Comments John McGrath has made

Oh, right, the other hemisphere

Was I the only one who had to read that three times?On Did I say darndest? I meant stupidest posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

re: Gore's humor

The only time I saw Gore live, I got a dose of his humor:

MC:  "Well, I think we can take one more question..."

Gore:  "Make it two."

(Cocks head, runs hand through hair.)

Gore:  "I stil have some power."On Gore's impromptu humor at a recent small climate summit posted 1 year, 10 months ago 14 Responses

Tell it to Nick Stern

"Being able to converse relatively proficiently about economics and market principles, not just acknowledgment of the problems, is the best way to create a bipartisan consensus on policy. People on the right will listen to these and often agree."

Uh, really?  So you mean, they won't spend weeks and months nitpicking about insignificant issues when an economically-conversant expert unequivocally states that climate change is a huge and growing danger to the global economy?

I don't think we're watching the same conservatives at work.  Call me when they stop screeching about discount rates.On The benefits of using prizes to drive alternative fuel research posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Liberal Party in Canada

They proposed basically setting a cap-and-trade system allowing no emissions above our Kyoto goals, and taxing everything above that at (I think) $20/tonne, with decreases in credits and increases in the tax as time went on.

I think the effect would be to guarantee that, no matter what happened, the price of the market credits wouldn't exceed that of the tax.  (If the market credits were $30/tonne, you'd just opt out and pay the tax, right?)  But for the lucky people who jumped in to the market quickly, there would be plenty of opportunity to save carbon at prices lower than $20/tonne, so they could buy in quickly and resell their credits for a profit later.

But I'm no economist.  I think I'd still favour the carbon tax alone.On And if not, why not? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

Misanthropic?

"One way of viewing the human species is like a disease on the face of the planet that should be corralled and minimized. The misanthropic view."

How is what I wrote misanthropic?  It's not like living in Tokyo is a death sentence or anything -- quite the opposite.  And the whole point of skyfarming is to give humans a life-support mechanism that doesn't hurt the planet as much.

The question is how do we meet humanity's needs without imposing ourselves on the rest of the world unduly -- minimizing our footprint.  Seems to me that megacities would be the way to do that.

I do think the reference to "gardeners in Eden" hits at the basic distinction I think I failed to make here between "nature" and "wilderness".  The basic question is whether you think the natural role of the technological human species is to tend to the world or disrupt it.  I think it's the latter.On Can we live with skyscraper farms? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 29 Responses

Gore is playing better now, I think

I dunno whether Imhofe was like Spinach for Popeye or whether he's just more comfortable in the questions, but he seems to be warming up.On Liveblogging is the new black posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

It's sound enough, but...

There's some issues with it still.  Primarily, how do we get the requisite amount of Hydrogen.On Or a new way forward? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 9 Responses

Unions...

In Ontario, we've got the problem of the local Power Worker's Union agitating strongly for coal and nuclear, because they require more manpower, versus wind and Hydro.  Very sad, even for a union-booster like me.On Even with the proposal as low as 4 percent per year posted 2 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

Satire is correct

Barclay, as far as I know, is no denialist.  Rather, these are his responses to the denialists.On Funny stuff posted 2 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

This is different from taxes how?

"It does not tell industries and companies what to do or how to meet their allocations. Each company is free to make those choices. It can reduce its own emissions or pay someone else to lower them."

When the government taxes cigarettes or alcohol, it doesn't tell me how to avoid smoking and drinking, it just expects me to figure out -- as a rational consumer -- how to avoid those substances if the taxes are too onerous.

At the root, both a tax and a C&T system are redistributive systems.  The question is who should do the redistributing.  Do we let the govt do it, who we at least have a vote on, or do we let business ("the market") do it?

And the answer to that question depends on who you trust more:  Nancy Pelosi or the minds behind Exxon, Enron, and ADM?On A guest essay from Environmental Defense posted 2 years, 9 months ago 41 Responses

The Red Tide spreads

"Politically, even this requires we give up our anti-government fetish."

Can I get an amen?On A review of Joe Romm's new book posted 2 years, 10 months ago 34 Responses

You asked for it

I hereby dub thee the Big Giant Head.On Watch at your own risk posted 2 years, 10 months ago 3 Responses

Sorry Ron...

My post really wasn't intended to be directly connected to your post, except for the very limited quote.  I agree with your comment entirely, and I personally have no aversion to international trade - rather, it's been the use of international finance (the World Bank and IMF cartel) to deform development that bothers me.

Trade is, of course, natural.  But that doesn't mean the "market" (the system within which trading occurs) has some natural or holy shape.  The government has the right to impose taxes domestically - and tariffs internationally - in order to meet social ends: less pollution, more development, etc.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

Question

From what I've read, nobody assumes that a mature V2G system would draw down the full charge of a battery cycle - for obvious reasons: the drivers do want to be able to drive home!  How does this affect the calculations if each utility is only using a fraction of a full discharge cycle?

My immediate thoughts are that a V2G system would have much less lifespan impact on a car's batteries than the actual act of driving it.  But on these matters, I do defer to you.On It's not the key to making renewables work posted 2 years, 11 months ago 23 Responses

caveats accepted, with one quibble

Not an economist, but I suspect sunflower's right about costs.  One general question:  The cost (in terms of $/kwh) of solar and wind currently needs to take in to account intermittency, and the reality that some electrons will never make it to the grid.  Some watts will be produced at times when the grid can't handle it.

Assuming the storage exists, wouldn't that lower the price marginally, as renewables would be able to operate until the storage was full?

Obviously, not a huge price decline.  But wind is already profitable vs coal and natural gas in Texas and other states.On Hybrids connected to the electrical grid could change the energy game posted 2 years, 11 months ago 16 Responses

Exactly

The point is not that PHEV's are the answer to our prayers, but that PHEVs, wind, solar, and (maybe) biofuels work together much better than any one element by itself.  PHEVs can provide the vital service (storage) that renewables need, in a product that people will actually want - PHEVs will, generally speaking, already be far more fuel-efficient even on liquid fuels, and will save further $s by running mostly on electricity.

And you definitely don't need to sell me on efforts to reduce the role of cars in the North American lifestyle.  But there are 200 million cars already.  Even if we halve that amount -- which is unrealistically draconian, especially considering future population growth -- we've still got 100 million cars, and something useful for them to do.

The distributed storage that PHEV's represent could actually help relocalization, couldn't it?On Hybrids connected to the electrical grid could change the energy game posted 2 years, 11 months ago 16 Responses

Oh, and Friedman's a useful idiot

To borrow Lenin's phrase.

If he and James Woolsey can be useful to bring more people around to the national security implications of oil addiction, then I say a big Whoopee.

But the flip side of viewing oil as a military-industrial problem is, as I've said here before, that we're likely to get a military-industrial solution.  Meaning, most likely, coal-to-liquids and oil shale extraction (if possible.)

On balance, viewing oil solely as a security matter will probably make the environmental movement's work harder, not easier.On Oil imperialism is going to be the end of us posted 2 years, 12 months ago 13 Responses

I agree

"If we are using biomass (or charcoal) to have a carbon neutral energy source, then biomass is the winner. If we are talking about any high density energy source, then natural gas and oil are the winners."

We're in total agreement - the point is that biomass-charcoal can be strongly carbon negative while also being energy-dense, easily handled, and compatible with (some) current infrastructure.

No other fuel that I've seen advocated meets those criteria.

Pyrolysis of biomass also allows us to sequester massive amounts of carbon, on the millenia-timescale, something simple (un-charred) biomass does not.On Yes, charcoal posted 2 years, 12 months ago 11 Responses

The primacy of politics

"...we need to eliminate all energy subsidies but also have a more progressive income tax system that ensures that low income people are ok- these are separate but related issues."

I disagree.  This is all the same issue - the unrealism of small-government answers for societal problems.  For it to actually happen, outside of the pages of Reason Magazine, it needs to be politically palatable.  "Eliminate subsidies, tax carbon" is not a politically palatable solution.  Now, if the Reason article said "end subsidies for energy production, shift savings to subsidies for efficient end-use, a time-limited rebate program to help people transition, and spend the rest on funding basic research going to the public domain", I'd sign up in a hot second.  But Reason is congenitally opposed to proposing serious policy, and instead offers libertarian platitudes.

I've written on this blog about my suspicion of big-government fixes on the model of Apollo or Manhattan, but to say in the same article a) solar power is the wave of the future, but b) the Apollo program which spurred the R&D in solar power was a waste of money, is simply incoherent.

Intelligent policy need not be Apollo or Manhattan.  But the government absolutely has a positive, encouraging role to play in this sector.

"As far as nuclear insurance, if private insurance won't step in then it should not exist- also, with a high enough price it would and this would include a rational calculus of the liabilities, which government insurance precludes by offering a lower value that doesn't represent the full liabilities."

A fair point, and in either case I see nuclear going out of business - either the market won't insure it, or will price nuclear kilowatt-hours out of the market.  Either way, we win!On No new subsidies needed posted 3 years ago 17 Responses

Fighting climate change in which context?

It all depends on the rules of the game, doesn't it?  For example, if we relaxed intellectual property restrictions in international law, and forgave poor countries' debts, would do wonders for development, and cost very little (we're never getting those debts back anyway, so there's no cost to forgiving them.)

Now, I think we should do both of those anyway, but it could be a major bargaining chip for the poor - we give them technology transfers and debt forgiveness, they invest heavily in renewables and efficiency, and leave more oil for us junkies.On Poor countries can't afford to tackle climate change posted 3 years ago 57 Responses

It's about 1997

Geoff:  One thing to keep in mind whenever we talk about Asia, loans, and China is the overwhelming impact of the 1997 financial crisis.  Places like Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia were absolutely devastated by the crisis, which many in those countries - large majorities, in fact - believe was exacerbated by the policies of the IMF and the World Bank.  Meanwhile, China played a stabilizing and expansionary role in 1997 and after.

The fact is, China is providing a service that these countries want, without the nasty stench of imperialism that the IMF and WB carry, and at a lower cost besides.  I'd love to see the WB and the IMF compete against China for "customers" and still keep the environmental standards.  Whether western governments are willing to offer lower-cost aid than China will be interesting to see.On China loans money to developing countries with no environmental strings posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

energy- vs fuel-efficiency

Something a few people have mentioned:  SUV's are not alone in the fuel-efficiency problem.  I absolutely agree, and there's an important trend in cars since the mid-1980s.

While there's been a number of innovations and improvements in engine design and body construction, all of those improvements have gone towards improved acceleration and speed, not better fuel efficiency.  This is true for SUVs and Sedans, as people have said.

Linda McQuaig has a good way of putting this:  The end point for this kind of trend is not cars that weigh nothing and run forever on fumes.  Rather, the end point is 18-wheelers that run like F1 race cars.  McQuaig calls it the "out of my way, fucker!" mentality of car design.

As for directing our vitriol specifically at SUVs, I'd argue it's a way of attacking exactly that mentality in it's purest form.On And why is it still around? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses