The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
—James Bryce (1909, 35)
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
You're still not getting it on the funding. So, I'll suggest this - when you find the 170 billion, let me know and we'll start the project.
As for your poor attempt to insult my intelligence, maybe you need to back up a step or two and ask first "did I understand what he was saying?" Because from where I'm standing, you didn't come off too well there.
To write it out in full for your benefit, a similarly funded program should, if implemented, feed all the starving people, or provide health insurance for all Americans, or put humans on Mars, or (choose your favorite pipe dream).
I cannot understand why you entirely ignore the already vast sums budgeted by Europe, and still say it is politicly impossible when similar amounts are already being budgeted in some parts off the world, it seems your vision is conditioned solely by experience in the US.
Much of the $170 billion would be part of the normal cost of doing business anyway, and be released in the event of fuel costs staying high by both individuals and private people as they try to economise rather than being on the Government budget.
Why you should attempt to be so wilfully obtuse baffles me.
I cannot understand why you entirely ignore the already vast sums budgeted by Europe...
Until these vast sums are actually aloocated they remain just that, vast sums budgeted. You do understand the difference between budget and allocation, correct? At any point in the proceedings until the funds are disbursed they remain just a promise. When Europe actually provides funds then let's talk. Until then it's still just more Microsoft vapourware.
Have you any idea of the vast expenditure by Germany alone to date on renewables?
I assume you do, so that will suffice for me. Exactly what does that have to do with vast budgeted sums yet to be disbursed? The past is just that, the past. History. Finished. Unless I'm mistaken you're considering the future. When do the budgeted amounts become disbursed amounts? Is it a 100% disbursement? Will it be disbursed over the life of the project? These are rather important questions. Changing economic circumstances may very well cause funding to dry up at any point in the disbursement cycle. When all is said and done Europe's budgets remain dreams until the cheque clears.
shaman already said it best, when you've got the money, let's talk.
I really can't understand what you are asking for. You dismissed future projections of disbursements in the EU on the grounds that they hadn't yet happened and now don't seem happy to consider actual monies spent.
The point I am seeking to make is that actual disbursements in some countries actually approach the levels called for in this report, and that still does not take account of the natural incentive supplied by higher energy costs in future, if oil remains at around $100 barrel and natural gas is in short supply.
To give some indication of present voluntary expenditures on reducing carbon emissions, here is a current report about EU subsidies in this respect.
http://nextbigfuture.com/
You can see that the subsidies for renewables range up to 15% of total electricity bills for Denmark, and this does not include on Government budget costs.
So if you are not intersted in plans, and not in expenditure, what are you interested in?
I am baffled.
On the vast sums - I would suppose that next you will provide the links to show this?
Did I say it was politically impossible? Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that you made the (admittedly quite common) normative slip from could to should to would. I also notice that this is completely dropped from your response.
On the "normal cost of doing business" - So do we need the $170 billion investment or not. If it's all already been budgeted by the EU and businesses, what was the original number thrown out there for.
Willfully obtuse? I'll just let that slide.
I really don't know what your issue is. For some indication of present EU expenditures on carbon reduction, see my answer to Goritza.
McKinsey assume lower energy costs than most of us here would, and so more of the expenditure would have to be on the Government's budget, or at least mandated by Government by feed-in tariffs and such.
As for why they suggest it, see the paragraph above and it also seems likely that the report is more concerned with the US.
I am not interested in your word quibbles which I have already addressed.
I followed your link and it is a generic news blog with no apparent references to EU expenditures on carbon reduction.
"word quibbles"? - fine, if that makes you feel better.
Apologies - I did not specify the link properly - please scroll down to the item 'Feed in Tariffs for Renewable Energy'
In that you will find some of the subsidies paid by electricity users in Europe to support renewables.
This is only part of the support they receive, as there are also substantial on-budget tax measures, but it seems to be difficult to find them specified - I did track down one figure of 27bn Euros for the EU , but it was in 2004 and did not specify whether some of that was included in the electricity users subsidies, or whether it included figures for subsidies for extra insulation for houses or so on.
I should add that I really am confused as to exactly what information is being requested, and what you seem to find hard to swallow.
In most of Europe they certainly have been paying big-time for carbon reduction measures, perhaps of the order of the figures McKinsey suggest here, and I am trying to explain that a lot of conservation measures would occur anyway if fuel prices are higher than McKinsey suggest and would not require so much Government subsidy.
If you could specify exactly what is unclear to you perhaps I can respond better.
Here is a link to what they are doing in Sweden to counteract climate change, I don't know how much this is costing them but it can't be cheap - a fair amount of the expenditure has already gone ahead:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3610#more
The Oil Drum | We Won't Stop Global Warming
I hope that you see the connection to the basic point I am trying to make, that apparently people are prepared to pay pretty substantial amounts to prevent GW, and perhaps what can be done in one place can be done in another.
Personally I tend to the opinion that China may outperform the US on this - when a country is in the midst of a very vigorous expansion, as the US was a century or so ago or China is today, it is remarkable how fast change can be instituted.
Thanks for the clarification - I did scroll down and here is what I found
"European Environment Agency figures in 2004 gave indicative estimates of total energy subsidies in the EU-15 for 2001: solid fuel (coal) EUR 13.0, oil & gas EUR 8.7, nuclear EUR 2.2, renewables EUR 5.3 billion."
So - of some 29+ billion euros of energy subsidies in 2001, renewables received 5.3 billion. Which on the surface isn't too bad, until you recognize that coal got more than twice that amount.
Now here's the problem - your original post quoted a source that said that we need $170 billion additional per year. I read that as meaning on top of the amount being spent already. I'm also going to assume that you don't want to include coal subsidies in that total. Recognize, too, that your original article was talking about investment in energy productivity - it is not entirely clear that there is a one to one dollar correspondence between subsidies and investments in productivity.
I'll try to be clear here. I am not requesting any particular information. And you have been completely clear in laying out what you were thinking. What I am encouraging is not clarity in information, but clarity in understanding our own thought processes.
What you previously wrote off as "word quibbles" was hardly any such thing. You had made a fairly common rhetorical move that is found frequently in normative discussions and writing. I was merely trying to push you to examine this and to make it explicit.
At the start I was honest in noting that I was interested in the funding question, largely because I already knew where that would go. But I let you proceed because I wanted to see how critical you would be of your own arguments.
We all have a strong tendency to read into texts support for things we already believe. You did exactly that with the Feed in tariffs article. Now that this has been pointed out to you, the question is can you go back and recalibrate your own thinking to deal with the incongruence?
Reading for information is one thing, reading for meaning takes you so much deeper. And it's not just a matter of "spin," you can frequently read from a particular rhetorical deployment much more about the author, their thought patterns and beliefs, than the author may be aware of.
That's not really the sort of thing that interests me, but thanks for the clarification.
So, you have no interest in understanding? Are you only here to butt heads with people? That's truly sad.
What you regard as understanding I am afraid I would tend to think of as nitpicking - we just don't think alike, it is as simple as that.
Ok - I'll be blunt. You do not even understand the background of your own thinking. Nor do you care that you don't understand. This lack of critical thinking on your part is your worst enemy. It is why you keep coming to the same point in your attempt to discuss issues here - you claim the other person either a) isn't understanding what you say, or b) needs you to provide them with more info (and typically you claim you don't know what more info you need to provide them). Hint: it's not always about information
Dave - I chose to engage you on this, because you seemed to be an intelligent man, but one with divergent ideas from my own. But I'm afraid that your own belief in your infallibility makes it really difficult to have a fruitful exchange. Until you recognize that your way of thinking might not be the only way to approach things, you'll probably wind up with the same sort of end result. Too bad, really.
IOW my first instincts were correct, and behind all the absurd semantic quibbles you were disguising your true animus, and instead of coming out and saying what your problem was tried to demonstrate how clever you were and how faulty my thought processes.
Failure to directly express what is concerning you is a sure sign of muddy thinking.
As for my other discussions and infallibility and so on blah, in actual fact I have withdrawn or amended my points whenever it has been shown that I was in error, on several occasions in fact.
So you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Doubtless you find your pedantry proof of your clarity of thought and intelligence. The word is, buddy, that it is usually a sign of a narrow understanding, and that saying what you mean is the best form of communication, but until you realise that you will probably end up without fruitful discussion.
So sad.
If you have points to make germane to the discussion at hand, go ahead and make them, until then stop wasting my time - and do try think clearly enough to express what you mean.