Twofer: Denial costs tax dollars

[Trakar]

​

​

​

​

​

Cost of extra year's climate inaction $500 billion: IEA
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/10/us-iea-climate-idUSTRE5A91U420091110

(Reuters) - The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday...

...Every year's delay beyond 2010 would add another $500 billion to the extra investment of $10,500 billion needed from 2010-2030 to curb carbon emissions, for example to improve energy efficiency and boost low-carbon renewable energy...

2020 emissions levels required to limit warming to below 2C​

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18383638/586457376/name/nclimate1758.pdf

Nature Climate Change -
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 16 DECEMBER 2012 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1758

...In addition, we find that both short- and long-term mitigation costs depend strongly on the emission reductions that have been achieved by 2020 (Table 2 and Supplementary Fig. S3). The more stringent the 2020 target, the higher the required mitigation costs and associated carbon prices by 2020 to achieve itbut the lower are the long-term mitigation costs (and also carbon prices in 2030) because less rapid reductions are required after 2020 to meet the 2 C target. Lowering 2020 emissions implies thus greater mitigation costs in the short term, but generally reduced costs in the longer term. However, there is a 2020 emission level at which longer-term costs (20202050) become minimal. Letting emissions rise until 2020 above the least-cost level (around 44 Gt CO2e yr��1 for the reference case) implies consistently and significantly higher costs (up to 30% by 2050, up to 50% by 2100; Table 2 and Supplementary Information S1) for staying below 2 C in the long term. The stringency of emissions abatement by 2020 thus critically determines carbon prices and abatement costs post-2020...

 

[SSDD]

Fine if you assume that CO2 is causing a problem. Got any actual hard proof (that is proof that doesn't consist of the output of computer models) that CO2 is a problem?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes

http://www.ams.org/notices/201110/rtx111001421p.pdf

 

[Trakar]

Fine if you assume that CO2 is causing a problem. Got any actual hard proof (that is proof that doesn't consist of the output of computer models) that CO2 is a problem?

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Carbon Dioxide and the Climate » American Scientist

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Climate Change: Evidence

Climate Change: Causes

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JX-ioSmNW8&list=SP38EB9C0BC54A9EE2&index=3"]Greenhouse Gases: Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

​

​

​

​

​

Cost of extra year's climate inaction $500 billion: IEA
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/10/us-iea-climate-idUSTRE5A91U420091110

(Reuters) - The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday...

...Every year's delay beyond 2010 would add another $500 billion to the extra investment of $10,500 billion needed from 2010-2030 to curb carbon emissions, for example to improve energy efficiency and boost low-carbon renewable energy...

2020 emissions levels required to limit warming to below 2C​

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18383638/586457376/name/nclimate1758.pdf

Nature Climate Change -
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 16 DECEMBER 2012 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1758

...In addition, we find that both short- and long-term mitigation costs depend strongly on the emission reductions that have been achieved by 2020 (Table 2 and Supplementary Fig. S3). The more stringent the 2020 target, the higher the required mitigation costs and associated carbon prices by 2020 to achieve itbut the lower are the long-term mitigation costs (and also carbon prices in 2030) because less rapid reductions are required after 2020 to meet the 2 C target. Lowering 2020 emissions implies thus greater mitigation costs in the short term, but generally reduced costs in the longer term. However, there is a 2020 emission level at which longer-term costs (20202050) become minimal. Letting emissions rise until 2020 above the least-cost level (around 44 Gt CO2e yr��1 for the reference case) implies consistently and significantly higher costs (up to 30% by 2050, up to 50% by 2100; Table 2 and Supplementary Information S1) for staying below 2 C in the long term. The stringency of emissions abatement by 2020 thus critically determines carbon prices and abatement costs post-2020...

s0n.......we'll be fine. Taking the course you wish the world to take is just a bit more expensive...............just a bit..............


$76 Trillion: UN's Cost of "Going Green" Soars - Energy TribuneEnergy Tribune

 

[skookerasbil]

The costs of carbon emmission caps.................

The Costs of the Cap-and-Trade Bill : Roll Call Opinion


LMAO..........why do you think Cap and Trade is dead as a doornail? I'll tell you why.........because any politician knows that if they are responsible for a doubling of electric bills, their ass is out.........thats why!!!


Which is also why nobody gives a rats ass about the stupid science anymore. Id love to go out tomorrow and purchase a new Ford Mustang GT500 because Id love to go faster but something called "costs" makes it prohibitive.


"Costs" do matter in the life..........except to the k00ks.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yes

http://www.ams.org/notices/201110/rtx111001421p.pdf

No.

Obama won't sign the DOHA agreement because he said he didn't wanna' risk an already fragile US Economy. Green Economy Utopia: Dead!

All this Warmist Hysteria does is raise energy prices for those that can least afford it (The Poor) and gives energy monopolies to Rich Energy Companies.

Warmist Extremists HATE people and LOVE oppression by Gov't and Corporations.

 

[Trakar]

The costs of carbon emmission caps.................

The Costs of the Cap-and-Trade Bill : Roll Call Opinion


LMAO..........why do you think Cap and Trade is dead as a doornail? I'll tell you why.........because any politician knows that if they are responsible for a doubling of electric bills, their ass is out.........thats why!!!

Cap and trade for Carbon was never a good idea, I've argued against it and my arguments have been proven accurate. The only way to recoup the societal costs of dealing with carbon is with a graduated, revenue neutral carbon tax.

Forbes - In Praise Of Pigou Taxes: Especially A Carbon Tax - Forbes

Money - Republican push for carbon tax - Jul. 30, 2012

Wall Street Journal - Revisiting a U.S. Carbon Tax - WSJ.com

Exxon - Carbon tax: Exxon backs Obama plan to impose climate change fees

 

[SSDD]

Yes

http://www.ams.org/notices/201110/rtx111001421p.pdf

Point out the proof there rocks.

 

[SSDD]

Fine if you assume that CO2 is causing a problem. Got any actual hard proof (that is proof that doesn't consist of the output of computer models) that CO2 is a problem?

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Carbon Dioxide and the Climate » American Scientist

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Climate Change: Evidence

Climate Change: Causes

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JX-ioSmNW8&list=SP38EB9C0BC54A9EE2&index=3"]Greenhouse Gases: Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 3 - YouTube[/ame]

Point out the proof in any of those that CO2 is responsible. Assumptions based in an error cascade aren't proof.

 

[Trakar]

Fine if you assume that CO2 is causing a problem. Got any actual hard proof (that is proof that doesn't consist of the output of computer models) that CO2 is a problem?

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Carbon Dioxide and the Climate » American Scientist

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Climate Change: Evidence

Climate Change: Causes

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JX-ioSmNW8&list=SP38EB9C0BC54A9EE2&index=3"]Greenhouse Gases: Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 3 - YouTube[/ame]

Point out the proof in any of those that CO2 is responsible. Assumptions based in an error cascade aren't proof.

Your apparent lack of rationality and the capacity for reason are of no concern to me. You have proven, however, a useful tool in order to present these evidences and references to those who do value rationality and reasoned consideration.