Discussion > AR5 a side issue
Because everything we do becomes more expensive than the same things provided by other people. What do people do when faced with identical products but one is more expensive than the other? I'll give you a clue, it's not 'choose the green one'. In terms of reliability, we may not be able to compete at all. People will not do business with a country that is offline on a regular basis because their power is down. Certain businesses cannot run without reliable power.
TinyCO2
Pierre has had a couple of good posts on Greenpeace recently over at No Tricks Zone.
Greenpeace sees itself as beyond the law and it is very refreshing to see the Russians treat them as lawbreakers, which is what they are. When eco-terrorists tried to cause damage to a power station in this country a couple of years ago, our stupid government let them off.
Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace left the organisation years ago.
"We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy."
Schrodinger's Cat
Chandra: Brilliant Disguise is one of Springsteen's best - a sad, bleak love song. He's sure she no longer loves him - but can he be certain? Is it relevant here? Maybe: you may be sure, but are you confident you're right? No doubts?
Perhaps the answer is in the meaning of "Chandra" - a Hindu luna deity or, in some Indian languages, simply the moon. As a deity, Chandra was unfortunate - not least by having many disastrous love affairs with punishments that include the reason for the moon's waxing (good) and waning (bad). Back to Bruce's lyric perhaps: are you waxing or waning?
In your response to Hector, you said you'd seen no evidence that there were any disadvantages in "taking action" - to reduce CO2 emissions. That may even be true over a very long time, but my concern - and probably Hector's - is the situation today. And, in that context, many serious commentators have expressed concern. One example is a recently published Cap Gemini report about the crisis in European energy police, a crisis - it says - almost entirely of its own making. It warns that the closure of nearly two thirds of Europe's gas-fired power stations by 2016 will lead to price hikes and make power outages inevitable - probably quite soon. Why are they closing? Because regulations to reduce CO2 emissions relegate then to standby/back-up duties in favour of inefficient and costly renewable plants. An extract (translated) from the report:
These plants... that are indispensable to ensure security of supply during peak hours... are being replaced by volatile and non-schedulable renewable energy installations that are heavily subsidised.It goes further and claims that CO2 emissions will actually increase as coal is increasingly used to fill the gaps. Here's the full report (in French).
That looks like evidence of disadvantage. Do you agree?
Robin Guenier
Yes, one of my favorites. Another of his that I really liked many years back was something about working a chain gang. I don't have it and don't know the name of the song - if it happens to ring a bell I'd be obliged to know.
As regards your evidence, I'm not persuaded that you have such. All I've seen is opinion. I cannot judge the report you quote as it is of unknown pedigree (to me). I rather imagine it to have about the same chance of doing justice to the subject as The Economist had with its recent report on biodiversity - as if they know anything about it. As for subsidy, I'd be rather surprised if the French nuclear fleet had not received a handsome subsidy (not to mention decommissioning) but I don't here complaints about that.
Chandra
I dunno - maybe you mean this.
No evidence? Cap Gemini is a leading consulting business. Their facts are correct (do you need a translation?) - or do you think gas plants are not being closed? OK, well try this (about Germany which you recently mentioned so favourably). It comes incidentally from Der Spiegel hitherto a strong supporter of AGW orthodoxy - plenty of fact there. Or (same subject) perhaps this.
Are you really sure there is no risk of damage from current renewable policy?
Robin Guenier
Chandra
regarding the French nuclear power-plants....I imagine they do receive subsidy but they can be relied upon to generate power whenever it is needed. Renewables cannot be relied upon unless you weaken the definition of renewables so as to make it more economic to fuel a coal-pwered station such as Drax from wood-chips imported from the USA. Strip out anomalies such as Drax burning wood (such is industrial progress...back to the future etc) and the performance of renewables in UK, Denmark and Germany is risible.
diogenes
You'll also find that sceptics are not usually the people holding up nuclear, so if you think that we should be copying France, go lobby Greenpeace instead.
You don't comment on the viability of an economy trying to sell over priced goods or to run effectively without reliable power.
TinyCO2
You don't comment on the viability of an economy trying to sell over priced goods or to run effectively without reliable power.
Oct 17, 2013 at 10:37 PM | TinyCO2
Tiny, Chandra agreed above that fossil fuels bring us great benefits, but seems inpervious to the argument that removing those benefits can cause harm. I am in doubt as to whether his difficulties are best described as failures of logic, or language.
michael hart
Robin, yes that was the song, well done! Nothing to do with chain gangs.
One swallow doesn't make it summer. A few facts don't make the truth. Which facts were included/omitted. How well was the report researched, how competent were the authors, what preconceptions did they have, who was the customer, if any, etc. And obviously where the report applies to 2014 and beyond it contains no facts. Furthermore, predicting risks and potential damage is not the same as providing evidence for such damage.
Your other references are very weak. The Forbes article is grossly skewed from the very first paragraph and so is probably fact free. Der Spiegel is an unreliable reporter of the Energiewende, more interested it seems in winding up readers than reporting accurately.
So you still have provided no proof of damage.
Diogenes I mentioned subsidy only because Robin chose to include it in his precis of the French report page 2 paras 1 and 2. Subsidy may or may not be undesirable, but it is not unique to renewables. German renewables provide (so I read somewhere) 25% of their electricity, which is hardly "risible".
TinyCO2, I said nothing about copying France. Is there evidence that UK/European power has become unreliable? Pricing relies on many things and one of the many is energy. Can show that European energy prices have in themselves "damaged" us?
Chandra
DNFTCFZ
geronimo
The CFZ has successfully de-railed the blog post from discussing AR5.
geronimo
geronimo: I assume that by "CFZ" you're referring to our little friend Chandra. (Sorry - I've no idea what "CFZ" is supposed to mean.)
Normally, I abide by the DNFTT injunction. But Chandra hasn't de-railed the blog which is not about discussing AR5. On the contrary - note the title, "AR5 a side issue" - it's about why such discussion, although interesting, is largely a distraction. Prompted by the Russia/Greenpeace story, I noted how countries responsible for more than 70% of CO2 emissions had no real interest in "green" issues and had no intention of making any serious cuts in emissions. I noted how the West, and especially Europe, had been utterly defeated at COP 15 at Copenhagen in 2009 and how anyone who believes in a comprehensive emission reduction deal at COP 21 in Paris in 2015 is living in dreamland. Therefore, I said, not only are our efforts to reduce emissions damaging and absurdly expensive, but they’re completely pointless.
Chandra, in contrast, thinks that unilateral action, far from being pointless, is "the right thing to do" - although, apart from suggesting that any benefits would be long term, he ("Chandra is a Hindu demi-god) hasn't explained why. And, regarding the short term, he keeps saying that he's seen no evidence that such policies are damaging - see his post above. So, you see, he's precisely (and quite usefully) on topic.
Do you agree with him that there's no evidence of CO2 reduction policies causing damage so far?
Robin Guenier
This remark from Geoff Chambers above stands out: -
"AR5 may be a side issue world wide, due to the fact that countries with growing economies tend to be run by people who are numerate. But it’s still important in the West - it’s our Great Wall of Consensus, cutting us off from reality as efficiently China’s thousand year isolation, possibly with similar results."
The proposition that 'numeracy' is a function of 'growing economies' which is why 'AR5 may be a side issue world-wide' says much about the mind-set that produced it and nothing that gives meaning to the proposition itself.
The authors of AR5 regard UNFCCC-compliance as relevant. Consequently, they laid out a range of future 'carbon budgeting' estimated to link to that in the formation shown here: - http://www.gci.org.uk/CBAT1_i-5a.html
The numeracy here is necessary for UNFCCC-compliance and this precedes Geoff Chambers' considerations of the Great Wall of China and economies growing or otherwise.
A Meyer
"Chandra, in contrast, thinks that unilateral action, far from being pointless, is "the right thing to do" - although, apart from suggesting that any benefits would be long term, he ("Chandra is a Hindu demi-god) hasn't explained why."
He is a content free zone, CFZ, he hasn't the remotest clue about the science or the policies. If he did he'd know that the big issuers of CO2 haven't the slightest intention of reducing their CO2 and that China currently pumps out our year's emissions in just over three weeks, hence if we went to zero emissions it wouldn't have the slightest effect on the future of the planet, always assuming emissions are a problem.
I don't believe AR5 is a side issue because that's what the alarmists want us to believe. It is, as they say, "a withdrawal to prepared positions, and the 95% certainty was the smoke screen for the withdrawal. While doing that they quietly resiled from the position they held that global warming, even at an ECS of 3C was unlikely to cause major catastrophes. The 95% grabbed the headlines even though it's meaningless and unscientific, while the much more important retreat was ignored. And they keep saying that climate scientists can't communicate! They are playing the MSM with consummate ease.
geronimo
geronimo: I disagree - I'd give Chandra the benefit of the doubt. For example, he hasn't even tried to disagree with my main point - i.e. that China etc., the massive emitters, have no intention of reducing their emissions. His point is, bizarrely, that unilateral reduction is "the right thing to do", despite his seeming agreement that it cannot make any difference to the future of the planet.
I completely disagree with your view that the alarmists want sceptics to believe that AR5 is a side issue. Whereas they have no problem with sceptics who try to debate whether or not it's meaningless and unscientific - they have the entire Establishment, especially the MSM, on their side. These are debates where sceptics cannot prevail - although they might "win" in logic. But point out that current policies are damaging, dangerous and, above all, pointless and none of their usual defences ("denier!", "consensus", "mainstream science", etc.) apply. Think about it.
Robin Guenier
AR5 isn't a side show because of the down playing of the catastrophic effects of global warming, I doubt there will be an AR6 because I believe there are new young scientists coming through who don't have the skin in the game that the older alarmist scientists have, I could be wrong, but I believe we're seeing, albeit proxy, evidence of this in the report where, probably, they were unable to get "consensus" on what I consider the most important metric in the whole debate, ECS,
These are critical issues, the lowering of the range and the inability to get, I guess, the younger scientists, to parrot 3C as the ECS is boding ill for the core group of alarmist activists.
You can make of Chandra what you will, but he's demonstrated no knowledge of the arguments to me and raised the race card on another thread.
geronimo
Chandra: time, I think, to deal with your concern about "damage". First, I'm more concerned about potential damage - i.e. risk - than I am about current damage. And, if you insist, I'll deal with that in a later comment. But, in the meantime, I'll remind you that you haven't answered my simple question: are you really sure there is no risk of damage from current renewable policy? Please do so.
You convenient and airy waving away of the various links I sent you is most unimpressive - especially your casual dismissal of Der Spiegel as "an unreliable reporter of the Energiewende, more interested it seems in winding up readers than reporting accurately". Have you any evidence to support that extraordinary assertion?
But I'll be kind and humour you. Current damage? Hmm - first, do you reject the claim that renewable policies are contributing to fuel price increases across Europe, impacting the poorest and most vulnerable people in society? Or will you insist on detailed evidence? If so, here's something interesting. You've asked about damage in Denmark and Germany. Well, I've given you plenty of material about Germany. But consider - Denmark and Germany (despite - or most probably because of - their massive investment in renewables) have the highest household electricity prices in Europe: LINK. (OK Cyprus is higher than Germany - but I'm sure even you will overlook that.)
Other damage? How about biofuels? LINK 1 / LINK 2 / LINK 3. Increase emissions, destroy the local environment ("environmental havoc"), cause a huge reduction in the world's stockpiles of cereals - and starvation ... Not damaging?
But, if you're still unconvinced, consider rare earth minerals - essential to solar panels and especially to wind turbines. First, there's scarcity and the resulting threat to attempts to meet emissions targets - LINK. Then there's toxicity: LINK 1 / LINK 2 / LINK 3 / LINK 4. Not damaging?
Surely that will do - the above is bad enough, but as I said, I'm more concerned about the risk of potential (medium-term) damage. But, if you want more evidence of current damage, I can provide it. Yawn.
Robin Guenier
Geronimo, FWIW, I won't be feeding it any more. Not unless it raises it's game to at least the level of Entropic Man. I know Johanna posted an early warning about the Chandra, but I wanted to satisfy myself before calling troll.
One of the reasons I like Bishop Hill is that Andrew Montford sets a good example. The degree of tolerance afforded to those wishing to disagree shames traditional media sources such as The Guardian (and Robin Guenier is also very patient on this thread). It is important to me that a website doesn't routinely remove dissenting comments, and that it is plain to see just how much rope trolls are given. Which is enough, in this instance.
michael hart
Robin,
> are you really sure there is no risk of damage from current renewable policy?
Policy or objectives? The objective is correct (de-carbonizing) and I see no great "risks" only practical difficulties. Current policy is lacking, but because it is too equivocal, not because it is risky. On risks, lets say we build windmills, solar and wave power etc. There is little risk that wind won't come, the sun won't shine or the tides will stop. Look at the alternatives: nuclear, obvious risks; oil and gas, risk to supply; coal is filthy.
You are perhaps more preoccupied with short term risk (eg the CapGemini report). It is clearly true that if most gas turbines are turned off because the become too costly to run there would be problems. But the gas turbines are not being decommissioned and exported. They can be turned back on when the incentives are fixed, as they will have to be.
I'll come back to the other issues shortly...
Chandra
"It is important to me that a website doesn't routinely remove dissenting comments..." Me to Michael, provided we're dealing with people who will address the argument cogently and indeed take us on. We've had a few of them who were, in my view at least, genuine contributors, and in the case of Chandra and 1001 I noticed a huge effort on the part of the denizens of this site to get them to understand out case. Unlike Entropic Man, and to a certain extent BBD who admittedly tried to give the impression of reading the literature while taking précis from SKS and SOD to give us the impression of deep scientific reading, these individuals aren't here to put an argument forward, or to rebut ours they're weird people who will come onto a thread with not the faintest knowledge of where the arguments lie and then have the ever so polite curmudgeons like myself try to explain what we're saying until we're hoarse.
in the case of Chandra, there is zero understanding of the science and a deep, deep lack of knowledge of the underlying politics and economics and what the real goals are of the environmentalists. See post above where s/he tells us she can see nothing wrong with de-carbonising the economy while the evidence of energy rises and fuel poverty are already upon us with the prospect of blackouts looming.
geronimo
Regarding the Forbes article, well just read the first paragraph. Having done that you'll know without a doubt what side of the fence the author sits and that there is no point in reading further - you know what it will say without reading. That is no kind of evidence. Regarding Der Spiegel, see: http://www.renewablesinternational.net/how-spiegel-gets-energiewende-wrong/150/537/57733/
I'd be stupid to claim that renewables policy has no effect on prices. There are clearly increases and there are also decreases (negative wholesale electricity prices in Germany, for example). But it is simplistic to equate that directly with "damage". That would be like saying that wage rises necessarily cause damage. High domestic electricity prices in German/Denmark, I still can't see why that is necessarily damaging. Households face many costs, not just fuel. People don't heat their homes with electricity.
Biofuels are truly the devil's work, I agree. Although I think algal-based fuels might be sustainable and desirable.
Rare earth minerals (which are not so rare, just not widely refined) seem off topic as far as showing that efforts to reduce GHGs are damaging to our economy. But your case for that is weak, so why not invoke environmental damage in China? Yes Chinese production of them is polluting. But its production of everything is polluting. If you are saying that we should take pollution into account when dealing with China and its like, then I'm with you.
So there we are. You have provided no evidence of damage and the risks seem limited (previous post).
Chandra
OK, geronimo amd michael, I too won't be feeding Chandra anymore. But it's been interesting: all the way from his insistence that ordinary Russians are softer and more liberal minded than Guardian commentators about Greepeace trying to invade their oil-rig, to his refusal to accept that the ghastly environmental and human damage caused by biofuels and the extraction of RMEs is really damage.
Robin Guenier
So Robin Guenier, you started out worrying about economic suicide and, having failed to substantiate such alarmist rhetoric, have been reduced to complaining about environmental issues (on which I support you). It gladdens me that this is important to you and I hope you will consider joining an environmental charity that represents your new worries better than Bishop Hill.
Having lost the debate, I am not surprised you now opt for the "troll" defence.
Chandra
geronimo and michael: see above for a perfect illustration of the wisdom of my decision. Perhaps I should have listened to you earlier. But, as I said, it was interesting - even fun.
Robin Guenier
Robin, imitation is the only honest form of flattery. So I'm flattered. I actually have no idea what you think, and I doubt you'll enlighten me either. It is possible that you don't know what to think either. As Bruce once said,
Hector, other countries actions are relevant only if you think that we put ourselves at a disadvantage by taking action. I don't think we do and nobody has presented any evidence to change my mind.