Scalable Solutions To Reduce Greenhouse Gases

(Commercial message: I keep forgetting to mention that my book is now available on iTunes here. If you don’t have a copy, get one now!)

I can’t take any more fact-free hysteria. My eyes are bleeding at the nonsense being written about blast furnace heat coming to Persia or how the economy will be crippled by warming. I’m especially tired of reading nonsense based on RCP 8.5, used as a prediction when it is not.

So it is with great relief that I found a report from UCLA on 10 solutions to put the brakes on our emissions of greenhouse gases.

The report is titled ‘Bending the Curve.’ The solutions seem very similar to those advocated by EcoModernists and those advocating Fast Mitigation actions. But these are endorsed by Jerry Brown and Janet Napolitano (remember her?)

As reported by the UCLA newsroom, “Some of the report’s solutions include:

  • Immediately targeting short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, black carbon, hydrofluorocarbons, and ozone, which are all powerful contributors to global warming. Unlike carbon dioxide, emissions of these pollutants can be cut back quickly, slowing warming in the near term, averting extreme climatic events.
  • Scaling up the technology we already have by providing more economic incentives for using things like solar and wind power, electric vehicles and efficient lighting.
  • Focusing on communication from a variety of leaders, including religious and community leaders, to encourage fundamental changes in attitudes and behaviors.
  • Reducing emissions from the wealthiest, who contribute roughly 60 percent of the climate pollution, while promoting clean energy solutions for the poorest three billion people, and providing more support for those who also live in and manage many of the great forests and other ecosystems that capture and store carbon.”

Given that the Klimate Kultists call Ecomodernists, Fast Mitigationists and The Breakthrough Institute deniers, delayers, mitigation skeptics, luckwarmers and far worse for such proposals, I wonder how they’ll react to similar proposals with the imprimatur of Jerry Brown?

One thing they are sure to say is that it isn’t enough. To forestall any such nonsense here at least, let me state the obvious. Of course it isn’t and nobody is saying it is. It’s a start. If Klimate Kultists don’t try and hamstring it right out of the gate, it could be a good start.

But let the gnashing of teeth and wailing begin. The Kultists won’t be satisfied ever. Most certainly they won’t be satisfied until a top-down emission control scheme is mandated worldwide. However, since I don’t like them and I know they will never get such a scheme, it just makes me smile.

Hooray for the UCLA Bruins!

8001_ucla_bruins-wordmark-0

12 responses to “Scalable Solutions To Reduce Greenhouse Gases

  1. Encouraging solar power is wasteful if the projections for capital cost reductions do happen. Do the math and you’ll see.

    • Well, I keep saying solar (residential, anyhow) isn’t only about dollars and cents. Sure it’s a vanity purchase. But it’s also a signal–to markets, manufacturers and politicians.

      • So why should the government provide economic incentives for a vanity purchase?

      • The vanity purchasers of $100,000+ Tesla SUV’s are wealthy. Why are we giving them $7,500 tax credits and $25,000 tax deductions? This is a signal to most voters that is a big negative signal.

        http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-tax-break-20151013-story.html

      • Don B,
        Do you actually believe the climate profiteers give a hoot what the people footing the bill for the rich boy’s toys think?

      • I don’t think it’s prudent for any government to fund solar with subsidies or preferential feed in tariffs, except in unique circumstances where it’s economically justified.

        I base myself on very simple math: solar advocates insist solar power costs are dropping. Some have said costs will drop to 50 % of today’s costs in 10 years. If this is true, then we can take the natural log of 0.5 and divide by 10 to obtain the solar cost decline rate, 0.069 or 6.9 % if you wish.

        Thus it’s better to take the funds and invest them in something else. For example, this money can be used to subsidize nuclear, or high efficiency supercritical coal plants, or any other mature technology unlikely to see such steep price drops.

        If solar costs don’t drop then it will remain a dead end technology.

        As you know, I believe fossil fuel resources, and especially oil, are running out. Thus far performance is very close to what has been expected: the low oil price environment caused steep production drops in the USA, with less pronounced drops in other countries. This confirms the basics: the industry needs a high price environment, $80 to $120 per barrel, to sustain production. And it needs much higher prices to increase production a small amount. ($120 to $200 per barrel by 2040).

        But eventually the price increase will hurt poor country economies, kill demand, encourage replacements. Thus there will be a point in time when we can’t increase production because the price signal won’t be there…prices will be so high they’ll start hurting the economy, demand will drop, this will cause a price dip, the price dip will slow down the industry, and we will see production dip. This is what peak oil will be like. I doubt world crude oil and condensate will ever reach 100 million BOPD, versus 80 million we produce today.

        I’m repeating my point because I do think we have to worry about future energy supplies. But tossing money isn’t a rational approach. This has to be thought out.

  2. You might want to have a look at this paper by the French Societe de Calcul Mathematique “The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade.”
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN
    Links are at Jo Nova and GWPF websites.

  3. This part disgusts me:
    “Focusing on communication from a variety of leaders, including religious and community leaders, to encourage fundamental changes in attitudes and behaviors.”
    The arrogance of the climate kooks to believe that they have the right to continue to indoctrinate the public into accepting the big steaming pile of bs that is being pushed is outrageous.
    If they have good programs and ideas, pitch them and make them work.
    The success or failure will speak for itself.
    So far each and every idea the climate extremists have forced into reality has failed. Nothing they have done has impacted anything except to enrich climate hype profiteers. Windmills, solar, carbon trading, Kyoto, the IPCC, all have failed to do what their promoters claimed they would do.
    And now these over paid coddled arrogant aparatchiks want to explicitly set out to infect the public square with their madness even more.

  4. Tome,
    This part:
    “Reducing emissions from the wealthiest, who contribute roughly 60 percent of the climate pollution, while promoting clean energy solutions for the poorest three billion people, and providing more support for those who also live in and manage many of the great forests and other ecosystems that capture and store carbon.”
    Needs to be parsed:
    “Reducing emissions from the wealthiest, who contribute roughly 60 percent of the climate pollution,…”
    Actually means “reduce the standards of living and increase the costs on the West by way of enriching climate insiders via subsidies, price guarantees and pollution exemptions, while pretending that something called “climate pollution” exists.
    “while promoting clean energy solutions for the poorest three billion people,”
    Actually means, “The 21st century enlightened person’s burden sadly means forcing those pesky third world masses to stay poor and stagnant, using shoddy expensive solar crap power instead of nice real power. But their cultures will stay pure and their forests nice and green for eco-tourists.

    “providing more support for those who also live in and manage many of the great forests and other ecosystems that capture and store carbon.”

    Means pay them to not exercise their own initiative and intelligence and to enjoy their mud huts and shacks so their enlightened brethren feel good about themselves.

  5. However this part:
    “Immediately targeting short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, black carbon, hydrofluorocarbons, and ozone, which are all powerful contributors to global warming.”
    Is what could have been accomplished already except for the outrageous amount of money the CO2 obsessed climate kooks have absorbed in their apocalyptic frenzy over the non-exist ant climate crisis.

  6. The lack of even mentioning nuclear energy makes their blather about better energy pointless and cowardly.

  7. Pingback: Renewable Energy, Part 1: Where Renewables Fit In A Sane Climate Policy | The Lukewarmer's Way

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s