...maybe I haven't followed your policy recommendations closely enough, but first you say:The best way to get back on the decarbonization trend is not through technology breakthroughs, but through the accelerated deployment of low-carbon technologies, which is best achieved in three ways: a price for carbon, government mandates (such as renewable standards), and government subsidies (such as tax credits or feed-in tariffs) (I am not endorsing the latter).

I'm not sure why you're explicitly not endorsing "the latter", but then you seem to endorse it here, the best way to reverse the recent "carbonization" trend is a price for carbon dioxide, aggressive deployment of low-carbon technologies through mandates and subsidies and other government deployment programs (where needed before the CO2 price really kicks in), and a return to aggressive energy-efficiency deployment in China.

I think that governments around the world should shovel trillions of dollars at renewable energy, which would certainly fit in the "subsidies" category.  It would also seem to me to have no negative effect on pricing carbon.  So is there some other reason you are not sure about subsidies?

Sorry about that -- our zealous intern does not favor Joe's adventurous use of punctuation.

grist.org

So, Joe, it looks like you're endorsing subsidies, to be phased out as carbon prices are phased in?  I don't agree with that, but I trust you will explain at some point -- and hopefully the problem is not the Zealous Intern, but I can't tell from the clauses whether you are also advocating that mandates should also be phased out as carbon pricing is phased in.   My impression was that your "palette" was a little wider, shall we say.

Recently, three climate scientists (one a Nobel Laureate) wrote a letter to the Chairman of the IPCC suggesting he produce any scientific evidence, not even proof, that the Greenhouse Gas effect, and especially CO2, controlled the world's climate, or lacking that, perhaps he should admit that the IPCC was wrong.

Most climate scientists believe it is the variations in the sun's radiation which is the prime driver of climate and the Greenhouse Gas effect of CO2 is very small.  

I have wondered about the CO2 theory myself because all the predictions made by the computer models were wrong in the short term, and when 20th century actual data was run on all the climate models they all incorrectly predicted world temperatures much higher than we can measure with satellites.

Now it seems unbelievable that the IPCC could possibly think that models which cannot predict short term trends should be trusted to be used for justifying trillions of dollars in fighting global warming, based on long term forecasts.  It seems they are being arrogant and unrealistic to trust the models, or they are lying about it to keep grant money coming in.

The crux of the IPCC recommendations is that we reduce our CO2 emissions by at least 25% to 80%.  But, at  current energy prices poor people all over the world are rioting in the streets because they are hungry.  Now, energy demand is not very elastic, and in the UK where energy is twice as expensive as in the US, there has not, seemingly, been much reduction in auto use. So, perhaps gasoline and diesel need to go to three times the price even to hit the 25% goal.  At $12 a gallon we will see rioting in the streets in the developed world, and perhaps some Environmentalists might even be lynched.  

Renewable power is not very useful: bio fuels produce more CO2 than petroleum, solar does not work at night, and wind does not produce power when it is not blowing. And, because the power grid cannot store energy, traditional power plants are still needed to assure a reliable supply.

This, and the absolutely outrageous real estate demands, i.e. hundreds of square miles of solar antennas, thousands of miles for wind farms, make me ask: "where  can we put it all without making the Environmentalists furious."  The only answer is nuclear power, but that is a non-starter too because of the Environmentalists' phobia.  Like fusion power, renewable power feasibility has been 10 years away for 50 years and it is no closer now. Renewables need an order of magnitude improvement in efficiency, and it will take years to do this.

So, if the IPCC cannot even make a feeble defense of their theory, since their predictions are all wrong, since the solution they recommend to reduce CO2 is useless, and since it is a draconian solution which will cause a major economic depression, and since renewables cannot replace very much of hydrocarbons we use, and we have hundreds of years supply of oil, coal, oil-sands, and nuclear power, can anyone tell me why in hell are we doing this?

The only sensible answer is that the Environmentalists are anti-capitalists, anarchists, anti-human, and want to lower our standard of living so that a utopian civilization run by benevolent despots (the Environmentalists, the new Bolsheviks)can arise from the evil of free-enterprise, or they are doing it for the carbon tax and trading money.

Can you put that comment on your web site?

Thanks.

 Monopoly money, currency (regulation) of, by, and for monopoly corporations (yur doin' a heackuva job 'nanke).

"The economy uses a form of monopoly money called US dollars that is essentially fictional and allocated preferentially to the oligarchs that control the banking system. They do whatever they feel will increase their own status and power with it."

The proof is that even as peak oilers scream  about the end of oil, the main reason for higher gas prices (and fertilizr, and shipping, and everything else) is inflation/erosion of our currency.

Fewer jobs, fewer exports, weaker economy, more debt...  weak dollar.  Results in fewer barrels of oil per amount of (devalued) dollars.

Our only way out?  Renewable energy re-evolution.  To revive our economy and stop inflation.  And save the planet.  There's your stimulus.  

But the danger is that the mainstream political/corporate/media forces want to hand the re-evolution over to the same old monopolists.  with hedge fund carbon trading.  and caps that can be removed at anytime.

The people fund, money for people.  That's the right course.  Subsidy checks direct to homeowners and farmers.  For GHG free solar, wind, and biogas kwhs.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog