Scary Stuff Coming From the Al Gore Warmist Front

[bshole]

I believe that reducing carbon use in America at this point MIGHT help.
:
I don't want to see us crash our economy, but taking such actions as seem reasonable seems, well, reasonable.

lol +1

But.... if we crash the economy and transfer ALL of our manufacturing to China, thus destroying the future for all of our kids, well that is a risk you are willing to take? Warmists never ever think of consequences for their policies. Unintended consequences just cannot happen in their models.

The amount of damage done by ethanol is staggering. That little poison pill came from the warmists even though their selective memory forgets it now. We will never get rid of it now because there are entrenched interests backing it.

• We pay more for foods like bread, snacks and chicken. Between 2007 and 2008, ethanol drove a 10 to 15 percent increase in food prices, according to a Congressional Budget Office report – partly because corn once used for livestock feed is now used to make fuel.

• Our vehicles get fewer miles per gallon of gasoline now that ethanol is included, and we're paying more for that fuel – about 13 cents per gallon because of the lost efficiency.

• Boat engines and lawn care equipment go kaput from engines that weren't designed for fuels that include alcohol, a natural byproduct of the sugars and starches in corn.

• Fiberglass marine fuel tanks in older vessels can't stand up to the alcohol-based fuel additive, causing dangerous leaks.

• Iconic species like monarch butterflies, native bees, pheasants and other grassland birds are declining from lost habitat as more land is converted to corn production.

• Corn planted in marginal habitats threatens one of the most altered ecosystems in the world – the temperate grasslands of the Great Plains, which naturally absorb carbon from the atmosphere.

:

Because corn and soybeans are more expensive thanks to the biofuels industry, the cost of livestock feed has gone up.

It creates "a very uneven playing field for chicken companies to compete for necessary feedstuffs," said Tom Super, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council, the poultry industry trade group based in Washington, D.C.

The bottom line: over $44 billion nationally in higher actual chicken feed costs, Super said.

"Adding together the higher cumulative feed costs for chicken, turkey, table eggs and hogs, the total is almost $100 billion in additional feed costs," he said. "Also higher feed costs for other agricultural animal producers, such as dairy and beef cattle, would add measurably to the $100 billion cost."

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/08/02/real-cost-ethanol/13534077/

 

[Paratus]

But.... if we crash the economy and transfer ALL of our manufacturing to China, thus destroying the future for all of our kids, well that is a risk you are willing to take? Warmists never ever think of consequences for their policies. Unintended consequences just cannot happen in their models.

The amount of damage done by ethanol is staggering. That little poison pill came from the warmists even though their selective memory forgets it now. We will never get rid of it now because there are entrenched interests backing it.



http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/08/02/real-cost-ethanol/13534077/

Here's some research papers from 2003-2005 showing corn ethanol was a net negative. If they had wanted too, all those "Warmists" in George W's congress could have passed laws reducing corn ethanol subsidies.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024214812527

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8

As usual the science would have given an appropriate indication for what to do with political policy if anyone had bothered to listen.

 

[Jaskalas]

• Yes, ethanol needs to go.
• No Fern, increased plant growth obviously isn't a big enough CO2 sink to matter.

 

[bshole]

Here's some research papers from 2003-2005 showing corn ethanol was a net negative. If they had wanted too, all those "Warmists" in George W's congress could have passed laws reducing corn ethanol subsidies.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024214812527

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8

As usual the science would have given an appropriate indication for what to do with political policy if anyone had bothered to listen.

What utter horseshit. Do you want to link the scientific papers from 1992 when Bush Sr forced it down our throats. Yeah the warmists have GREAT hindsight, fat lot of good that is. Make no mistake, THEY were responsible for this mess. Once stuff like this gets enacted, it never gets unenacted, too many people with to much money on the line.

Really Paratus, you are better than this. I don't know if you are feigning ignorance or if you really didn't realize this. Go do the research and educate yourself. The express purpose of the ethanol laws was to mitigate climate change. This is 100% on the warmists and it something that we will never be rid of. For shame for the deception and denial, for shame.

So bottom line, the poison the Warmists are selling can have horrific consequences. They then will happily deny they ever sold the poison in the first place. How deceitful. How base. How utterly disgusting.

With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline, Bush predicted that it would make the country “stronger, cleaner and more secure.”

But the ethanol era has proved far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4...mentalists support of ethanol GH bush&f=false

 

[Jaskalas]

Big gov efforts to spend money are always bipartisan.
It would seem we are all in agreement to see the program killed too.
There's nothing to argue over except to lament to failures of past and present leadership. Oh, and who to elect to see it changed in the future.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In regard to ethanol...

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/2010/10/hypocrisy-in-the-name-of-the-planet/

Hypocrisy in the Name of the Planet

The growth in domestic ethanol production has been fueled in part by so-called environmentalists and others who were concerned about the damage being done to the planet by American dependence on oil. On multiple occasions in the not too distant past, the RFA worked with environmentalists to pass important policies that fostered the growth of existing ethanol production and research and development of new ethanol technologies.

But, you wouldn’t know that the environmental community ever supported ethanol by reading news clips today. If you are new to the debate, you would be led to believe environmentalists have long opposed ethanol and starch-based ethanol in particular. A review of history would show you to be wrong.

One of the most ardent, vocal, and inflammatory critics of ethanol today is the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC. By reading their public statements of late, you would think their team of lobbyists has been opposing ethanol since they were in the womb.

Interestingly, the NRDC was a chief proponent of ethanol and biofuels in the Congressional debates that led to the passage of first Renewable Fuels Standard in the 2005 energy bill.

<snip>

 

[werepossum]

Just saw this article today. Remembered this ^post, you might find this interesting:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

If I understood the article correctly it says, yes, increased CO2 has resulted in substantial tree/plant growth. However, there are limiting factors as you suggest.

Also says current climate models are inaccurate (hooda thunk it) as they fail to take this into account. (Increase in CO2 increases plants which decreases CO2 etc.)

Fern

Yes, there have been and are substantial benefits to increased CO2, and to warming. I'm just suggesting that benefits due to the increased CO2 are probably at or near the plateau. Remember, although plants must have CO2, in concentration it's as toxic to them as to animals. As CO2 rises, plants get more growth per unit energy, assuming their other needs are met. But at some level, which varies wildly with genus and species and sometimes even with cultivar, CO2 becomes an inhibitor as the plant must use energy to rid itself of excess CO2 or else smother.

This has been a well known effect of increased CO2 from the historical record. It's part of the investigation climate satellites were supposed to perform.

Increased CO2 can even improve crops depending on the type of crop:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-could-actually-help-reduce-water-scarcity/
(Although not nearly to the extent bshole has contended in past threads)


However you made a couple of statements based on some erroneous assumptions.

First, for this new information to prove the models "wrong" it would have to move the projected temperature outside of the error bars of the current models. I've seen no evidence this has happened. If you have some, please link it.

Second you said this decreases CO2. These measurements have been going on for 20-30 years. Can you point out the decrease in CO2 in the observed CO2 record?

Or is it possible you meant greening slows the rate of increase of CO2?

Increased plant growth removes CO2; whether there is a net increase or decrease depends on other sources of CO2 addition and subtraction, but his comment is valid.

But.... if we crash the economy and transfer ALL of our manufacturing to China, thus destroying the future for all of our kids, well that is a risk you are willing to take? Warmists never ever think of consequences for their policies. Unintended consequences just cannot happen in their models.

The amount of damage done by ethanol is staggering. That little poison pill came from the warmists even though their selective memory forgets it now. We will never get rid of it now because there are entrenched interests backing it.

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/08/02/real-cost-ethanol/13534077/

That's true, we don't want to take such actions as will crash our economy and/or encourage even more manufacturing to move to dirtier third world nations. That doesn't mean we do nothing, it just means we move cautiously and balance sticks with carrots - and perhaps tariffs on goods imported from dirtier nations.

As for ethanol, we got that from environmentalists, not totally from warmists. We really don't have any great oxidizers - lead is extremely toxic, ethanol is clean but environmentally and economically damaging to produce, and MTBE, while only slightly toxic in low concentrations, remains in aquatic systems for a looong time. In any case, right now it's production is protected as much by politicians with Presidential aspirations as by warmists; with Iowa's protected position, politicians with Presidential aspirations want to make sure Iowa voters are happy, and Iowa voters are made happy by corn subsidies. Ironically, along our southern gulf seaboard we could probably profitably farm sugar cane cultivars, a much better source of ethanol. (And of course, ideally we'd use methanol.)

EDIT: One other thing here: The environmental damage is not only for lost habitat, but also because of how we meet our mandate. Because so much corn grown commercially is a cultivar with highly concentrated naturally occurring pesticides, not only the corn but also its pollen is toxic. And corn pollen is spread principally by wind; it goes a long, long way.

 

[crashtech]

Butanol is actually one of the best biofuel candidates of all, I don't know why it gets ignored.

 

[alien42]

Butanol is actually one of the best biofuel candidates of all, I don't know why it gets ignored.

that may be changing, ASTM D7566 was just revised this month to include isobutanol derived jet fuel.

 

[bshole]

That's true, we don't want to take such actions as will crash our economy and/or encourage even more manufacturing to move to dirtier third world nations. That doesn't mean we do nothing, it just means we move cautiously and balance sticks with carrots - and perhaps tariffs on goods imported from dirtier nations.

Well you are supporting something that the warmists are not pushing. They gave us the EPA regs. The economists and manufacturers have weighed on this and it is not pretty. DEFEND THE POLICY THEY ACTUALLY ENACT NOT THE POLICY YOU WANT TO THEM ENACT. If they enacted policy that wasn't self-destructive and harmful, I wouldn't have a beef with them. I can't recall too many policies that artificially mess with the market that end up well for Americans. When this is fully implemented across the country, you will see more Americans moving into poverty. More Americans will have to choose between food or energy. That is my prediction. No scientific study backing it, no billion dollar grant. Lets get back in a decade or so and see if I am right.

It is a racist policy. That is clearly indisputable. These guys OPENLY admit it. The most vulnerable part of American society and they attack them knowing FULL well the consequences and not giving a shit. For shame. Disgusting on every level. The poor are currently paying around 25% of their income on energy. Look to see that number increase. There is your proof in the pudding.

DISCLAIMER: The source I used for this is a poisoned well. I feel kind of sick using them as a source.. but the confirmation bias was simply too strong in me to not use it.

The chief environmental regulator in the United States had some blunt words of reality regarding the administration&#8217;s climate change regulations.

The Clean Power Plan that will require drastic cuts in 47 states&#8217; carbon dioxide emissions &#8211; consequently shifting America&#8217;s energy economy away from affordable, reliable coal &#8211; will adversely impact poor, minority families the most.

When speaking about the higher energy prices caused by the administration&#8217;s climate regulations on power plants, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said, &#8220;We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit.&#8221;

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/19/h...ill-hit-low-income-minority-families-hardest/

 

[Fern]

-snip-
However you made a couple of statements based on some erroneous assumptions.


Or is it possible you meant greening slows the rate of increase of CO2?

1. They're not my statements. I claimed that statement was made by the article. If you want to say that I misinterpreted the article, fine; make that case. If you want to disagree with the claim the article made, fine; but take it up with them.

2. Yeah, my understanding was that the article claims the CO2 reduction from unexpectedly large increase in vegetation is not accounted for in current models, thus they overstate increases in CO2 levels.

Ha, my 'cut-n-paste' feature is working (am having mouse problems):

Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the IPCC, told BBC News: "The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.

"This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply."

Edit: To be clear, the point I was addressing in my post was whether increased CO2 levels result in increased vegetation, which was a topic in the post I responded to. I have no interest in arguing climate change models.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Well you are supporting something that the warmists are not pushing. They gave us the EPA regs. The economists and manufacturers have weighed on this and it is not pretty. DEFEND THE POLICY THEY ACTUALLY ENACT NOT THE POLICY YOU WANT TO THEM ENACT. If they enacted policy that wasn't self-destructive and harmful, I wouldn't have a beef with them. I can't recall too many policies that artificially mess with the market that end up well for Americans. When this is fully implemented across the country, you will see more Americans moving into poverty. More Americans will have to choose between food or energy. That is my prediction. No scientific study backing it, no billion dollar grant. Lets get back in a decade or so and see if I am right.

It is a racist policy. That is clearly indisputable. These guys OPENLY admit it. The most vulnerable part of American society and they attack them knowing FULL well the consequences and not giving a shit. For shame. Disgusting on every level. The poor are currently paying around 25% of their income on energy. Look to see that number increase. There is your proof in the pudding.

DISCLAIMER: The source I used for this is a poisoned well. I feel kind of sick using them as a source.. but the confirmation bias was simply too strong in me to not use it.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/19/h...ill-hit-low-income-minority-families-hardest/

I would prefer that the EPA not have the power to regulate CO2 emissions, but I see no other way to lower CO2 emissions than the regulatory hammer or direct taxes on dirtier forms of energy. Of course it hits hardest those who are poor; all such regulations and taxes do. When the Dems enacted their surtax on yachts, those hit hardest weren't the evil rich but rather the people building yachts and in that supply chain. And within that group, those at the bottom (janitors for example, as opposed to the engineers or welders) were surely hit hardest as they have few marketable skills and less opportunity to build a nest egg or emergency fund.

 

[bshole]

I would prefer that the EPA not have the power to regulate CO2 emissions, but I see no other way to lower CO2 emissions than the regulatory hammer or direct taxes on dirtier forms of energy. Of course it hits hardest those who are poor; all such regulations and taxes do. When the Dems enacted their surtax on yachts, those hit hardest weren't the evil rich but rather the people building yachts and in that supply chain. And within that group, those at the bottom (janitors for example, as opposed to the engineers or welders) were surely hit hardest as they have few marketable skills and less opportunity to build a nest egg or emergency fund.

Don't I know it, the marine market has been crap for us for years. We are getting hit on both ends. We are heavily dependent oil and marine. It is a death of a thousand cuts.

 

[werepossum]

Don't I know it, the marine market has been crap for us for years. We are getting hit on both ends. We are heavily dependent oil and marine. It is a death of a thousand cuts.

One thing at which every Congress and bureaucrat is abysmal is predicting the secondary effects of legislation or regulation. Even what seems like common sense, understandable and predictable to almost everyone, escapes most everyone in D.C.