A Mini Ice Age Means What?

If these climatologists are right we may be due for a mini ice age:

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

...The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

So what does this mean?  Some possibilities:

(a) It's a vital reprieve giving us additional time to do things we should have been doing anyway.  For instance, rather than scrapping a perfectly useful coal-fired plant we can replace it at the end of its useful life with newer, greener technology not yet perfected.

(b) it's a head fake, and when the next mini-warming cycle starts in thirty years we will set heat records all over the world.

(c) it is the death knell for adequate public support for slapping a price on carbon emissions.  Is America, where two thirds of adults are overweight or obese, really going to spend twenty years on an energy diet while temperatures drop?  We aren't that good at taking the long view, especially when the science is in flux (Not related, yet related -  eventually the rise in autism, obesity, diabetes and other things will be linked to the rise in the use of sunscreen.  Yeah, because we listened to the scientists who told us that sunshine was dangerous.)

I am hoping for (a) but would bet on (c).  But in (c) I do would support a simple revenue neutral carbon tax, not the preposterous cap and trade that Dems are backing as a jobs program for an expanded AFSCME unionized government bureaucracy.

Comments

[Pofarmer]

How, about, "falsifies the premise of CO2 induced global warming."

Face it, there is no emperical support for the theory, and it's legs are looking more rickety every day. If we are going into a Mauder type minimum, which looks likely, then this cool spell will probably last untill at least 2100, and, there's ample evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a GOOD thing.

See, this article at Wattsupwiththat.

The biosphere is an AMAZING mechanism, with obvious limits for soaking up what little CO2 that we can emit.

[Pofarmer]

Dang it. Should read "NO obvious limits."

[Frau Atomkraft]

I wish it meant nuclear power for our country.

[Ignatz]

How's about:
(d)The climate oscillates to and fro and we are in a general warming pattern as we emerge from the little ice age. Perhaps man has contributed some small amount to the warming but that is not clear.

And as a fifth option we have;
(e) We are presently actually in an ice age. We are merely experiencing what is known as an 'inter glacial' warm period within it and we do not know what mechanism may turn the advancing glaciers back on at any time. If we actually can warm the planet it's the best news we could hope for because a sea level a foot higher beats a few thousand feet of ice any day of the week.

[I'm getting my climate info from Leo Tolstoy lately.]

Remember that the sunspots are going away in another half decade, as happened about two hundred years ago, and it got cold then, but there were also volcanoes to raise the albedo and cool the earth. So it is not known whether or not the sunspots fading will cool the earth.

The big mystery, now that we've 'settled' that CO2 plays a minor role, is how the sun's performance affects the climate. There is not enough variation in the direct output of the sun to account for the wider range of climate variation.

Napoleon fled Moscow even before it got really cold.
====================================

[Neo]

… but they have got it wrong, this recent (last 5 or 6 decades) ‘warming trend” is a product of “Global Cooling” and well within the “natural variability”

[Pofarmer]

KIM!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Clarice]

I happen to have stored away the last 10,000 cans of Aqua Net hairspray and if it gets really really cold, I'll sell them to the gobernment and get super rich--spray away!!

[Pofarmer]

Robert Gibbs speaks,and proves, once again, he's a moron.

Gibbs: "I think that one only has to step outside here or visit where I used to work in Chicago to understand that climate change, and the record temperature that climate change is likely causing, is with us....I would say that eve in places that are used to getting very cold weather, record cold...our weather patterns have been affected by change in our climate"

And this now, from the NCDC, who's data I don't even trust that much.

The average temperature in December 2009 was 30.2 F. This was -3.2 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 14th coolest December in 115 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.88 inches of precipitation fell in December. This was 0.65 inches more than the 1901-2000 average, the 11th wettest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.02 inches per decade.

But, yeah, Global warming is hangin right in there.

[Porchlight]

I ♥ kim

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Face it, there is no emperical support for the theory

Depends: do you mean CO2-based global warming, or CO2 as the primary driver of anthropogenic global warming over the last 100 years?

[Clarice]

KIM KIM KIM (is the signature a hint you're now in Russia?)

[boris]

"CO2 as the primary driver of anthropogenic global warming over the last 100 years"

I would claim that there is no empirical support for a quantitive relationship between possible anthropogenic CO2 and the so called average global temperature.

[Old Lurker]

Yay Kim!

Clarice, I had to remove my 10,000 cans of hairspray to make room for the cases of incandescent light bulbs I had to stockpile.

[A couple of years ago I speculated that this hoax might immunize society against such policy catastrophes. And then I read that the South Sea Bubble was about South America.]

Check out the burgeoning Pachauri scandal and evidence at Jeff Id's that Google has deleted 20,000,000 ClimateGate links.

In my last conversation with Peter I mentioned that I hoped it would all end in ridicule, not anger, and he responded that the anger was necessary, that too many had died already. Yes, and have been robbed. And are still under the gun.

Too bad punishment will not prevent the next grand rip-off.
========================================

[matt]

I think most Floridians are looking for some of that global warming right about now. 40 in Key West, 20 in Tallahassee, 33 in Miami...all record lows.....

And the head of the Met office is oblivious of his sheer bloody minded idiocy.

[Jane]

Where is the link you are referring to Kim?

Boy did you cause a ruckus around here. Glad you are back.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

And the answer Tom's question is this:

it's going to mean weather that's like what it was like when you were

- a child, if you're under 40, or
- a child if you're between 40 and 60, or
- a child if you're over 60,

or like your great grandparents, your grandparents, or your parents, respectively.

[Still dreaming; someone just opened the refrigerator door.]

noconsensus.wordpress.com Jane. This is insidious. Sorry about the ruckus.
=====================================

[Jack is Back!]

I believe in the Dandy Don Meridith rule for life:

"If, if's and but's were candies and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas."

[A miracle has happened.]

Jeff Id's site is where the ClimateGate emails first got posted, while he was away massacring dear little deer.
======================================

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Kim, the Air Vent thing now says "well, apparently not."

Generally, folks, watch out for making inferences about how many search hits Google finds, what their suggestions are, and so on. Google's search algorithms are somewhat nondeterministic, first of all, because it makes searching lots more efficient if you only deliver 95 percent optimal results, and second because they can only sweep the whole net on average about every 3 days, so fast moving topics in particular don't keep up.

Then add in that they also track what you're interested in, and weight your search results.

[bgates]

Hey, Kim's alive!

[News changes by the minute.]

Uh, I read 'apparently so'.
========================

[Jack is Back!]

43F in Palm Coast, FL - it was 26F this morning on the school run. This is the longest continuous period of below freezing temperatures since they started keeping records. We are now on our 8th day. And yet, the Daytona News-Journal (as red as you can get and I don't mean like in red state) is all over AGW and Climate Change as being a conspiracy between big oil, big conservatism the NRA. Remember folks, this is NASCAR country and the main press is as pink as our beloved Flamingo's.

[Thomas Collins]

It's the blogger formerly known as Kim who is now blogging as an ongoing epic poem in the name rectangle! So glad you're visiting JOM!

Now tell us the truth, Kim. We all have our egos. Were you checking in here and getting your ego inflated by our begging you to post a few comments on Climategate? :-))

[narciso]

They promised us Global warming, where is it,

[glasater]

Kim!! I've missed you tons!!!!!!

[Rick Ballard]

"They promised us Global warming, where is it,"

Narciso,

It's right here and right now - wait until you see the adjusted temperature readings (you can look at really scientific super duper IPCC model output during the adjustment period).

Make sure that you keep nose and ears well covered - frostbite can sneak up on you pretty quickly.

[Appalled]

I would vote for the simple carbon tax, too, on the grounds that a shift to renewable energy is good public policy on a number of grounds. If global warming were the only reason, I'd vote against the tax, because there is not a whole lot of convincing evidence, and climatre variability is nothing terribly new in the history of this planet.

Plus, I really could use some global warming right now, so I can use a little less of that carbon based fuel in heating my house.

[Cecil Turner]

It's a vital reprieve giving us additional time . . .

Sorry, but this still buys into the "global warming is the danger" meme, which is at best unproven. Global cooling means starvation . . . . warming, not so bad.

[My gift for prophecy has gang agley, now.]

Heh, thanks, TC, but I've only lurked a couple of times in the last few weeks. When the 'Miracle', the release of the emails occurred, I recognized immediately that this was the end, that the bulk of that communication would explain to the mass of those fairly ignorant of climate how they'd been fooled, and my compulsion to blog about climate evaporated. I've been keeping shabbas since.
=========================================

[Beyond Long Shot]

"Looking Closer at the Massachusetts Senate Polls
Analysis by Scott Rasmussen
Monday, January 11, 2010

Clearly, his supporters are more enthusiastic about the race and that gives him a chance. But, as they have from the beginning, the dynamics of the race still make it likely that Massachusetts voters on January 19 will send another Democrat to Washington."

[Dave (in MA)]

Free the Grapes!

Scott Brown wants Mass. wine drinkers to be free to order from out-of-state wineries to help them keep warm during the imminent mini ice age.

Martha Coakley wants to preserve the unconstitutional monopoly.

[DrJ]

Scott Brown wants Mass. wine drinkers to be free to order from out-of-state wineries

Those laws really are a pain in the a**. I wanted to send a bottle of a good wine to a friend and colleague who was retiring from a Boston-area University. Simply, I was unable to do so. I had his admin buy one, and I reimbursed her, but that took all the novelty out of the gift.

Many other East Coast and mid-Atlantic states share this monopoly (MD, for example).

[RichatUF]

Jane-

Richard North at EU Referendum has been peeling Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC like a potato. It is the typical corruption that one would expect to find at the UN at an executive level-conflict of interest, tax evasion, money laundering through ngo's, etc.

[Schooner]

Not so Fast

Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research

inked his research to claims that the current cold weather undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming.

Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.

He told the Guardian: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."

[RichatUF]

And, welcome back kim, it is good to see you commenting again.

[Ignatz]

--I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming.--

That says a lot, none of it good.

[Jane]

Rich,

I saw some of that over the weekend. I don't get the science, but I truly get the money.

[Pofarmer]

on the grounds that a shift to renewable energy is good public policy on a number of grounds.

Talk about yer useful idiots.

[matt]

quickly, get all the libs to fire up their G-V's and fly down Florida way. They need of a that global warming ASAP.

[centralcal]

Kim - what a delight to see your comments again and no that all is well with you.

Your disappearance so soon after the loss of PUK, had many of us fearfully concerned.

So damned glad you are back and as enigmatic as ever! (big, big, grin)

[centralcal]

blush - KnoW!

[Rick Ballard]

Pofarmer,

If no one ever dreams of riding a unicorn to work then no unicorns will ever be born.

[Harry Reid Says Welcome Back Kim]

I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming.

I'm glad this isn't a Negro dialect, unless he wanted to use one, because then it would have no electability.

[Danube of Thought]

I go for (d) none of the above, and while you're at it stop bothering people with this idle crap, get a life and find some honest work.

[torabora]

If you give the monsters in Washington ANY more money to spend they will run even BIGGER deficits.

No more taxes! Don't be stupid.

[daddy]

A Mini Ice Age Means What?

Well TM, since that's the story I linked last night which includes this sentence:

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

It means that stories like this ">http://www.adn.com/3437/story/1085009.html"> ADN one saying Polar Bears are overrunning some Eskimo's village due to sea ice melting are false, demonstrably false, logically false, and just a pack of lies.

If sea ice has increased twice the size of Texas in 3 years, then Polar Bears can't be fleeing melting sea ice, so what A Mini Ice AGE Actually Means is that pseudo-scientists are going to have to come up with some different excuse to give the UN total control over the Environment.

[Old Lurker]

"Scott Brown wants Mass. wine drinkers to be free to order from out-of-state wineries"

Now that is very interesting. We get WSJ wine club shipments delivered by UPS to Nantucket. Is that not legal in MA? We do not get them to our house in MD because our state too enjoys a state monopoly.

[Sue]

Hi Kim. Glad you surfaced. I was one day away from putting out the APB on you when you appeared last time. ::grin::

[cathyf]

...I would say that eve[n] in places that are used to getting very cold weather, record cold...

So, is "that word it doesn't mean what you think is means!" in this case "are used to" or "record" ?

(I suppose there is the trivial case where the temperature is always precisely the same, day and night. Then they are very "used to" a temperature which is simultaneously record cold and record warm. But if Gibbs knows about such an exotic place and is holding out on us...)

[narciso]

So who's been proven right, yet again. specially in light of Today's news

[Jane]

OL - I'm gonna have to arrest you and confiscate the wine.

[Old Lurker]

When you come visit this summer, you can collect your tax.

[MayBee]

============:
&heart;

[MayBee]

OOps! that isn't a very pretty heart.
But it meant well.

[MayBee]

I would vote for the simple carbon tax, too, on the grounds that a shift to renewable energy is good public policy on a number of grounds.

How about this:
Instead of a tax, a bunch of companies invest in renewable energy sources and then start convincing the public of the many merits of said energy?

[MayBee]

Then people, convinced in the same way you have been, will begin to demand renewable energy sources.

[Rob Crawford]

Instead of a tax, a bunch of companies invest in renewable energy sources and then start convincing the public of the many merits of said energy?

That's just crazy talk. Everyone knows it's the responsibility of government to chose the course of our economy!

/sarc

(I bought a "clean diesel" not because it's "clean", but because the stability of diesel prices and the efficiency of the engine were attractive. Plus, the car pushed my "gadget freak" buttons off the scale.)

[Rick Ballard]

"Instead of a tax, a bunch of companies invest in renewable energy sources and then start convincing the public of the many merits of said energy?"

Because the racket will only ever work via tax subsidies. You are already paying around 33% more per kWh in CA due to the ecofascists. That's how "free" renewables are at the moment - they won't be any cheaper any time soon and the scamsters running the racket are scared spitless.

Fifty pebble beds would put a nice dent in oil imports but the Club of Rome "we're all gonna die" mindset just will not accept solutions that do not involve a SoLunar windmill powered unicorn in every garage.

[jimmyk]

I go for (d) none of the above, and while you're at it stop bothering people with this idle crap, get a life and find some honest work.

That's pretty close. I'd be willing to say (d) we have so much uncertainty regarding temperature trends and their causes and effects that we should devote resources only toward some modest amount of research and data collection, and otherwise encourage everyone to go about their lives.

[PaulL]

I am all for taxing carbon provided that

1) the Democrats promise to use the revenue wisely

2) TM covers my bill

[Roger Knight]

No carbon tax, none. Let us use the 350 billion tons of coal within the US that we know about, let us use the vast oil shale resource, let us drive whatever size cars we want for the next thousand years. Our use of fossil fuels only accounts for 3.3% of the entire carbon cycle. To say that it has any effect whatsoever on the climate is patently absurd.
Fischer-Tropsch process, we can make gasoline out of coal. It was never necessary to send trillions of dollars to the Muslim Kings. Duh!

[Appalled]

MayBee:

Sounds great. But, if I were an investor GreenWorks Alternative Energy, I might be more inclined to invest if I know the Saudis or Venezuela will not be able to open the oil spigots to make my business fail. A carbon tax allows the market forces you and I prefer to function as they should. The only difference is that it will be somewhat less hard to compete against oil/cng/coal. (And, frankly, I am less inclined to include coal and oil shale in the tax)

Markets are not always going to function in the national interest, and markets dominated by state-owned players aren't behaving like a true Adam Smith invisible hand anyway.

[Rob Crawford]

A carbon tax allows the market forces you and I prefer to function as they should.

Uh, no. It artificially insulates against market forces.

Which you go on to admit. Which makes me wonder why you said the above in the first place, except maybe as a way of trying to cover up your preference for government-run industrial policy.

[Porchlight]

OT,

The Scott Brown moneybomb has passed its original goal of $500K and has now established a new goal of $750K by midnight tonight.

$525K and counting...

Red Invades Blue: Donate to Scott Brown

[Pofarmer]

Sounds great. But, if I were an investor GreenWorks Alternative Energy, I might be more inclined to invest if I know the Saudis or Venezuela will not be able to open the oil spigots to make my business fail. A carbon tax allows the market forces you and I prefer to function as they should.

If that's the case, then your alternative isn't all that great, is it?

Here's a clue. Denmark has the highest percentage of electricity provided by windmills that I'm aware of.

Do you know what their electric rates are?

$.335 per KWH, converted. My electric rates here are $.085 per KWH, and THAT has gone up because of the no-energy freaks. Yeah, them alternatives are working out just SWELL.

[Appalled]

Rob Crawford:

If it is cheaper to go to Citgo and finance Hugo Chavez, will you fill your tank there? Or will you pay a quarter more and fill your tank up at your friendly Texaco?

I dislike industrial policy because there's no way such a policy does not end up being corrupt. But, there is a place for government intervention in the markets, when the markets do not end up functioning in the national interest. Of course, defining national interest is the rub, isn't it?

[MayBee]

Rob Crawford covered my first objection.

Make the public policy argument part of the sell. People can be convinced to go to war, for heaven's sake. They can be convinced to demand renewable energy.

And for heaven's sake, let's at least make someone come up with a good product before we start charging a tax on gasoline. Cars, boats, and planes aren't going away tomorrow. I'm pretty certain my rickety energy grid isn't ready for cars to be plugged in every night.

[Appalled]

MayBee:

Well, will they come up with the grid without the carbon tax?

PoFarmer:

Finding the tax rate is also part of the rub. If you set a carbon tax rate that make wind power competative Righ Now, you've probably set the rate too high, and are goign to keep this little recession going another couple of years.

[matt]

30 new nuclear plants in 5 years. More natgas. Coal gasification.A Manhattan project on next generation nuclear.

That would cost less than $100 Billion and put us much farther ahead in both reducing greenhouse gases and our reliance on foreign energy.

[fdcol63]

Just wait .....

When all this snow starts melting in the spring and there's flooding all along the Mississippi River, they'll blame it on global warming.

[bgates]

I might be more inclined to invest if I know the Saudis or Venezuela will not be able to open the oil spigots

So we threaten to invade and/or destroy the oilfields unless those countries abide by a cap on oil production.

Then we meet our energy needs with the fission of lefty heads as they try to figure out plausible cover stories for why they're adamantly opposed to a war to prevent increased oil supply.

[MayBee]

Well, will they come up with the grid without the carbon tax?

Why not?

[jimmyk]

If it is cheaper to go to Citgo and finance Hugo Chavez, will you fill your tank there? Or will you pay a quarter more and fill your tank up at your friendly Texaco?

Oil is fungible. It is a commodity. To a first approximation, Citgo can sell as much as it wants on world markets regardless of who actually buys it. A substantial reduction of U.S. sales might cause Citgo to have to sell elsewhere and incur somewhat larger transport costs, but that's about the size of it.

[Appalled]

jimmyk:

So the only way to stop funding Hugo is to find ways to develop other sources of energy. Is that what you are saying, jimmyk? And if so, isn't Tom's modest proposal a simple way of doing it?

MayBee:

Because it won't be profitable enough in the short run.

bgates:

Knowing your reputation as a jokester, I am assuming you are not serious. Otherwise, I have to assume you prefer going to war to imposing new taxes. To which, all I can say is "Man, that's harsh."

[MayBee]

Utilities make a profit, right?
So if the battery operated car becomes a viable option, people will slowly start to buy them. As they do, their energy use will go up, and the utility companies will begin investing in new energy sources.
As energy sources improve, people begin to hear that plugging the cars in at night is become easier/less expensive than owning a gasoline car. People buy more. Utilities invest more.

Is that wrong? Isn't that how things have happened in the past, as people have put more and more energy-using devices in their homes?

[MayBee]

Why does this have to be done in the short run? Is the technology really ready to be rolled out on a massive scale now?

[cathyf]

Instead of a tax, a bunch of companies invest in renewable energy sources and then start convincing the public of the many merits of said energy?

Well, to be fair, the only real advantages of renewables are "public goods" -- namely reducing the flow of oil money to the Saudis and Iranians. Those advantages, of course, have nothing to do with the "renewability" -- it's simply that they compete with oil and drive the price down, and of course domestic (or just not-Islamic-nutjob) nuclear, oil, gas, shale, coal, etc. production does this, and better.

The real argument is would be for a (revenue-neutral) tariff on foreign energy imports, and then use the money to drillBabyDrill! (shorthand for nuclear, coal, gas, etc., not just oil.)

But, anyway, if you think of the tax incentives, etc. as substitutes for military & security spending, then it's not absurd out of hand to spend tax dollars for that. Also, when you are looking at (clean, safe!) nuclear energy, there are government costs for safety regulations and waste disposal. To the extent that government subsidies for wind or solar or whatever represent savings in government spending on nuclear, then some level of subsidy is quite rational. That's not to say that the level of subsidy that we have is the right amount, or that the right amount would be enough to make the alt energy economic, just that the right amount is greater than zero.

[Appalled]

MayBee:

Will they do it as fast as it should be done, without help? Also, how helpful/harmful will the state regulators be in allowing utilities to make that investment?

I don't think you are wrong, but a nudge might be required to get the process in gear. You and I both know that the gvernment is going to be taxing us somehow to pay for all this deficit. This may be one way that actually has some positivr effect.

[jimmyk]

So the only way to stop funding Hugo is to find ways to develop other sources of energy. Is that what you are saying, jimmyk?

The market will develop alternative sources of energy if they are economical. The government can step out of the way and allow more nuclear energy, and more drilling and exploration for oil. But I don't think any of this will affect Hugo's oil revenue very much.

I would tolerate some support for R&D if I thought it would be driven by economics and not politics, but that's about as likely as Elvis performing in the Super Bowl halftime show.

[Appalled]

cathyf:

I'm not entirely in your corner, as I have some concern about running out of oil in my lifetime (I'm a child of the 70s, worrying about running out of oil is in my genes). But, yeah, you basically have the argument for my approach expressed quite well.

[Soylent Red]

30 new nuclear plants in 5 years. More natgas. Coal gasification.A Manhattan project on next generation nuclear.

That would cost less than $100 Billion and put us much farther ahead in both reducing greenhouse gases and our reliance on foreign energy.

Pay the $100 billion out in both startup subsidies and future tax breaks and you've got the real recipe for jump starting the economy. Think of the jobs such a plan would create (or save!).

[MayBee]

True, cathyf, but we the taxpayers are already paying the tax for military and security spending.
So adding on top of that a carbon tax (as Appalled and many others propose) doesn't offset anything on our side. It actually makes us pay twice.

I'm not an expert, but I didn't think it was the lack of willing investors that keeps us from drill baby drilling. I thought it was gov't regulation.

[Rob Crawford]

Well, will they come up with the grid without the carbon tax?

The grid we have was built without a "carbon tax".

[Rob Crawford]

Will they do it as fast as it should be done, without help?

"Fast as it should be done" is a judgment call. I don't think it's one you're qualified to make.

[Rob Crawford]

I'm not an expert, but I didn't think it was the lack of willing investors that keeps us from drill baby drilling. I thought it was gov't regulation.

It's largely regulation. There's direct regulation (approval as to when and where drilling can be done), indirect regulation ("green" groups that tie drilling projects up in court), and universal regulation (minimum wage, unionization, ludicrously strict "consumer protection" laws). All add up to make the US unattractive for the energy industry in particular.

[MayBee]

Will they do it as fast as it should be done, without help? Also, how helpful/harmful will the state regulators be in allowing utilities to make that investment?

I don't think regulators go away with a carbon tax.

How fast should a new grid be built? Faster than it needs to be?
Ahead of the technology?

[Appalled]

Any carbon tax ought to come with a reality check re nuclear and drill baby drill. Of course, that kind of biill would almost have to be bipartisan, and they don't seem to know how to do that in Congress these days. (Of course, Harry Reid thinks the voters are all guilt ridden racist saps anyway, and why would he want to be bipartisan with those people)

[MayBee]

Any carbon tax ought to come with a reality check re nuclear and drill baby drill.

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying here.

[Appalled]

Any carbon tax legislation ought to untangle the red tape around offshore drilling and nuclear. That would require the right to agree to a tax and the left to agree that domestic sources of energy that aren't from the sun or wind are not inherently evil.

[MayBee]

Thanks, Rob. It sounds like that could go away, and tax incentives wouldn't be necessary to get domestic drilling.

Again, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but it seems to me a carbon tax is asking taxpayers to pay the cost of military and security spending that comes from oil policy twice.

[bgates]

why would he want to be bipartisan with those people

Heh. That implies the two parties are Congressional Democrats, and the rest of the country.

I have to assume you prefer going to war to imposing new taxes.

Republican spin:
I prefer going to war against foreigners to imposing new taxes on Americans.

Democrat spin:
I prefer going to war against wealthy woman-oppressing societies to imposing new taxes on the poor and working class.

Paleocon:
Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute all that other shit!

[MayBee]

Any carbon tax legislation ought to untangle the red tape around offshore drilling and nuclear. That would require the right to agree to a tax and the left to agree that domestic sources of energy that aren't from the sun or wind are not inherently evil.

Well, to me this just sounds like: the government should let known technologies with known investors be put to use so that we can force everybody to "invest" in the green energy we can't find enough investors for otherwise.

[Appalled]

bgates:

OK-- so I wasn't unfair in saying you prefer a war over oil to a tax with the intent of making foreign oil less desirable.

Man, that's harsh. (Plus kind of self-defeating. Wars are kind of expensive, y'know.)

MayBee:

The hope would be that by getting away from oil, you'd have to spend less on securiy in the Middle east in the future. I would not bank on that, somehow.

[Rick Ballard]

"but it seems to me a carbon tax is asking taxpayers to pay the cost of military and security spending that comes from oil policy twice."

But you do get protection from the dreaded CO2 Monster as a bonus. That's gotta be worth something to you.

PS Don't forget that you're also going to pay for all the natural gas fired generators necessary to "back up" the non-functional solar and wind farms.

PPS - Those back up generators? They're going to run with less efficiency due to uneven loading so that will have to be added to your utility bill as well.

[Soylent Red]

Wars for oil...sheesh.

If we wanted to wage a war for oil, why didn't we invade Mexico or Canada?

[hit and run]

I will say this,though it means nothing: it is daaaang cold in Appalled's home town* right now. The conference room I spent the day in had so little warmth,I'm convinced the building's heat was being powered by windmills.

A mini ice age.

Brrrrrr!!!

-------------
*Too bad my schedule is so...er...taxing (see what I did there?) or we could go grab a beer.

[rse]

OT- Brown has broken $750,000 and that's before the debate!!