50 to 1 Climate mitigation costs 50 times more than Adaptation

Well I'll give up now.
Funny thing is I cut my car's exhaust emissions by 50% and it actually cost me nothing (used Prius instead of new Corolla) and every year I save half of my fuel bill. I put solar panels on my house roof cutting my use of coal fired electricity and in 4 years the savings will have paid for the system. After the 4 years is up I'll be banking an extra $1200 a year. I'd be smart to buy an extra panel each year.
Australia could have lead the world but now we have a new government. shame that.
Of course the tax the government collected was simply burned, it wasn't spent on anything useful. We all know governments never spend money on anything useful like roads, hospitals, community facilities, inovation grants or social programs.

I can see now that is isn't worth the cost. :-/

 

Internet searching (especially linked to published journals) will bring up several detailed studies of how much adaptation (mitigation, etc.) would cost. Especially in relationship to how long is the wait before fossil-C release is seriously monetized.

So the interested reader will have several sources of information upon which to base conclusions. Just in case one video might happen not to provide all the information in an unbiased way. I mean, I guess that could happen.

Anyway, Hi Pat

This one just popped up on the 'ScienceDaily' radar screen

Delaying climate policy would triple short-term mitigation costs

One example among many.

 

This guy thinks it's just around here somewhere, hidden, but agw is edible

 

Tell it to your local polar bear! Adaptation for them will be intersting to watch, cheap for us perhaps but expensive for them.

Icarus

 

Obviously the Polar Bears are paying little if any attention to the political hooey surrounding AGW. 50 years ago scientists estimated the population of polar bears at 5,000 to 10,000 today it's 25,000. No "adaptation" necessary as they are thriving. In 2007 climate scientist agreed that by 2013 the Artic would be ice free. Today 2,500 scientist still advocate AGW while 31,000 scientist agreed that the evidence for AGW was deeply flawed. Still the IPCC raised its confidence factor from 90% to 95% that global warming was human caused even though global warming has "paused" since 1997.

 

Faint praise, that is still darn low:

 

Here is the full BBC article snipped above.

Note 1: your 'climate scientist agreed' was Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the American Geophysical Union and his team.

Note 2: His team projected from 1997-2004 data. This year's ice coverage, while up from last year, is still lower than in any year of his study data.

Note 3: You wrote 'would'. The article in question, and other news reports I'm finding, all say 'could'. Why the sleight of spelling?

Note 4: also from that BBC article --
'Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.'

 

is color in this image relavent?

i see on the 2012 picture more real white in the middle and at the lower temparatue sides it turns bleuwish.

on the 2013 picture it seems that the color is less white and more bleuwish what could mean less tick and higher temps?
it could be that the ice spead over a greater area because its melting?

 

<Sarcasm>Now Fuzzy1, its not fair to take the snippets of data, or articles and put them in context</sarcasm>

 

Don't mind TREB, he is used to only playing in the fantasy sand box of FhoPol, where facts are as elusive as rational conversation.

Icarus

 

Yeah, the Anti Global Warming crowd. We knew that. How's that climate change 101 course coming along?

 

I see what you did there, how clever!

Homo Neanderthalensis understood that the climate changes, you had to go to school? LOL!

Here's a little lesson for you . . .

Advocate (noun)

A person who pleads for a cause for propounds an idea.

I believe the white in the 2012 photo shows the ice pack at its lowest the light blue is the ice pack at the time of the photograph. In the 2013 pic did you notice that the ice growth extends into the northeast passage, shhhhhhh! Bob is lurking ready to "chicken little" you!

 

Fussy1

The article is not from the BBC. Here is the correct cite, sorry I thought I had included it.

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Faint praise?!?! Are you kidding me!?!? A 60% increase in the ice pack in one year's time is faint praise? LoL!

 

BBC is hardly an unbiased source of news on Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change or whatever you call it these days. They have been caught multiple times lying, distorting and misrepresenting the data.

 

Just so we're clear here . . .

Anyone here want to put money on a comparison as to who has been the least accurate or flat out wrong or who has most misrepresented, lied and distorted the facts/data concerning anthropogenic global warming climate change?

Hmmmmmmmm? LoL! Wait for it . . .






Wait . . .

​

 

The cost of bad solar policies in Spain were extremely expensive, as well as the cost of nuclear in Japan. I am not sure how you price mitigation strategegy costs without looking at specific plans.

If mitigation in the US means removing grandfathering from coal plants, encouraging more ccgt and wind and solar over a 20 year period, then there isn't much of a down side. Higher cafe standards, higher oil taxes that don't raise government spending, but reduce other taxes like medicare, tax credits for plug-ins. These costs are really small. If we raise insurance premiums to stop people building in harms way, this is just common sense.

If on the other hand, we slap a huge carbon tax on everything, then use the money to fund it to crony capitalist causes. like massive building of nuclear, paying bp to set up solar farms, and supporting companies like solyndra and fisker, and adm gets more money funneled into corn ethanol, its just pissing cash down the toilet. It will cause more negative reaction to the bought and paid for politicians that use climate to fund there projects and take legalized bribes. Billions were funneled to corporations in europe in their cap and tax scheme, and hundreds of millions made it into the pockets of organized crime.

Mitigation is cheaper the earlier we do it. But the failed cap and tax plan, failed for good reason in this country, we need real mitigation without the government funneling money to their bribers. The cap and tax in california included things like chopping down old growth and planting tree farms, and moving industries out of state so that numbers look better. It is important how mitigation is done. Shipping industries to china so that europe doesn't burn as much fuel, has not really lowered global ghg.

 

AustinG, please send info about California cutting old-growth forest in the name of carbon sequestration. I'd be upset about that also.

In other news about Calif:

NewsDaily: US state, Chinese officials announce climate deal

 

California’s Market for Hard-to-Verify Carbon Offsets Could Let Industry Pollute as Usual | San Francisco Public Press

The way AB32 was written, the faster trees grow, the more credits a tree farm can sell. Old growth grows slowly, so under its rules, cutting down old growth, and planting then harvesting fast growing trees can make extra money. Abuses haven't happened yet, but even planting burt forests with tree farms hurts nature. We shall see in 20 years, but its likely some of the greatest old growth in northern california may be cut. The big national parks, national forests, and national monuments are protected, but CARB has tried to redefine environmental so that species diversity no longer means anything nor does old growth. You can make money by pretending clear cutting our heritage is good for the AB32 redefined environment. Environmental groups were against this perversion, but ended up helping to pass the flawed bill.

 

A carbon tax would be so much simpler and less prone to unintended consequences.