Thursday, October 14, 2010
Changing course towards Hartwell
Subsidize research in clean technologies through a carbon tax. It seems that the ideas in The Hartwell paper are gaining some traction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads : " I have bee...
-
Lennart Bengtsson sent me this manuscript and asked for publication. Maybe a few words about who Lennart Bengtsson is are in order. He i... -
CLIMATE CHANGE ARBITRATION BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA by Alex HARVEY h/t GoRight Recent events in the labyrinthine world of the Wikipedia c...
-
In a previous thread, we were discussing the claims of desmoblog.com, which presented leaked e-mails and documents supposedly originating ...
-
The discussion on the thread " hottest year on record " has moved away from the original topic and has focussed on the merits, an...
-
I have a short piece in Nature Geoscience with the title 'Climate change as a wicked social problem'. Here is the link http://rdcu....
-
Das Umweltbundesamt hat eine Broschüre herausgebracht mit dem Titel: " Und sie erwärmt sich doch. Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den ...
-
With the fifth assessment report soon to be released by the IPCC the pre-publication buzz is well underway. A while ago unauthorised dr...
-
Some readers have expressed their interest in discussion about the recent paper on climate reconstructions methods A statistical analysis of...
-
The Guardian has a short article on this issue. Damian Carrington reports that '2016 will very likely be the hottest year on reco...
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
6 comments:
You call that "traction"? Just another green dream.
"When Mr. Hayward and I were talking, I asked whether he could imagine Republican leaders’ supporting more research spending no matter where the money came from. Probably not in the near future, he acknowledged. For now, Republicans will focus on shrinking government.
But at some point, maybe if oil prices spike, Mr. Hayward thinks the party may well be interested in a policy that fosters innovation, creates jobs and helps national security."
The CAGW propaganda is effectively dead in the US. A Republican takeover of the house will assure it. It will just be the Europeans who will be paying the extra money for green indulgence for electricity.
I spend my summer in Austria and pay 0.23 Euro per KW, while in Arizona (winter residence) I pay 0.11 US $/KW (< 0.08 Euro).
Harald
CO2fan
Maybe you can be a bit clearer what you mean by "CAGW propaganda". Do you mean this to include climate policies, or alternative energy technologies?
It irritates me that the AEI promotes government spending into green energy. Until now, they have always been firmly set against AGW.
The US don't have any CO2-legislation (everyone else now has Cap&Trade. Weren't it the US who insisted on a market based solution and then not implementing it?), and they won't have any at least for the next 2 years. Since there is not a single republican member of Congress not doubting AGW.
The technology tune of the Hartwell paper had already been sung by the Bush/Cheney administration, and nothing ever happened. Instead it was deregulation for the oil industry, more pollution, less restrictions, less safety, less everything (as long as "everything" doesn't include CO2 or dead soldiers).
The Hartwell paper itself makes me curse myself for wasting my time with it.
And, furthermore: A Republican party becoming even more extremely libertarian than they were anyway will not spend government money on green energy. They spend money on oil, coal, military and tax cuts. It's hard to see how that could possibly change.
The only reason that I can imagine is the spending of the DOD, esp. the Navy, concerning renewable energy investments.
There is only one reasonable energy policy. And that is the strategy to become as efficient as soon as possible. Energy prices have to rise so that the illusion of neverending power and heat from oil, gas and coal ends. And the conversion to another energymix needs to be completed before all the resources are much too expensive to burn. If the USA do not understand that... well, global dominance has never lasted more than a century in in the last 500 years.
Coal reserves with current growth rate take us to 2065? Peak Oil arrives in 2020? Who cares? Let's burn the stuff. Noone needs plastic anyway.
Flin
US government "will not spend government money on green energy."
They will once they realize their competitors are doing it. These competing countries are not only located in the West, and China especially will be important soon.
Dr Grundmann, I really doubt it. Not because it doesn't make sense or because I do not think highly of America.
It is just the pattern of targeted spending aimed at moderate Republicans not flat out resisting the idea of AGW and the effects this has on other Republicans (like Sen. McCain) that makes me doubt it. Currently I have the impression that the lobbies made clear that anyone not fully supporting certain industries will lose their seat in Congress.
This combined with the filibuster system in my eyes ensures that no legislation for any energy not connected to oil, coal or nuclear power will make it through congress any time soon. State and local level is different, though.
It has been this way for 15 years, and the latest results (like Delaware, which was really amazing) cemented the Status Quo even further.
Market oriented and profitable solutions will be implented. But the cheap energy will limit the amount of these.
I hope I am wrong, though.
Flin:
"Market oriented and profitable solutions will be implented. But the cheap energy will limit the amount of these."
This is exactly the point of the Hartwell paper: make clean energy cheaper than coal.
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)