RMEI do recommend, though, that before making the usual sorts of exaggerated 'conclusion' statements about this, you actually do some research into basic industrial CO2 recapture or process recycling, or adjunct recapture of atmospheric CO2 and see if the prospective reductions 'work' in your chosen models of atmospheric climate dynamics.
RME,
I was only responding to SD70M-2 Dude and his posting of a simple, six-point statement about the consequences of waiting for proof before taking remedial action or not. I needed to keep it as simple as possible. My basic point is right there as clear as a bell even though the use of so few words can open up all manner of possibilities to challenge on other levels as you have shown.
He was basically saying that if we kill coal to reduce CO2, and it turns out to have been unnecessary, we will still have benefitted because we will have ended all of the other pollutants from coal even though eliminating CO2 from coal was later found to have been uncessary.
But if we find that there was no reason to remove CO2 by killing coal, we will have killed coal needlessly because we could have eliminated those other emmissions without killing coal.
So I think it would pay to wait until we have a better understanding of the CO2 issue before we rush to kill coal notwithstanding the crisis we are said to be facing and its associated belief that remedial action must be taken without delay.
I seem to recall Solvent Refined Coal as the unabreviated form.
RME, you have used the abreviation SRC multiple times without, as near as I can tell, telling us what that mmeans. We can't have a intelligent discussion without that knowledge.
Euclid The emissions that have yet to be eliminated other than CO2, can be eliminated while still continuing to burn coal economically. Emission of CO2 cannot be eliminated without making coal economically unviable. So the only way to eliminate CO2 from coal is to eliminate the use of coal.
At the risk of further homogenizing what's left of Dobbin:
1) Much of this hinges on the technical definition of 'burning coal economically'. Several of the techniques for reducing key contaminants in coal combustion (sulfur being one that comes to mind) involve technologies with very large setup and process expenses, but that have high increasing return to scale. If the 'end result' from the combustion is price-competitive with alternatives, even very complete removal or passivation of "pollutants" from direct combustion can be practical.
This goes hand in hand, however, with issues of stranded cost, expected return on investment, acceptable measures of risk, and other things that are not amenable to pure technological discussion. So far, we've achieved reasonable net 'residual' elimination in both the evolved combustion gas and the solid waste product. Some of this is done with more-or-less proprietary 'clean coal' solutions -- I suspect at least some of the peddled solutions have a snake-oil component to them.
2) It does NOT follow that some intermediate, perhaps high, level of sequestration of CO2 cannot be "economically used". This was an early point established in some of the clean-coal research; it's a bit analogous to the development efforts of 93% pure silicon for solar panels that would be 'reasonably as good' functionally for existing photovoltaic technology but cost dramatically less to produce in needed form. At least some of the argument for algae-diesel synthesis involves using more or less bypass combustion gas (from either a forced or induced draft boiler system) as the carbon source for photosynthetic growth and multiplication in a 3D circulating tube setup -- it is not likely you'd start up using even a significant percentage of a large plant's CO2 emission, or even more than about 40% at full baseline combustion rate, but that's 40% you don't have to sequester with more aggressive methods.
3) It does not necessarily follow at all that "Emission of CO2 cannot be eliminated without making coal economically unviable" - in fact, no few of the clean-coal cycle discussions I have seen require only about a third extra mass of coal to produce all the necessary power to achieve net segregation (it depends in part on whether the sequestration is solid, pressurized and/or cryogenic, and can be extrapolated to all 'reservoir' or recycling costs for the sequestered material). Even net of all the added infrastructure costs to implement a sequestration cycle (and in the greater world, a sequestered-CO2 handling and storage chain, reuse markets, etc.) that is not something that impossibly discredits coal, or by extension any other reasonable 'fossil' fuel, from economical use. The problem today is that fracked natural gas is cheaper, and renewable alternatives often better subsidized or perceived, than good clean-coal alternatives.
4) There is no necessary restriction on how the coal, or more precisely the carbon and hydrocarbon content, is prepared for combustion and subsequently 'oxidized to liberate heat'. Note that several versions of progressive SRC produce highly useful feedstock forms (powder, pulverized, pea for torrefied-mass cofiring, shaped briquettes) which have little to no meaningful ash content or that can be mixed with appropriate 'pure' fluxing or ash-like constituents (e.g. for effective cyclone combustion with controlled atmosphere/minimum nitrogen). Cost here, again, is not really that much more in powerplant-demand quantities -- it just isn't something that is quite price competitive with cruder, or perceived-sexier, alternatives.
In my opinion, I see much the same kind of organized misrepresentation of truth that is widespread in some of the academic European climate 'science' being used in connection with clean coal. When you see full-page ads mocking the idea of clean coal as an unrealized scam ... without any indication or proof other than that 'those evil coal people are outright lying' ... and the various folks doing the clean-coal research want to commercialize their own little pieces at highest profit without telling how the trick is done ... truth tends to suffer from too much lack of analysis.
I do recommend, though, that before making the usual sorts of exaggerated 'conclusion' statements about this, you actually do some research into basic industrial CO2 recapture or process recycling, or adjunct recapture of atmospheric CO2 and see if the prospective reductions 'work' in your chosen models of atmospheric climate dynamics.
VOLKER LANDWEHR But there are estimates. I will not give links to avoid discussions about bias. But google for "social cost of carbon", defined as cost in $ for each additional ton of carbon dioxide for economic damages.
But there are estimates. I will not give links to avoid discussions about bias. But google for "social cost of carbon", defined as cost in $ for each additional ton of carbon dioxide for economic damages.
I've seen some analysis that shows carbon has a net benefit from higher agricultural productivity and fewer deaths from cold in conjunction with a low climate sensitivity.
Until we find out Urea is bad for us like MTBEs...
SD70M-2Dude Euclid There are two problem with Option #2. This is the first problem: You will not end up with a cleaner planet if manmade global warming is false and you act on it anyway. This is because if the MMGW premise is false, there will be nothing that needs be be cleaned up. The premise is that too much CO2 is the danger. If it turns out that there is not too much CO2, there was no danger, and thus nothing gained in reducing the CO2. The second problem with Option #2 is that it totally ignores the lost money spent on reducing CO2 when it was not necessary. I would re-write Option #2 as this: Man-made global warming is false, but you beieve it to be true and act. End result is nothing gained in terms of "cleaning the planet", and a huge waste of money and resources that that will set back the lives of several generations as they struggle to pay for the waste of the bad choice. I think the bad consequences of Option #2 are similar if not worse than the bad consequences of Option #3. That is why we need to think and study much more carefully before running off in a panic toward Option #1. It may turn out to be Option #2. CO2 emissions and other types of pollution (NOx especially) go hand in hand. By lowering the amount of fuel burned globally you reduce the emissions of those pollutants. And reduce the environmental damage from the production of those fuels (acid mine drainage, groundwater contamination, leakage from abandoned wells etc). That is why I listed Option 2 as still having a positive result, just not as positive as Option 1.
Euclid There are two problem with Option #2. This is the first problem: You will not end up with a cleaner planet if manmade global warming is false and you act on it anyway. This is because if the MMGW premise is false, there will be nothing that needs be be cleaned up. The premise is that too much CO2 is the danger. If it turns out that there is not too much CO2, there was no danger, and thus nothing gained in reducing the CO2. The second problem with Option #2 is that it totally ignores the lost money spent on reducing CO2 when it was not necessary. I would re-write Option #2 as this: Man-made global warming is false, but you beieve it to be true and act. End result is nothing gained in terms of "cleaning the planet", and a huge waste of money and resources that that will set back the lives of several generations as they struggle to pay for the waste of the bad choice. I think the bad consequences of Option #2 are similar if not worse than the bad consequences of Option #3. That is why we need to think and study much more carefully before running off in a panic toward Option #1. It may turn out to be Option #2.
There are two problem with Option #2. This is the first problem: You will not end up with a cleaner planet if manmade global warming is false and you act on it anyway. This is because if the MMGW premise is false, there will be nothing that needs be be cleaned up. The premise is that too much CO2 is the danger. If it turns out that there is not too much CO2, there was no danger, and thus nothing gained in reducing the CO2.
The second problem with Option #2 is that it totally ignores the lost money spent on reducing CO2 when it was not necessary.
I would re-write Option #2 as this:
Man-made global warming is false, but you beieve it to be true and act. End result is nothing gained in terms of "cleaning the planet", and a huge waste of money and resources that that will set back the lives of several generations as they struggle to pay for the waste of the bad choice.
I think the bad consequences of Option #2 are similar if not worse than the bad consequences of Option #3. That is why we need to think and study much more carefully before running off in a panic toward Option #1. It may turn out to be Option #2.
CO2 emissions and other types of pollution (NOx especially) go hand in hand. By lowering the amount of fuel burned globally you reduce the emissions of those pollutants. And reduce the environmental damage from the production of those fuels (acid mine drainage, groundwater contamination, leakage from abandoned wells etc). That is why I listed Option 2 as still having a positive result, just not as positive as Option 1.
Actually I would say that CO2 and other types of pollution don’t go hand in hand. The emissions that have yet to be eliminated other than CO2, can be eliminated while still continuing to burn coal economically. Emission of CO2 cannot be eliminated without making coal economically unviable. So the only way to eliminate CO2 from coal is to eliminate the use of coal. So the debate about cleaning up coal by eliminating it is supported only if we know that eliminating CO2 emissions is necessary. It is unrelated to any intentions to further reduce the traditional, non-CO2 components of coal pollution. That can be done far cheaper than eliminating the use of coal.
So I would revise Option 2 accordingly:
Option 2: Man-made global warming is false, but you believe it to be true and act. End result is still a cleaner planet the cost of unnecessarily stopping the use of coal (even/positive) (negative).
SD70M-2DudeFor example, the current Tier 4 GE locomotive (ET44AC, using Exhaust Gas Recirculation) uses MORE fuel than the equivalent Tier 3 unit, requires more costly maintenance and is less reliable. I am not intimately familar with on-highway trucks or their current emission control system but I imagine those with EGR have similar problems.
Twentysomething Federal line and staff agency personnel tend to forget the effect of additional fuel burn on emissions -- they get the red mist on ppm and forget the aggregate. Perhaps nowhere was this clearer than the NOx standards in Tier 4 final, where the standard was arbitrarily written only a couple of tenths of a percent under what EMD could produce at the 'ragged edge' of the test cycle without SCR. You could calculate the added "nitrogen oxide" pollution that would result from redefining that standard in no more than pounds per locomotive-year -- distributed of course into an enormous volume of air over time.
Note two things here: first, that nitrogen-oxide emissions from combustion engines are NOT the same nitrogen oxides that produce the pollution stress -- the chemical transformation only occurs with other pollution cofactors (which have conveniently been greatly reduced by more meaningful forms of "environmental" control than nitrogen displacement in the intake charge and reduced heat rise per stroke); and second, that the health problem from 'particulates' is not the visible smoke and soot nearly as much as it is small accumulations of 'nanoparticles' deriving from chemical and physical factors unrelated to overt pollution control -- most significantly, passing almost unreduced through any commercial DPF or emission-catalyst setup. In both these cases, the expensive mandated pollution control devices do essentially nothing to clean up things for 'kids with lung conditions' -- but they sure do increase cost, complexity, layers of bureaucratic oversight and opportunities for draconian enforcement with personal animus.
Are there places where modern pollution controls on locomotives are important? Yes, with idling power in places like Davis Yard (one recent cited example) being relevant. There the improvement of Tier 3 over Tier 0 or below can be significant, even if there is some associated extra cost in precise injection systems or external coolant heating for extended shutdowns or whatever. But there would be far more value in enforcing transient smoke reduction at throttle-up than in reducing NOx to Tier 4 final levels on locomotives.
DPF on trucks is a feel-good approach, applicable to the era when California had automatic smoke-opacity meters hooked to some on-ramps to catch folks emitting too much "PM". That's not the stuff that makes the problems with particulates, and frankly until someone at EPA can show me an approach that works effectively on the nanoparticulate emissions the use of any regenerative filter scheme involving a measurable additional fuel burn out of my pocket is worse than just stupid.
Part of the discussion of AGW that isn't factoring into this discussion is the degree to which 'feel-good' "carbon" reductions actually address the issue, either at small scale or in larger or fully global-level scale. I am frankly sick of the politicized cap-and-trade or carbon-credit strategies, which are far more effective at lining the right pockets and providing the right openings for coercion than actually addressing prospective metastable changes.
Note that AGW is colossally different from "pollution" in the old familiar senses. I can remember just how awful air quality in the New York area could be in the pre-EPA epoch - when I was a boy both Rockefeller Center and GCT were black buildings, and it was a rare day you could see much past 72nd St from the George Washington Bridge at the 180s. I'd never go back to an era in Los Angeles where vehicles didn't have strict control over HC and CO emissions, or reasonable limits on nitrogen oxidation; I'd never want to go back to the old days of Pittsburgh or Bethlehem or the Ruhr, or a flaming Cuyahoga, or a Jersey Shore redolent of sewage. Just don't go telling fibs about 'climate getting warmer' or the supposed direct health effects of any anthropogenic greenhouse-effect driven atmospheric warming, especially to the largely scientifically-illiterate group that used Cliff Notes to study in school, Kaplan strategy manuals for subsequent testing, and now sources like the New York Times as 'settled' authority for the very complex arguments and models that govern (at least, should govern) climate science. And don't go mandating politically-driven reductions that cost hundreds of thousands in direct costs and waste to achieve disproportionately small, possibly statistically-insignificant, actual reductions in meaningful levels.
jcburnsMeanwhile, fewer kids (or pasty old white guys with emphysema) in the hospital.
We'd keep a lot of them out of the hospital if we simply did away with smoking materials.... A good deal more than cleaning up some Diesel exhaust.
This from an EMT who has seen people ask if they can light up - as they breath oxygen through their nasal cannula.
I'm sure there are those out there looking for Tier 5 - where the exhaust is cleaner than the intake air.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
It's gotta be a more humane calculation. It could be argued that even if Tier 4 is cumbersome, it pushes the development of systems that wouldn't otherwise have been developed and, over time, they'll improve fuel consumption and maintenance costs.
Meanwhile, fewer kids (or pasty old white guys with emphysema) in the hospital.
The "outweigh the benefits" calculation MUST take that into account.
jcburns Shadow the Cats owner When a engine overhaul was 10 grand parts and labor just 5 years ago for a truck with 1 million miles on it is now 40 grand for a truck with 600 grand on it you wallet starts to hurt. Yet all these repairs and added costs were forced upon us in the name of fighting climate change. Sorry but I deal with this crap on a daily basis I see the checks that are cut to pay for repairs and cringe. Yeah, but if you looked at the bills that families who had to pay for kids with lung conditions generated by the diesel trucks before the pollution mods you'd cringe too. It's hard to look at this stuff globally, or even beyond the narrow focus of "diesels and repairing them costs way more now," but we have to. We COULD make the decision that hey, it's life, let the families at the other end of the CO2 equation pay the bills, it's a tough world, let's go back to Tier 0 locos. But I sure don't want to.
Shadow the Cats owner When a engine overhaul was 10 grand parts and labor just 5 years ago for a truck with 1 million miles on it is now 40 grand for a truck with 600 grand on it you wallet starts to hurt. Yet all these repairs and added costs were forced upon us in the name of fighting climate change. Sorry but I deal with this crap on a daily basis I see the checks that are cut to pay for repairs and cringe.
When a engine overhaul was 10 grand parts and labor just 5 years ago for a truck with 1 million miles on it is now 40 grand for a truck with 600 grand on it you wallet starts to hurt. Yet all these repairs and added costs were forced upon us in the name of fighting climate change. Sorry but I deal with this crap on a daily basis I see the checks that are cut to pay for repairs and cringe.
Yeah, but if you looked at the bills that families who had to pay for kids with lung conditions generated by the diesel trucks before the pollution mods you'd cringe too. It's hard to look at this stuff globally, or even beyond the narrow focus of "diesels and repairing them costs way more now," but we have to.
We COULD make the decision that hey, it's life, let the families at the other end of the CO2 equation pay the bills, it's a tough world, let's go back to Tier 0 locos.
But I sure don't want to.
In the locomotive world, I think we would only have to go back to Tier 3 to get rid of a lot of the costs associated with emissions reduction. The jump from Tier 3 to 4 also provides a good example of what Larry mentioned in an earlier post, that eventually the cost of cleaning something up may outweigh the benefits. And for all my belief in man-made global warming and pollution reduction, I agree with him.
For example, the current Tier 4 GE locomotive (ET44AC, using Exhaust Gas Recirculation) uses MORE fuel than the equivalent Tier 3 unit, requires more costly maintenance and is less reliable. I am not intimately familar with on-highway trucks or their current emission control system but I imagine those with EGR have similar problems.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
No at least here my boss doesn't want cheap trucks if he did he would be buying Freightliners for 40 grand less a unit. However we as an industry want something that is reliable and not going to put us in bankrupcy court when the warrenty runs out on the major systems and then the repair bills start to roll in. When your dropping 20 grand per truck to fix a system that 10 years ago wasn't even on anything on the road and the same parts are the ones that fail and the answer you get from the engineers is that is the best they can do peroid you start to scream. When a engine overhaul was 10 grand parts and labor just 5 years ago for a truck with 1 million miles on it is now 40 grand for a truck with 600 grand on it you wallet starts to hurt. Yet all these repairs and added costs were forced upon us in the name of fighting climate change. These are not one time only charges EGR systems fail all the time DPF and SCR systems are failing and those costs of repair are on us to get the truck running after the warrenty is up. Can you afford to see repairs like that when people refuse to pay more for your service we have been forced to for years and now it is at a tipping point. One of 2 things is going to happen rates are going to have to go up nationwide or the nations Logistical chain is going to snap all due to pressures put on it from global warming regulations that destroyed our engines. Sorry but I deal with this crap on a daily basis I see the checks that are cut to pay for repairs and cringe.
zardozFirst of all, it is quite likely that the thermometer was in the sun, resulting in an erroneous reading.
Shhhhhhh! We need the masses to think it's +111F - not that +91F isn't too danged hot to work - especially in Houston, where the humidity was probably also around 111% - or felt like it.
Gramp So much nonsense in that Aug. 3 NY Times article. (sidenote - the temp. gage in the photo reads 111 degrees. Checking the Galveston high temps for today and the last two weeks shows that the highest temp for the period was 91 degrees). CO2 a pollutant? Oxygen must be, too? H2O is toxic if you ingest too much of it.
So much nonsense in that Aug. 3 NY Times article. (sidenote - the temp. gage in the photo reads 111 degrees. Checking the Galveston high temps for today and the last two weeks shows that the highest temp for the period was 91 degrees).
CO2 a pollutant? Oxygen must be, too? H2O is toxic if you ingest too much of it.
Second, yes, CO2 is a pollutant that, along with too much O2 and H20, will indeed kill you. However, I've also read that the same can be said for beer, pizza, ice cream, and chocolate (although I'm still working on a proof ). No documentable results yet, but the Scientific Research continues....
GrampA good friend of mine grew up in East Germany until he was 16. (Was able to get to West Berlin then). His parents owned and operated a farm. The government confiscated their land, equipment, everything. He lived under the watchful eye of the STASI. Everyone suspicious of everyone else. The capitalists who were the country's wealth creators either escaped or were smushed. The country no longer had the ability to create anything, build anything. I've asked him, how can someone get through to these people here who have warmed up to or have been indoctrinated to socialistic ideas. He said flatly it is not possible. They will not listen to facts. They have no point of reference.
I have relatives who lived in the former DDR to die Wende. Not a good place or easy life but what does that have to do with climate change (other than atrocious pollution in that failed state)? Climate change is about science and our roles as stewards of this earth, not politics, no matter how hard some folks try to muddy the waters with that distraction.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Govt. regulation - Have a look at Venezuela lately? Turkey?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
A good friend of mine grew up in East Germany until he was 16. (Was able to get to West Berlin then). His parents owned and operated a farm. The government confiscated their land, equipment, everything. He lived under the watchful eye of the STASI. Everyone suspicious of everyone else. The capitalists who were the country's wealth creators either escaped or were smushed. The country no longer had the ability to create anything, build anything. I've asked him, how can someone get through to these people here who have warmed up to or have been indoctrinated to socialistic ideas? He said flatly it is not possible. They will not listen to facts. They have no point of reference.
Frustration quelled.
You have a point about spending money unneccesarily and taxing excessively, but there are ways to make the transistion go easier. You can start by implementing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which is what the Canadian province of British Columbia has done (the new tax was accompanied by cuts in personal and corporate income taxes).
But that will not be enough, and more money does have to come from somewhere. In the U.S. I would suggest cutting the military's $500,000,000,000+ annual budget slightly to start paying for some of the changes (for comparison China and Russia each spend less than a third of that).
Euclid Obviously, the cost of the remedy is being understated or ignored in order to sell the remedy. At the same time the cost of assumed CO2 damage and pain is being vastly overstated in order to sell the remedy. It is classic salesmanship. Think about it. Our government alone is totally capable of bankrupting the country just with their inability to run the healthcare industry. Do we really want all governments of the world, in the name of stopping manmade climate change, to be collaborating in a massive international system of carbon credits, taxes, re-distribution of wealth, and regulations over every move we make? They would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not. Unlimited taxation and regulation is what government does best and actively seeks to do.
Obviously, the cost of the remedy is being understated or ignored in order to sell the remedy. At the same time the cost of assumed CO2 damage and pain is being vastly overstated in order to sell the remedy. It is classic salesmanship.
Think about it. Our government alone is totally capable of bankrupting the country just with their inability to run the healthcare industry. Do we really want all governments of the world, in the name of stopping manmade climate change, to be collaborating in a massive international system of carbon credits, taxes, re-distribution of wealth, and regulations over every move we make? They would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not. Unlimited taxation and regulation is what government does best and actively seeks to do.
I'm wary of big goverment too, but that sounds more like Fox "News" or Alex Jones talking than someone with any sort of academic qualification.
And I do not believe that Obamacare is bankrupting the U.S, but for argument's sake let's say it is. There are still other ways to achieve universal healthcare without bankrupting a country. In Canada our healthcare system is far from perfect and needs a bunch of improvements, but it has been around since the 1960s and our country is still going strong.
Oh, and the guy who started the push for our universal healthcare system was voted the Greatest Canadian ever in a 2004 poll.
Euclid Do we really want all governments of the world, in the name of stopping manmade climate change, to be collaborating in a massive international system of carbon credits, taxes, re-distribution of wealth, and regulations over every move we make? They would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not. Unlimited taxation and regulation is what government does best and actively seeks to do.
Do we really want all governments of the world, in the name of stopping manmade climate change, to be collaborating in a massive international system of carbon credits, taxes, re-distribution of wealth, and regulations over every move we make?
They would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not. Unlimited taxation and regulation is what government does best and actively seeks to do.
Do I want them "to collaborate on an international system of carbon credits?"
Sure, absolutely.
Do I think that "they would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not."
No, that's just the junk that gets fed to right-wing media to boost viewership. I don't think "all the governments of the world" have a "want", because they're composed of so many different sorts of people.
"Unlimited regulation" is an oxymoron. The regulations are there to keep the laws from being unlimited.
I've yet to see a modern government go for anything like unlimited taxation. Our (US) taxation is way low, especially for upper income people, if you ask me.
Excerpt from NY Times, Aug. 3
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/us/politics/climate-change-trump-working-poor-activists.html
GALVESTON, Tex. — Adolfo Guerra, a landscaper in this port city on the Gulf of Mexico, remembers panicking as his co-worker vomited and convulsed after hours of mowing lawns in stifling heat. Other workers rushed to cover him with ice, and the man recovered.
But, for Mr. Guerra, 24, who spends nine hours a day, six days a week doing yard work the episode was a reminder of the dangers that exist for outdoor workers as the planet warms.
“I think about the climate every day,” Mr. Guerra said, “because every day we work, and every day it feels like it’s getting hotter.”
Surely, you don't expect our government officials to be as honest and fair and unbiased as our industry leaders are.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
BaltACDNo on has packaged all that together so that it makes sense on both sides of the divide.
With all the variables and uncertainties it seems to me impossible to give exact figures.
If you google for "global greenhouse gas abatement costs" you'll find among others a McKinsey & Company report with the cost of different possible CO2 reduction measures. Some cost and some promise profit.Regards, Volker
"I'm talking 10 to 15 percent increases in the cost of everything we use."
Again, we're already paying those costs in other forms. They're less visible to you, but we've been paying them. I think there are already multiple generations who can't conceive of how toxic the coal-plant and steel-mill fired atmosphere of the Ohio River valley was at the end of the 20th century. My relatives there tended not to live much past 50 because of what they were taking into their lungs. It's so, so, so much better now, and could be better still if we have the will.
But you want your cheap truck...
BaltACD tree68 But we also need to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns - where increasing spending to reduce the effect becomes more damaging than the effect. Our problem is knowing when our spending has 'bettered' the enviornment. When it comes to 'Climate Change' how do you economically measure how much spending to blunt climate change actually resulted in X Climate Change +/-. Secondly how does one separate natural forces of Climate Change that we have yet to understand from the man made actions that 'we think' are causing climate change. No on has packaged all that together so that it makes sense on both sides of the divide.
tree68 But we also need to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns - where increasing spending to reduce the effect becomes more damaging than the effect.
Our problem is knowing when our spending has 'bettered' the enviornment. When it comes to 'Climate Change' how do you economically measure how much spending to blunt climate change actually resulted in X Climate Change +/-. Secondly how does one separate natural forces of Climate Change that we have yet to understand from the man made actions that 'we think' are causing climate change.
No on has packaged all that together so that it makes sense on both sides of the divide.
Johnny
BaltACD Our problem is knowing when our spending has 'bettered' the enviornment. When it comes to 'Climate Change' how do you economically measure how much spending to blunt climate change actually resulted in X Climate Change +/-. Secondly how does one separate natural forces of Climate Change that we have yet to understand from the man made actions that 'we think' are causing climate change.
++1 As well Tree's concern about the law of diminishing returns.
+!
jcburns We're paying that 10 to 15 percent (and have for decades)...just in other forms—like health bills, more air conditioning, and so on.
We're paying that 10 to 15 percent (and have for decades)...just in other forms—like health bills, more air conditioning, and so on.
I'm talking 10 to 15 percent increases in the cost of everything we use. Why transportation costs would jump 30 percent overnight just so companies could afford to meet the new standards. When your looking at 300 grand for a new truck instead of 180 grand these are the figures we have been told by truck builders someone else not the truck companies is going to be eating our inflation. If it is going to cost us 3 bucks a mile instead of 2 a mile to make a decent rate then everyone feels the pain. That's what your looking at with the next round of emissions requirements. Whose willing to pay for it this industry won't do it anymore.
tree68But we also need to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns - where increasing spending to reduce the effect becomes more damaging than the effect.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.