Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

eclipsenow said:

Global warming is real, and already killing something like 300,000 people a year but is ramping up.

Click to expand...

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Enough of your foolishness. I've already shown that you use the words 'subsidies and kickbacks' to mean virtually anything, so stop saying that there are half a trillion dollars in 'subsidies and kickbacks' and please list all those 'subsidies and kickbacks' so that you don't make the mistake of mislabeling them again, like you did last time.

LIST them. Thank you

andypro7 said:

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever.

please list all those 'subsidies and kickbacks' so that you don't make the mistake of mislabeling them again, like you did last time.LIST them. Thank you

Click to expand...

It's not my fault you can't read! How about we start with the $88 billion a year that America, UK, and Australia spend subsidising exploration alone! Got something to counter that article?

If you really want to know, try reading this 2009 PDF. Page 7 has a table summary.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/energysubsidies/second_joint_report.pdf

And how about you actually read my post again? The sources are all there, and if you bothered to spend a tiny bit of time googling, you'd get all the information you needed. I'm telling you the truth. You just don't like your worldview being challenged, that's all. Fossil fuels kill people, change the climate, and make us vulnerable to energy insecurity. We can turn off ALL fossil fuels forever if we just switch to nuclear ASAP like the French already DID in their electricity sector, and then we can move forward into an electric car / synfuel era in transport.

andypro7 said:

Oh my gosh! Reading this has opened my eyes. I've never been so scared in my life! Run for the hills!

Actually, you know it's true because this is the very first time in history that some organization has come out and made a scary doomsday prediction.

Click to expand...

Wow, what a mature post! So full of counter-arguments and links to peer-reviewed posts! Boy, I've never encountered such devastating, fact filled sarcasm!

How about you grow up?

eclipsenow said:

If you really want to know, try reading this 2009 PDF. Page 7 has a table summary.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does have a table summary, you are correct there.

However, I've already shown that 65% of what you call 'subsidies and kickbacks' in the US is actually things like our strategic oil reserves and fuel assistance for low income people. By the way, you still didn't answer - do you think we should do away with fuel assistance for low income people?

So, since I've already PROVEN that you call very needed and helpful things to low income Americans 'subsidies and kickbacks' for big oil, I don't want a table summary, I want a SPECIFIC list of what you are calling 'subsidies and kickbacks' so that I can see if you're trying to scam me again.

So, PLEASE LIST all this 987 quadrillion (or whatever) dollars in 'subsidies and kickbacks' so that I can see if they are legit, since we ALREADY KNOW you tried to post non-legit kickbacks before.

andypro7 said:

Yes, it does have a table summary, you are correct there.

However, I've already shown that 65% of what you call 'subsidies and kickbacks' in the US is actually things like our strategic oil reserves and fuel assistance for low income people.

Click to expand...

You have not demonstrated that at all.

By the way, you still didn't answer - do you think we should do away with fuel assistance for low income people?

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my last 10 or so posts correctly, so why should I answer you? But, having had a background in welfare services, I think there are many ways we can help the poor get raound. That's not what these studies are criticising! They're mainly criticising tax breaks and kickbacks and special government service provision (rail lines, research grants etc) all to a dirty industry that SHOULD be dying instead!

I actually have no problem with government assistance to worthwhile industries. I remember being quite shocked to learn from the Scientific American podcast that the American Federal government put something like a TRILLION into your internet: but then I remembered what a great public asset that is and how many amazing industries and services the internet provides, so I guess I have no problem with government money going into public 'goods'. But public 'bads' like fossil fuels that we are supposed to be weaning off? Sorry. They kill something like 50,000 Americans a year (from memory, don't quote me on that). They cost your health budget so much you may as well tax 1005 of the electricity cost again to pay the health bill up front. They ruin the environment where they are mined, turning wilderness into wasteland. And bit by bit they are running out.

This is the story of American conventional oil (think Beverly Hillbillies) pumping light sweet crude. Conventional oil peaks in the 70's, then the unconventional more expensive stuff kicks in towards the later years.


Unconventional dirtier oil replacements, like fracking and shale oil and tar sands, do the same job but at a far greater environmental and financial cost: a financial cost the Saud's are trying to undercut right now. What if that wasn't an issue? What if all your power came from affordable nuclear power using Integral Fast Reactors and Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors that burn nuclear waste and warheads?

So, since I've already PROVEN that you call very needed and helpful things to low income Americans 'subsidies and kickbacks' for big oil,

Click to expand...

PROVEN hey? Where did you do that again? What % of these kickbacks are actually subsidies for the poor? Where's the evidence? I thought I'd shown that fossil fuels KILL the poor who tend to work around brownfield working class sites more exposed to particulates.

I don't want a table summary, I want a SPECIFIC list of what you are calling 'subsidies and kickbacks' so that I can see if you're trying to scam me again.

Click to expand...

Diddly widdums wants to call names rather than actually deal with evidence in front of him?

Look mate, everything you want in terms of methodology etc is in the IEA paper. I can't help you if you don't want to read it. There are pages and pages of information about how the market signal for fossil fuels are discounted in the economy by half a TRILLION dollars of government assistance worldwide. There are discussions about the different types of tax breaks, research grants, government bought physical infrastructure projects, etc. It's a LONG and complicated PDF. Feel free to read it rather than continue embarrassing yourself here.

My point is that half a TRILLION dollars in VERY REAL subsidies to fossil fuels that are going to run out one day anyway could solve climate change instead of making it worse, and save 8 million lives and shave 10% off most national health bills while we're at it!

EG: "Lifters" (LFTR's) have been estimated coming off the production line at about $2 bn / GW. So $500 bn is 250 GW / year of clean nuclear energy.

By 2020, coal will provide 2,384,000 MW or 2,384 GW. (Much of this could be prevented if we build nukes out fast in the first place!) So if we put fossil fuel subsidies into LFTR's instead, we'd replace coal capacity in 2,384 / 250 = 9.5 years, or about a decade, once we got the LFTR factories really up and running. (Because their reactor core vessels don't use water as a coolant and they run at normal atmospheric pressures, they can be mass produced like Boeing jets. Imagine a 100MW reactor coming off the line every day for about $200Million dollars = 1GW / $2bn which is CHEAPER than coal!).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY

The bottom line? What I'm saying is that COAL and OIL and GAS particulates kill 3 million a year and cost us 10% more: why subsidise them when the subsidies alone could solve climate change for us over time?

eclipsenow said:

blah, blah, blah...

Click to expand...

Got it. You're the guy that guys around the internet saying that fossil fuels get half a trillion dollars in kickbacks and subsidies, and when someone challenges you on it, you can't produce the list.

No use going any further then. Good day.

andypro7 said:

Got it. You're the guy that guys around the internet saying that fossil fuels get half a trillion dollars in kickbacks and subsidies, and when someone challenges you on it, you can't produce the list.

No use going any further then. Good day.

Click to expand...

Got it. You're the guy saying governments are NOT spending half a trillion dollars, and when confronted with REALITY you pout and stomp your foot and demand some kind of list without being exactly clear on what you're after, given the pages and pages discussing the IEA methodology. There are graphs throughout that report. Why not have a quick scan? It's real dude. Half a TRILLION Dollars a year, going up! It's the truth. Deal with it. While we're on lists and graphs, here's another one for you.



I cut it out of this short report from the OECD's organisation the IEA, and here is the original PDF
http://www.iea.org/media/weowebsite/energysubsidies/ff_subsidies_slides.pdf

It finishes with this summary:
Without further reform, spending on fossil-fuel consumption subsidies is
set to reach $660 billion in 2020, or 0.7% of global GDP
 Phasing-out fossil-fuel consumptions subsidies by 2020 would:
 slash growth in energy demand by 4.1%
 reduce growth in oil demand by 3.7 mb/d
 cut growth in CO2 emissions by 1.7 Gt
 Many countries have started or planned reforms since early-2010
 key driver has been fiscal pressure on government budgets
 G20 & APEC commitments have also underpinned many reform efforts
 much more remains to be done to realise full extent of benefit

If this evidence from the IEA (not Mother Jones!) isn't enough for you, then you tell yourself whatever sob story you want about us mean greenie leftie types distorting the evidence. I don't care. The reality is that your precious 'free marketplace' is being warped by BIG GOVERNMENT interventions SELECTING for dangerous, finite, health-destroying and rapidly peaking oil and coal and gas that leave you vulnerable to oil embargoes and oil wars.

Just remember: "There's no place like home!"


Go have a nice warm mug of milk before bed and get a good night's sleep, and tell yourself it didn't happen: you were NOT given 'good enough' evidence that the SUBSIDIES TO FOSSIL FUELS ALONE COULD SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE!

eclipsenow said:

Got it. You're the guy saying governments are NOT spending half a trillion dollars, and when confronted with REALITY ......

Click to expand...

REALITY would be a list which shows exactly how that half a trillion dollars is spent.

Please supply.

List please or you're lying.

andypro7 said:

REALITY would be a list which shows exactly how that half a trillion dollars is spent.

Please supply.

List please or you're lying.

Click to expand...

Andy, the truth of the matter is that many oil companies get subsidies from the US Government. On top of that our entire economy's infrastructure is built on fossil fuels so it is, by definition, already more "efficient" to utilize than other forms of energy.

The key factor is something called EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested). Fossil fuels (coal and oil) are among the highest EROEI fuels around. A great deal of that is because we've spent more than a century creating infrastructure to do this sort of thing, even in those cases where a barrel of salt water is pumped out of a formation for every barrel of oil.

The necessary changes in our energy infrastructure will have to happen one day and likely sooner rather than later. The thing that is not helping matters is that right now many multibillion dollar, amazingly profitable corporations which provide fossil fuels also get subsidies to the tunes of billions of additional dollars.

Within the US oil companies get anywhere from $10-$25 billion in subsidies and internationally coal and oil companies get about $775 billion-$1 Trillion in subsidies (SOURCE)

The true irony is: even if you don't believe in physics or chemistry and hence don't think anthropogenic global warming is real, you must still accept that coal and oil are limited resources and we WILL have to ultimately move to different fuels because we WILL run out of these things.

Within the US oil companies get anywhere from $10-$25 billion in subsidies

Already on this thread I've cited 4 sources that say 4 billion, most of those sources left-wing oil haters. I could have cited 100 sources, it's the generally accepted number

Also, I showed that much of what is called 'subsidies and kickbacks' to hated oil, is needed for out national interest

1) One billion is for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
2) One billion is tax exemptions for farm fuel. The logic behind this is that the tax goes to pay for roads, and farm equipment is not allowed on the roads
3) 600 million for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program

internationally coal and oil companies get about $775 billion-$1 Trillion in subsidies

Yea, I've been hearing that from the other guy on this thread. Problem is, he just posts a number. Based on the three things listed above that are called 'subsidies and kickbacks to big oil', but are really not, I'd need to see this list of these 'trillion dollars in subsidies' to find out how many of them are actually, for instance, program to help farmers and the poor.

Logically speaking, even though I've already posted this stuff on this thread, you still jumped in and hockey-sticked 1.4 billion (at most) into 10-25 billion, so I'm pretty sure the same type of global warming math applies to that trillion dollars as well.

Heissonear said:

.

Environmental Extremism.

It is difficult to deal with those given to such.


.

Click to expand...

I've already asked him several times to give up all fossil fuels and products related, but he hasn't replied. If he really believed they were that evil, he would do it.

fargonic said:

Andy, the truth of the matter is that many oil companies get subsidies from the US Government. On top of that our entire economy's infrastructure is built on fossil fuels so it is, by definition, already more "efficient" to utilize than other forms of energy.

The key factor is something called EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested). Fossil fuels (coal and oil) are among the highest EROEI fuels around. A great deal of that is because we've spent more than a century creating infrastructure to do this sort of thing, even in those cases where a barrel of salt water is pumped out of a formation for every barrel of oil.

The necessary changes in our energy infrastructure will have to happen one day and likely sooner rather than later. The thing that is not helping matters is that right now many multibillion dollar, amazingly profitable corporations which provide fossil fuels also get subsidies to the tunes of billions of additional dollars.

Within the US oil companies get anywhere from $10-$25 billion in subsidies and internationally coal and oil companies get about $775 billion-$1 Trillion in subsidies (SOURCE)

The true irony is: even if you don't believe in physics or chemistry and hence don't think anthropogenic global warming is real, you must still accept that coal and oil are limited resources and we WILL have to ultimately move to different fuels because we WILL run out of these things.

Click to expand...

Hi Fargonic,
the IEA is only acknowledging subsidies in the form of tax breaks, physical infrastructure and other measurable rebates. I think some of your sources also include things like the estimated extra health bill as a subsidy? While it is valid to raise as one of the MAJOR extra costs to analyse as a 'subsidy' or externalised cost, I don't group it in as a 'subsidy' as it murkies the waters. Andypro wants to pretend these subsidies don't exist, and wants a clear graph breaking down 'what they are for'. The reality is more complex and the subsidies methodology runs into 30 pages which he can't be bothered reading because he doesn't want to acknowledge how amazingly Socialist today's energy system really is! The government subsidises oil, doesn't care about the health impacts, and goes to war to protect access to oil. If $2 trillion had been spent on nukes instead of GW2, maybe you guys would be off the coal and a good way towards being off oil by now?

eclipsenow said:

The reality is more complex...

Click to expand...

REALITY would be a list which shows exactly how that half a trillion dollars is spent.

Please supply.

List please or you're lying.

Heissonear said:

.

Environmental Extremism.

It is difficult to deal with those given to such.


.

Click to expand...

Childish name calling. Ditto.

andypro7 said:

REALITY would be a list which shows exactly how that half a trillion dollars is spent.

Please supply.

List please or you're lying.

Click to expand...

Just because you're not up to reading the PDF does not make me a liar. Summarising the whole world's various complex fossil fuel subsidies into one graph would be quite difficult. The PDF shows their methodologies and includes all kinds of graphs and lists. But if BLOOMBERG of all people are prepared to accept the IEA's findings (hardly some lefty think-tank), then how about you man up and stop stomping your foot like a petulant child?

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion a year in subsidies and holding back investment in cleaner forms of energy, the International Energy Agency said.
Oil, coal and gas received more than four times the $120 billion paid out in incentives for renewables including wind, solar and biofuels, the Paris-based institution said today in its annual World Energy Outlook.
Fossil Fuels With $550 Billion Subsidies Hurt Renewables - Bloomberg Business

Click to expand...

Methodology. It's a thing.

eclipsenow said:

Just because you're not up to reading the PDF does not make me a liar. Summarising the whole world's various complex fossil fuel subsidies into one graph would be quite difficult. The PDF shows their methodologies and includes all kinds of graphs and lists. But if BLOOMBERG of all people are prepared to accept the IEA's findings (hardly some lefty think-tank), then how about you man up and stop stomping your foot like a petulant child?

Methodology. It's a thing.

Click to expand...

I don't want a graph. I want a list. I already showed that you counted things like help for the poor as 'subsidies and kickbacks', so I need a list.

You won't produce because you can't produce. You want to tell everyone to be concerned about all the money going to fossil fuels, but how can anyone be concerned if they don't know if it's really just money to help the poor?

Heck, you're proving that YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW what is called 'subsidies and kickbacks'. You do realize what you're saying here, don't you? This entire thread you've been claiming to be OUTRAGED at the money going to fossil fuels, but you DON'T EVEN KNOW what that money is.

Fervor without knowledge, that's you.

Now, give me a list so I can see if we should all be concerned, or if we should all just be thankful to fossil fuels for helping out the poor worldwide.

(my guess is you've already seen the list, and most of it is help for people, and that's why you won't list it here)

andypro7 said:

Now, give me a list so I can see if we should all be concerned, or if we should all just be thankful to fossil fuels for helping out the poor worldwide.

Click to expand...

Sorry, how does making healthcare unbelievably expensive across America help the poor?


Fervor without knowledge, that's you.

From Page 10 and 11
A Taxonomy of energy subsidies
2.1.1. Overview of the mechanisms by which sectoral support is provided
20. Governments support consumption and production in numerous ways: by intervening in markets in such a way as to affect costs or prices, by transferring funds to recipients directly, by assuming part of their risk, by selectively reducing the taxes they would otherwise have to pay, and
by undercharging for the use of government-supplied goods or assets. Often, more than one transfer mechanism is used. For example, on the consumption side, a government may provide tax breaks to purchasers of motor vehicles and at the same time regulate the price of transport fuels below the international market price or even below the cost of producing the fuels. Similarly, on the production side, a government may fund research at a national laboratory on how to convert coal into a liquid transport fuel, provide grants and loan guarantees to companies investing in synthetic fuels from coal, provide a tax credit linked to the production of such fuels, and exempt such producers from paying royalties on coal mined from state-owned lands. The national government may, in turn, pay the producer a higher price for the fuel than it could have paid for an imported, petroleum-derived fuel. For biofuels, in addition to mandatory targets, import tariff and tax exemption for producers, support is also provided through agriculture subsidies to raw
materials.
http://www.oecd.org/env/45575666.pdf

Now, the issue before us is WHY is the government subsidising oil and coal and gas when they KILL PEOPLE, change the climate, and cost nations an extra 10% or more on their national health budget? People don't really want dirty oil and coal and gas polluting their skies and choking their kids and costing them a huge health budget. What people really want is affordable transport and hot pizza and cold beer.

I'm not against government subsidies if something needs it to get by and perform a valuable function. I'm against governments subsidising the WRONG THING. Fossil fuels are NOT cheap when one counts the subsidies, pollution, health costs and climate change effects. Subsidising nukes? Go for it!

eclipsenow said:

I'm against governments subsidising the WRONG THING.

Click to expand...

Me too. Please list specifically what those wrong things are.

Do you know what a list is?

andypro7 said:

Me too. Please list specifically what those wrong things are.

Do you know what a list is?

Click to expand...

You didn't bother reading any of my links before, why should I believe you'll start now?

list? try page 12
http://www.oecd.org/env/45575666.pdf