It's all over but for the sweating?

[NeilBlanchard]

Yeah, that's it. Good diagnosis - thanks. You've reversed my understanding of reality that is based on all the science available; with just two brief snide accusations of someone you have never met.

Let's keep on keepin' on, and forget all about these glory-seeking scientists!

[P-hack]

It isn't the scientists that worry me, I am one (though I don't care to science much in my spare time). It is the rest of the humans.

[Arragonis]

That "High energy costs don't hurt the economy" thing for real

How Europe's Economy Is Being Devastated By Global Warming Orthodoxy - Forbes

[Arragonis]

That "Australian election non issue" played out for real

No Cookies | Herald Sun

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

That "High energy costs don't hurt the economy" thing for real

How Europe's Economy Is Being Devastated By Global Warming Orthodoxy - Forbes

That's because the costs of climate change are not being considered.

It's worth pointing out that the German economy, with a substantial fraction of energy from renewables, is strong in comparison with the other Euro states.

If business is avoiding Europe because of a price on emitting ghg (and that is not the only factor that determines where business locates) that is a "Tragedy of the Commons" problem, with other states that have not yet priced emissions along for a free ride. It's not an argument against pricing emissions.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

That "Australian election non issue" played out for real

No Cookies | Herald Sun

It's a non issue because even after the "tax" was introduced (at $25/ton of CO2 equivalent) the Australian economy has still outperformed virtually all other OECD economies.

I doubt that very many people voted for the new government solely because of a promise to remove a price on emitting CO2.

Flannery's position may or may not have provided value, but he is misquoted by omission in that article (the quote has been echoed pretty widely over time).

The bit missing, and I'm paraphrasing because I can't be bothered digging up the direct quote, was along the lines of: "If this trend continues, desalination plants will be required." That's a simple statement of fact and a long way from the prediction it is being made out to be.

One of the predicted outcomes of global warming is greater extremes in weather. Both floods and droughts will be worse and that is what is occurring.

[Alteredstory]

Also, it's easy to claim any number of factors as "the reason" why Europe is having a tough time of it. They got hit in 2008 like everybody else, and since then, as America's economy has ALSO struggled, I've heard it blamed on energy policy, social policy, drought, refugees from Africa, austerity, and probably one or two other things that I'm not recalling right now. Some countries are struggling more than we are, some seem to be struggling LESS (compared to where they were before the crash - let's not forget that some countries haven't had "strong economies" for decades if not more), and whether or not they're pushing renewable energy seems to have little to do with it.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

It's worth pointing out that the German economy, with a substantial fraction of energy from renewables, is strong in comparison with the other Euro states.

It's a non issue because even after the "tax" was introduced (at $25/ton of CO2 equivalent) the Australian economy has still outperformed virtually all other OECD economies.

Its also worth noting that both main parties are now climbing down over those committments, they too have an election this weekend.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

I doubt that very many people voted for the new government solely because of a promise to remove a price on emitting CO2.

Flannery's position may or may not have provided value, but he is misquoted by omission in that article (the quote has been echoed pretty widely over time).

The bit missing, and I'm paraphrasing because I can't be bothered digging up the direct quote, was along the lines of: "If this trend continues, desalination plants will be required." That's a simple statement of fact and a long way from the prediction it is being made out to be.

Well the "trend" didn't continue. And hasn't.

So if it wasn't a "prediction" why did gov.com.au invest $m in building them, and then mothballing them because the rain came back.

Australia managed to avoid the GFC pretty much altogether before they had a climate tax. The tax was way too high at $25 especially as nobody followed them and nobody wanted to. It was (and remains) unclear where any "Carbon Tax" would go.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Alteredstory

Also, it's easy to claim any number of factors as "the reason" why Europe is having a tough time of it. They got hit in 2008 like everybody else, and since then, as America's economy has ALSO struggled, I've heard it blamed on energy policy, social policy, drought, refugees from Africa, austerity, and probably one or two other things that I'm not recalling right now. Some countries are struggling more than we are, some seem to be struggling LESS (compared to where they were before the crash - let's not forget that some countries haven't had "strong economies" for decades if not more), and whether or not they're pushing renewable energy seems to have little to do with it.

I would agree that this isn't the reason why Europe is having a hard time, just that whilst Europe is struggling it seems perverse to plonk an extra unelected and wanted layer of taxation and unrequired cost on people who are already struggling, and contrasting that with economies where energy is cheap which are doing better.

There is a backlash coming against these policies - they aren't the only factors but politics are changing in Europe - some countries like the UK may even leave the political side of it altogether. It isn't a left vs right thing, many on the left here are unhappy about these too.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Well the "trend" didn't continue. And hasn't.

So if it wasn't a "prediction" why did gov.com.au invest $m in building them, and then mothballing them because the rain came back.

Because if they hadn't built the desal. plants (or at least made some provision for water) and there had not been rain, there would have been cities running out of water.

It is precisely this sort of infrastructure project that is required due to the effects of global warming, but is not included in the cost of the fuels without a price on emitting.

Australia managed to avoid the GFC pretty much altogether before they had a climate tax. The tax was way too high at $25 especially as nobody followed them and nobody wanted to. It was (and remains) unclear where any "Carbon Tax" would go.

Yes, it was higher than the trading price in the EU market at the time. It was intended that the "tax" morph into integration with the EU emissions trading market at a later date (2015?). The expected price was anticipated to be close to the $25/ton when that occurred.

The Australian government may have got the price wrong (we'll see if the EU recovers enough economically or they reduce the number of permits enough to push the price back up to near that level).

The "tax" "revenue" was, in part returned to individual taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, in part used to compensate some trade exposed emitters (who still had an incentive to reduce emissions but would be no worse off if they didn't) and in part made available to finance renewable energy/emission reduction projects.

[Arragonis]

Australia has 5 desal plants each costing between 1.5 and 3.0 $bn. Only one is working, four are "mothballed" at a cost of between $500m and $700m a year. Not to mention the cost of "mothballing" the "renewable" energy being used to power them. Actually thats worse - lets hope the need for water coincides with renewables working.

Thats a wacking lot of cash for a wealthy but small country. Money which could be used for quite a lot of other very useful things - probably more useful.

That looks like the world's most effective wealth redistribution program, from taxpayers on middle and low incomes to wealthy investors via useless politicians, much like the renewables "industry".

On top of that Drought patterns haven't changed in 60 years.

(This is also worth a read - Australia again)

Common belief has it that this deterioration in productivity is primarily due to the relatively higher frequency of drought in the last decade, but removal of those drought effects shows that this is not the case; there is still an underlying decline in productivity that began years earlier following a production plateau reached in the 1990s.

On top of that predictions of future disaster is based on those models again, which all seem to be running too hot.