jestbill’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "It seems that you gain more by investing in new ways to produce electricity without carbon usage than merely cutting back on the same way of doing things - for the same money." It seems that you have made up a bunch of imaginary economics. How do you compare $X in conservation with the same number of dollars in alternative generation? Do you imagine that would amount to the same number of kwh produced/saved?? No wonder it sounds like 1+1=3--it's actually "pine"+"rutabaga"="mountains." Do you imagine that "conservation" involves only "cutting back on the same way of doing things?" Conservation also involves doing things differently and NOT doing things that don't need to be done. Are you claiming that if we use less electricity we'll shut down our wind farms to run our "base load" coal plants? Are you claiming that coal plants are going to last forever unless we keep demand high? Are you claiming that new plants will not last longer than the old ones? There is so much inertia in our power generation installation that nothing is going to happen quickly and no one direction ("conservation" or "alternatives") can be taken alone so I think the scenario you started out with is unlikely to come about.On Simple lifestyle tweaks key in climate change fight posted 6 days, 6 hours ago 47 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "The people want to slow that process down have so many subtle ways of pulling, packaging, distracting and appealing to a variety of audiences, I feel its necessary to point out that not every piece of low fruit is necessarily the best to eat." Well, that's exactly what I find reading Grist! So often I read some criticism of what seems to be a constructive idea that misuses simple arithmetical logic to prove that 1+1=3. "We just can't raise the price on carbon because it will harm poor people." "We'll increase CO2 production by trying to regulate it." "We'll increase CO2 production by trying to reduce it." All I get out of our preceding long conversation is that Mr. Coffey seems to think that replacing coal with natural gas is the "solution" to the problem and therefore anything that slows that transition will be detrimental. No, you didn't say that--but it just sounds like another 1+1=3 argument to me. I think it will be easier to retire very old coal plants than it will to retire very new natural gas plants so that in the long run it will be advantageous to prevent new ones being built. Conservation, if it supposedly will slow alternative development, will also slow power plant construction: a good thing. BTW--in our present situation, we're "extremely hungry" and low hanging fruit will hit the spot: the only "fruit" we should reject at this point is that which is poisonous.On Simple lifestyle tweaks key in climate change fight posted 6 days, 14 hours ago 47 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "I think there is an assumption in your thinking with is not supported by what is actually taking place: namely, that old coal plants will be replaced with new coal plants. That has not been the case, and is more unlikely as wind and solar facilities come on line." I'm assuming that since there is widespread agreement that we must reduce CO2 production, new coal plants will not be built unless it looks like there will be a power shortage. Arguments against conservation are arguments in favor of new power plants. Worries that conservation will extend the lives of old plants are misplaced. "Continuing emissions in order to destroy" them is a great line--and is telling.On Simple lifestyle tweaks key in climate change fight posted 1 week ago 47 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "The object of the game is to avoid extending the life of coal and coal fired plants. Consider this: if all the power of the US could be supplied by current and existing facilities, and all of the expanded demand due to increased population, and such, were met by conservation measures, there would be absolutely no reason to build new sources of power." It's hard to reply in the right place here... No, the object of the game is to decrease the production of CO2. Whether it's done by preventing the building of new plants or by putting old plants out of business, doesn't matter at all. It's the CO2. If conservation results in reduced CO2 production and over-aged coal power plants, that's a good outcome. Alternative production can be built on the promise that the old plants will be closed. The claim that extending their lives is bad is just wrong--that is exactly what we need if it means that new ones will not be built.On Simple lifestyle tweaks key in climate change fight posted 1 week ago 47 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I thought the Jon Stewart interview was helpful. The guy actually said that what he favored was a "bandaid" not a long term solution. Your quote was taken out of context. It should not be read to say that climate change can be "fixed" without cost, but that a moralistic viewpoint that we have sinned and must pay is also wrong. Yes, he seems to favor some temporary engineered solution like spewing just the right chemicals into the upper atmosphere. Yes, he seems to be off his nut in that regard--but (in the interview) he did not disparage the idea of human caused climate change, just the idea that it has to be solved a certain way and no other.On Is Freeman Dyson really "brave"? posted 1 week, 4 days ago 20 Responses