonder about the absolute change in emissions, from the same page:


There was a small decrease in absolute US emissions around 2006 onwards (primarily CO2) but still slightly up compared to 1990. It was absolutely not enough, but the point is that there was in fact some progress. My guess is most of the declines in per capita emissions were due to inflated oil prices. If so it's a good argument for a carbon tax, although good luck getting that through US congress.

Relatedly (inexplicably?) the Canadian federal govt announced a national carbon tax to be implemented by 2018. It's likely to be just lip-service, but it's something.

edit beaten

Uncle Jam posted:

How is moving major pollutants off shore to other countries progress? Like who even makes these country by country normalized graphs? It's complete garbage.

Paradoxish posted:

I like how almost half of conservative republicans agree that climate scientists should have a major role in policy making, but less than 20% think that climate scientists understand whether climate change is occurring or what its causes are. Also 85% of those conservative republicans who want climate scientists to be involved in policy making also don't trust them to provide full and accurate information?

Forever_Peace posted:

New poll out today.



"One thing that doesn’t strongly influence opinion on climate issues, perhaps surprisingly, is one’s level of general scientific literacy. According to the survey, the effects of having higher, medium or lower scores on a nine-item index of science knowledge tend to be modest and are only sometimes related to people’s views about climate change and climate scientists, especially in comparison with party, ideology and concern about the issue. But, the role of science knowledge in people’s beliefs about climate matters is varied and where a relationship occurs, it is complex. To the extent that science knowledge influences people’s judgments related to climate change and trust in climate scientists, it does so among Democrats, but not Republicans. For example, Democrats with high science knowledge are especially likely to believe the Earth is warming due to human activity, to see scientists as having a firm understanding of climate change, and to trust climate scientists’ information about the causes of climate change. But Republicans with higher science knowledge are no more or less likely to hold these beliefs. Thus, people’s political orientations also tend to influence how knowledge about science affects their judgments and beliefs about climate matters and their trust in climate scientists.
...
People’s views about climate scientists, as well as their beliefs about the likely effects of climate change and effective ways to address it, are explained especially by their political orientation and their personal concerns with the issue of climate change. There are no consistent differences or only modest differences in people’s views about these issues by other factors including gender, age, education and people’s general knowledge of science topics."

Trabisnikof posted:

That's not what is happening. Most of the climate emissions come from areas like electricity or transportation that you can't export.

Instead it is that we had economic downturn and also natural gas replacing coal.

Paradoxish posted:

I like how almost half of conservative republicans agree that climate scientists should have a major role in policy making, but less than 20% think that climate scientists understand whether climate change is occurring or what its causes are. Also 85% of those conservative republicans who want climate scientists to be involved in policy making also don't trust them to provide full and accurate information?

Uncle Jam posted:

Seriously? If country A opens factories, it needs new powerplants and more transportation of raw materials to feed it. If country B then starts importing from A it can close factories, reduce workload on powerplants, and needs less transportation. This is such a large area of contention it is unbelievable that someone like you who always posts in this thread doesn't know about it.

goo.gl/7qQumW

Uncle Jam posted:

How is moving major pollutants off shore to other countries progress? Like who even makes these country by country normalized graphs? It's complete garbage.

Nocturtle posted:

I sort of agree, but the nation-specfic numbers are useful to evaluate the impact (or lack thereof) of policy. Also in this particular case recent reductions in US carbon emissions were largely due to switching from coal to natural gas for domestic electric power generation ie not outsourcing.

edit beaten geez

Trabisnikof posted:

It's more you're saying "we can't slow down enough!!!" and other people saying "it is still worthwhile trying to apply the brake!"

Basically this:

call to action posted:

Not really, it's more like "there are no brakes on this car but maybe there will be before we crash"

call to action posted:

Not really, it's more like "there are no brakes on this car but maybe there will be before we crash"

Trabisnikof posted:

Are you arguing that it is physically impossible to meaningfully reduce our emissions with current technology or that we lack the political and social will?

TildeATH posted:

This whole thing happened because people like you try to section off social and political will as somehow extrinsic to the problem in a way that technology is somehow not.

What I mean to say is that it has been possible to reduce emissions with current technology for 100 years. That's a given, and not in question, and therefore not germane to the discussion.

Trabisnikof posted:

Most everything we can do now won't go far enough, but that's because the scale of our problem and the realities of systemic inertia, but that inertia is the exact reason we must act and act now in all the ways we political and socially can even if those ways aren't perfect or "enough".

Trabisnikof posted:

No it does matter that we can technically do it, that's something people dispute. The fact that it is a social/political issue is of critical importance to understand because it helps us reject anti-action arguments based on us needing "magical technology." We don't need magical technology.


So to circle back to the social/political obstacles, you're right the issue is a lack of will. But you're wrong that past inaction proves future inaction. Just because we haven't gotten out poo poo together enough doesn't mean we never will.

Of course, I am tempted to list the massive and meaningful shifts in policy, society and politics surrounding climate change that occurred in the last few years. But usually the response is to point out that the shift isn't complete and that there is work to be done, as evidence that the work already done is meaningless.

Let's say one of the top 10 largest economies, one with a history of successful and dogged regulation of decades long air emissions reduction projects, set into place carbon equivalent emissions caps by mass well below 1995 emissions levels by 2030 and empowered regulators to achieve that goal. I would argue that'd be a success and would be sign of the impending future of climate regulation. I feel like many in this thread would call it a failure for not going far enough.

Most everything we can do now won't go far enough, but that's because the scale of our problem and the realities of systemic inertia, but that inertia is the exact reason we must act and act now in all the ways we political and socially can even if those ways aren't perfect or "enough".

rscott posted:

if we're in that same situation with carbon taxes and caps in 2060 we're hosed

quote:

"Even if we meet every target, we will only get to part of where we need to go," he said. "This agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worse consequences of climate change will help other nations ratchet down their emissions over time over time."

Freezer posted:

"...so let's keep pressing the accelerator because why not"

Hello Sailor posted:

Unless it's an initiative to try and get people to stop breeding quite so much.

Forever_Peace posted:

Canada just priced carbon across the whole country.

A few provinces have already been doing so for years (I discussed this here a few weeks ago), but now every province is required to price carbon emissions within a year and a half with a minimum price standard that increases fivefold over the first couple of years of the program.

Yay Canada!

Freezer posted:

"...so let's keep pressing the accelerator because why not"

call to action posted:

Basically. It's both physically/technically impossible to remove carbon at the scale we need within the time constraints we have AND we lack the political will.

Trabisnikof posted:

Want to back up your statement about it being physically/technically impossible with a citation or two? Because all the peer reviewed studies I've seen say otherwise.

call to action posted:

Oh OK, I'm not a scientist so I don't read peer reviewed studies since I'm not capable of fully understanding them. That's cool that you are, though.

That said, sure, go ahead and link to studies that say that carbon capture and sequestration plants can be brought online in time in sufficient scale to avoid catastrophe.

Forever_Peace posted:

Canada just priced carbon across the whole country.

A few provinces have already been doing so for years (I discussed this here a few weeks ago), but now every province is required to price carbon emissions within a year and a half with a minimum price standard that increases fivefold over the first couple of years of the program.

Yay Canada!

parcs posted:

What does Canada plan to do with the revenue from a carbon tax?

quote:

Provincial governments that have implemented carbon taxes get to keep that revenue, while the federal government said it will also return funds from any federally-imposed carbon tax to the jurisdiction of origin.

British Columbia’s system is designed to be revenue neutral, meaning the government will take in no extra money from the tax and instead return it through tax cuts and credits. Alberta’s system returns some of the costs to lower-income consumers in the form of a rebate, and small business taxes have been reduced from three per cent to two per cent to help offset costs. But about two-thirds will go toward spending more generally on diversifying the economy, including on renewable energy, transit infrastructure and energy efficiency measures.

quote:

British Columbia’s system is designed to be revenue neutral, meaning the government will take in no extra money from the tax and instead return it through tax cuts and credits

parcs posted:

A carbon tax whose revenue doesn't get directed specifically towards long-term investments in sustainability, conservation and renewable energy doesn't sound very useful to me (from a mitigation perspective).


This one sounds particularly useless.

parcs posted:

A carbon tax whose revenue doesn't get directed specifically towards long-term investments in sustainability, conservation and renewable energy doesn't sound very useful to me (from a mitigation perspective).


This one sounds particularly useless.

Forever_Peace posted:

Reducing emissions is pretty useful and important. Pricing carbon almost certainly reduces emissions.

CrashCat posted:

Does it? Or does it just encourage creative endeavors to get around the system?

Not trying to be snarky, I legitimately don't know how they protect against abuse.