Cutting Back on Carbon

Cutting Back on Carbon[/B

by Paul Krugman | nytimes | May 29, 2014
Excerpts:

"Next week the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce new rules designed to limit global warming. Although we don't know the details yet, anti-environmental groups are already predicting vast costs and economic doom. Don't believe them. Everything we know suggests that we can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy.

Just ask the United States Chamber of Commerce.

O.K., that's not the message the Chamber of Commerce was trying to deliver in the report it put out Wednesday. It clearly meant to convey the impression that the E.P.A's new rules would wreak havoc. But if you focus on the report's content rather than its rhetoric, you discover that despite the chamber's best efforts to spin things - the report almost surely overstates the real cost of climate protection - the numbers are remarkably small.

Specifically, the report considers a carbon-reduction program that's probably considerably more ambitious than we're actually going to see, and it concludes that between now and 2030 the program would cost $50.2 billion in constant dollars per year. That's supposed to sound like a big deal. These days, it's just not a lot of money.

Remember, we have a $17 trillion economy right now, and it's going to grow over time. So what the Chamber of Commerce is actually saying is that we can take dramatic steps on climate - steps that would transform international negotiations, setting the stage for global action - while reducing our incomes by only one-fifth of 1 percent. That's cheap!

Alternatively, consider the chamber's estimate of costs per household: $200 per year. Since the average American household has an income of more than $70,000 a year, and that's going to rise over time, we're again looking at costs that amount to no more than a small fraction of 1 percent.

One more useful comparison: The Pentagon has warned that global warming and its consequences pose a significant threat to national security. Republicans in the House responded with a legislative amendment that would forbid the military from even thinking about the issue.)Currently, we're spending $600 billion a year on defense. Is it really extravagant to spend another 8 percent of that budget to reduce a serious threat?

And all of this is based on anti-environmentalists' own numbers. The real costs would almost surely be smaller, for three reasons.

First, the Chamber of Commerce study assumes that economic growth, and the associated growth in emissions, will be at its historic norm of 2.5 percent a year. But we should expect slower growth in the future as baby boomers retire, making emissions targets easier to hit.

Second, in the chamber's analysis, the bulk of the reduction in emissions comes from replacing coal with natural gas. This neglects the dramatic technological progress taking place in renewables, especially solar power, which should make cutting back on carbon even easier.

Third, the U.S. economy is still depressed - and in a depressed economy many of the supposed costs of compliance with energy regulations aren't costs at all. In particular, building new, low-emission power plants would employ both workers and capital that would otherwise be sitting idle, and would, if anything, give the U.S. economy a boost.

You might ask why the Chamber of Commerce is so fiercely opposed to action against global warming, if the cost of action is so small. The answer, of course, is that the chamber is serving special interests, notably the coal industry - what's good for America isn't good for the Koch brothers, and vice versa - and also catering to the ever more powerful anti-science sentiments of the Republican Party.

Finally, let me take on the anti-environmentalists' last line of defense - the claim that whatever we do won't matter, because other countries, China in particular, will just keep on burning ever more coal. This gets things exactly wrong.

Yes, we need an international agreement to reduce emissions, including sanctions on countries that don't sign on. But U.S. unwillingness to act has been the biggest obstacle to such an agreement. If we start taking serious steps against global warming, the stage will be set for Europe and Japan to follow suit, and for concerted pressure on the rest of the world as well.

We can be reasonably sure, however, that the economic costs of the proposal will be small, because that's what the research - even research paid for by anti-environmentalists tells us. Saving the planet would be remarkably cheap."

read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/krugman-cutting-back-on-carbon.html?_r=0
.....
BREAKING: EPA to Propose 30% Cut in Carbon Emissions. Backlash From State Lawmakers Already Begins.
see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
.....

IMO: We are decades behind in our start on global warming, and we must start ASAP to negate the harmful effects that are already shiwing up in flooding, severe and violent storms, hail in May in the South, mudslides, snow, exceptional tornado activity, and earthquakes are rapidly becoming commonplace.

We play with contamination of our grazing and farming lands, water sources, migratory trails for wild animals, and clear cutting of forests that is so detrimental to our planet, while the frenzied mining, fracking, intense pollution, pipeline building that will carry future tons of thick, glue-like mud in railroad cars and down the entire breadth of America

This is our wake-up call to clean up America's soil, water and air polluton without the intervention of the republicans in Congress and the Koch brothers.

 

Mitch McConnell ain't gonna like it - gonna cost too many coal mining jobs...

Obama unveils historic rules to reduce coal pollution by 30%
Monday 2 June 2014 • New EPA rules spur prospects for deal to end climate change • Climate groups welcome 'momentous development' • Coal lobbyists say plans will create new US energy crisis

See also:

Senators Predict 'Pain' for Americans as a Result of New EPA Rule
June 2, 2014 - U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) says that President Obama's new regulations on carbon emissions from existing power plants as part of his Climate Action Plan will be a big blow to Americans' pocketbooks.

 

Was the consumer ever consulted about this?

Who believes that old Enron advisor?

 

Theyre still gonna mine the coal, but theyre gonna sell it, so it can be used in other countries to pollute the atmosphere for all.

 

First, a general comment about this thread; The author of the article, and of the OP, are more about politics than about science and economy. It makes NO difference if comments or opposition or support on these discussions stem from D's or R's or anyone for that matter...because everyone is entitled to their opinions/positions. The ONLY thing that matters is to establish current metrics and set goals for future metrics, both of which are not mentioned in the article or OP. What are the PPM carbon pollution in the US today and what PPM carbon do we demand on various dates in the future? If we don't quantify the metrics then it's all political smoke and mirrors...

 

It's all just a "Christmas tree" on which to hang more taxes and regulations.

therefore, it's pure evil.

 

This is lib stupidity at its goofiest.

Thousands will lose their job, the standard of loving will go down for everyone, and the atmosphere will never notice the difference.

Obama is a moron.

 

Automobiles are a huge polluter to, so why not raise the gasoline tax by $3.00 and beef up tax deductions for those who must have a vehicle to work and travel and use that to fund mass transportation in urbanized areas? Once we get people on light commuter rail, buses and other options like that it will reduce carbon emissions. And if people want to drive they can pay for the privilege the tax deductions can cover those who must drive.

 

Still more alarmism based, not on what can be done, but on what makes someone feel better.

Coal use is predicted to rise 2.3%. Obama says the US is leading in climate change mitigation madness but no one else is following. The plan is to reduce our carbon emissions to 'fundamentally change America as we know it', but it will do little to change carbon output worldwide. What a joke.

 

The hyperlibs think that if they're not working in a coal mine that their jobs are not threatened. I know the educational system in this country has been a pile of **** with flies on it, but how in the world did we ever manage to bring up two generations of Obama-lovers that could be so stupid?! For one thing, carbon dioxide, which is a natural compound that is necessary for life on this planet, makes up slightly less than .04% of the Earth's atmosphere! Does that miniscule amount of carbon require all this insanity that President Bonehead is dictating today?!

Yes, President Brain Fart has decided that the 40% of the United States that gets its electrical power from coal-fired energy generation plants are going to have to abandon that and start paying double or triple to get energy from some other source. Solar. Biomass. Wind. Nuclear. The kind of thing that his big-rich, "limousine liberals" have been hawking since he first stumbled through the Oath of Office in 2009.... Forget about the fact that "air pollution" has virtually ceased to be a problem in this country, and it hasn't been a problem nearly everywhere in the United States for at least thirty years!

SO -- now, let's pretend that YOUR employer just got the bad news from his ops people that his energy costs are going to go up somewhere between 200% - 300%. Unless your boss has just been running the business as a "hobby", with no regard to whether it makes money or not, YOU, the employees, are as vulnerable to having your jobs slaughtered as baby lambs in the middle of a pack of wolves. NOW do you get the picture...?

But don't worry... President Marvelous will simply add you to his roll of parasites and leeches in the great Democrat Welfare State and you'll be given a subsistence living allowance for the rest of your miserable life.... After all, for some reason, only understandable to someone with Obama's mentality, it is WE who are responsible for air pollution over Beijing, right?!

 

[video=youtube;o7gbjOEsXAg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gbjOEsXAg[/video]

Report: Climate change imperils nation’s historic, cultural landmarks

WASHINGTON -- Saying there’s a “race against time,” an advocacy group said this week that climate change – leading to sea level rise and worsening wildfires – is putting some of the nation’s most significant historical sites at risk.

Highlighting archeological and other historical sites in Florida, California and several other states, a report released Tuesday by the Union of Concerned Scientists said that rising waters and raging flames could undermine some of the nation’s most-cherished locations.

“You can almost trace the history of the United States through these sites,” Adam Markham, director of climate impacts at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a co-author of the report, said in a statement. “The imminent risks to these sites and the artifacts they contain threaten to pull apart the quilt that tells the story of the nation’s heritage and history.”

Among the 30 sites at risk, according to the report…

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/20/4125357/report-climate-change-imperils.html#storylink=cpy

 

More fear mongering. Too bad they are at odds with the IPCC trying to blame weather on climate change.

 

No matter how much carbon the US conserves it won't make a lick of difference on a global scale. Yes, the air will be cleaner in places, but our air is pretty damn clean already. Without China and India on board our efforts are essentially meaningless, especially if it negatively effects our economy, which will just fuel China LAUGHING at us even more. South America is one giant *$(#)@#hole, where people actually live, subtracting for small tourist destinations.

 

you didn't watch the video, it's not weather, there was no rain when that was shot

that was tidal water at low tide, sea level has risen 8 inches in the last 60 years

 

Really? 8 inches in the last 60 years? You do realize that land moves up and down too don't you and Florida has been pumping out all of their fresh water.

 

maybe you should look at the ipcc report



IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 2014

Historical climate metrics

It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983—2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1400 years.

It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010. This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.

It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.

There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millennia.

Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.

Total radiative forcing of the earth system, relative to 1750, is positive and the most significant driver is the increase in CO2's atmospheric concentration.


Predictions

Further warming will continue if emissions of greenhouse gases continue.

The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios

The global water cycle will change, with increases in disparity between wet and dry regions, as well as wet and dry seasons, with some regional exceptions.

The oceans will continue to warm, with heat extending to the deep ocean, affecting circulation patterns.
Decreases are very likely in Arctic sea ice cover, Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover, and global glacier volume

Global mean sea level will continue to rise at a rate very likely to exceed the rate of the past four decades
Changes in climate will cause an increase in the rate of CO2 production. Increased uptake by the oceans will increase the acidification of the oceans.

Future surface temperatures will be largely determined by cumulative CO2, which means climate change will continue even if CO2 emissions are stopped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

 

So, since sea level rise has slowed (which is being blamed on the hiatus) why is sea level rise no different than before the onset of the increase in CO2 starting in the 1950's which is the basis for all of this hysteria?

 

it's not hysteria, it's science

 

Hey the late 90s and early 00s called they want their political issue back.

 

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." --- Barack HUSSEIN Obama, 2008

 

Here we see the ultimate goal of the left.

Their dream is the same as Marx, and Lenin and Mao.

 

Total domination of the people by a communist dictatorship.

 

Cutting Back on Carbon = Cutting back on LIBERTY.

In this case, it's impossible for you leftists so surrender yours without stealing mine.

 

And it only rises on the lower coast of Florida? Perhaps it is due to something else besides a global rise in sea level? Does the water only rise on one end of the bath tube when you add water?