Wednesday Open Thread and News Dump
Posted by Prof. Goose on March 1, 2006 - 2:59am
We've talked about a gas tax quite a few times here at TOD, but Menzie Chinn over at Econbrowser has a interesting post discussing the NYT article from yesterday on that nasty pariah/demand destroyer/R&D&I savior that no politician ever wants to talk about. There's also a great set of posts over at EB by Michael Ventura entitled "Things to Come"...very provacative. But feel free to bring up other things down there in the open thread as well...
“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for
some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
It could be one of the reasons why cars are generally smaller here that in the US. Our large cars are only a medium US car. We still have Suburbans and the like however there is not a lot of them. We also seem to have a lot more of the Nissan Micras and Honda Jazzs(Fit) class cars. Some of this could be due to the higher petrol price here.
One memorable quote is Hansen saying climate is non-linear and a 3-6 degree F rise will equilibriate in a 80 foot sea level rise and no one knows whether this would take millenia, centuries, or 'within a century'.
Much of the interview was about muzzling of scientists by government officials.
The link to the transcript is: -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
For those that are interested in Global Warming, I would strongly urge to read the above link. It convinced me to take Global Warming seriously.
I'm not sure if the quality of the day-to-day weather prediction has anything to do with Global Warming.
To quote a (Dutch) comedian from Almelo:
"Who cares that the sealevels rise a few cm in 100 years? It is changing 1 meter every 6 hours!"
Don, this forum is one of the least concerned with political correctness of any I have run across. The architects of TOD have stuck to more-or-less verifiable facts to such a degree that I usually just lurk, having nothing substantive to add.
However, this thread covered the work of a NASA researcher which presents a pretty good measure of what we're in for. In particular, when discussing this diagram the group's consensus, I believe, is that we currently need a Krakatau or Pinatubo about every 5 years or so just to make up for the warming effect of GHGs. It was also generally agreed that there would probably be a significant NIMBY problem with using thermonuclear weapons to simulate this effect.
BTW, in a climate model the clouds have different effects depending on their altitude. Tropospheric clouds contribute to warming, while high stratospheric clouds tend to cool. It all depends on where the infrared gets scattered. So there ya go.
"The three previous reports assumed that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase average global temperature by between 1.5 and 4.5C. Since then, computer models have foreseen increases as high as 11C...."
Last Monday António Vitorino started his weekly politic analysis TV show by saying: "The era of Cheap Oil is over".
He went on saying "I can't predict oil prices 20 years from now, but for the next 5 - 10 years prices won't go down".
Vitorino used these words to introduce his analysis on the Nuclear Energy debate aroused by soaring Oil prices.
António Vitorino was the European Commissionaire for Justice in Romano Prodi's executive. He was one of the strongest names to replace Prodi, but was put aside after another strong victory by the Christian Democrats for the European Parliament.
I'll leave here the show's webpage just for reference, since there's no English version: http://www.rtp.pt/wportal/sites/tv/notas_soltas
P.S.: Could anyone be so kind and post this at PeakOil.com? I've been trying for hours and always get an error.
The trick is to learn to ignore the posts from the worthless posters; you'll soon learn how to do that. And (wish I could follow this rule myself) never, ever, never flame the stupidity put forth by the posters who should not have ventured here.
Well, if you are a biodiesel enthusiast that likes cheap grease, I got bad news for you.
We will regulate biodiesel as soon as the first time someone uses peanut oil in his car, pauses at a stoplight, and some peanut allergic person takes one breath and dies in ten minutes.
No shit, it's that quick. Peanut allergy is fast and peanut allergic people can handle only very small amounts. Very, very, small amounts.
Being the government, they will have all kinds of forms, inspectors, quality controlls, mandatory mass spectrographs, classes to get licensed, fees, charges, revenue enhancements, etc.
Just thought of that yesterday. I wonder how to pass the word around and make a connection between a peanut allergy group and a biodiesel group so that they get the idea how serious peanut allergies are in the biodiesel group, and how fast biodiesel is growing in the peanut allergy group? If we avoid fatalities the government won't have an excuse to regulate. We can but try.
An attention-getting excerpt:
"Saudi Aramco has admitted that its net increase will be only half the top line, because of declining production from existing fields. This means the Saudis are predicting a 28% drop in production from existing fields. It also implies that Ghawar--the greatest oilfield the world has ever known, and, until recently the source of as much as 6% of total world output--has peaked. Apparently, the next two biggest oilfields have apparently also peaked--Cantarell in Mexico, where production is falling sharply, and Burgan in Kuwait. China's daQing oilfield, the backbone of its output, is said to have entered decline. (The Chinese say they are cutting back output to extend the life of the field. The field, we are to assume, just has a mild case of SPS--Sino-Petro-Senility, which, in a nation that venerates the aged, isn't something to worry about.)"
Latest Basic Points:
http://corporate.bmo.com/HarrisNesbitt/bresource/basicpoint/default.asp?id=6198
Well, maybe some spring weather and some time working on some planned projects would help my frame of mind!
The most important skills (IMHO)? Be informed; be agile and ready for change.
"Divers Work the Gulf Floor to Undo What Hurricanes Did"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/business/01gulf.html?hp&ex=1141275600&en=fa4c4e82b235a4e9& amp;ei=5094&partner=homepage
One key quote:
"Few will openly say so, but oil companies are racing against the clock. In less than four months, the next hurricane season kicks off."
I'm not sure if this article is behind their paywall; free registration may be required.
-Matt in DC suburbs.
The other thing I saw in the papers was that China has surpassed Japan in Windpower. It's a short news snippet, but it has a few numbers in it that might be interesting.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/print/nb20060302a4.html
Small quote:
Thank you. Pictures are worth 1000 words apiece.
All the Tar sand cornucopians should look at the Tech Review slide show
"It takes roughly two metric tons of this sticky sand to produce one barrel of crude oil."
The house is for Pittsburgh Steelers' Coach Bill Cowher and his wife and three daughters. Cowher seems like a decent guy, but 7,400 SF is huge!
I've designed three very large custom homes (two decades ago) the largest of which was 5,500 SF. The couple had adopted four or five Viet orphans, and ran a pottery kiln in the walk-out basement, but still it was a behemoth of a house.
And 7,400 SF is nothing. People are building mansions with 20,000 square feet and more. Rooms they never use, never even furnish.
It reminds of all those huge mansions built around the turn of the last century. Most of them are now either gone or are historic sites, used as museums. Or have been made into multifamily homes. Their owners could no longer afford to maintain them.
I think large houses made sense with large staffs of servants, but not otherwise.
Or why not build a large mansion with multiple bathrooms with a floor plan allowing an easy subdivision into apartments and preinstalled plumbing in the floors for new kitchens?
If you got it, use it, in a sensible way.
I want to turn that around and ask, how much general tax revenue is diverted to supporting the infrastructure that makes it possible to actually get anywhere by car in the first place?
I have this book, The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependence & Denial: Impacts on the Economy and Environment by Hart and Spivak. It states (p. 44): "For every dollar motorists pay to local governments, the governments spend eight dollars to provide them with these essential services." (The services are: "Traffic signals, traffic engineering services, police and fire protection for motorists, traffic control, auto theft control, street lighting, street repair and maintenance, flood control, parking facilities, paramedics, courts, hospitals, air pollution control and related services.")
I have no idea how accurate that 1 to 8 ratio is. (The book doesn't cite any sources to justify the numbers.)
So any ideas about what the real ratio is? (With evidence?) Are motorists subsidized, and if so by how much?
It seems to me that if there are major subsidies to motorists, that should be the main argument for raising the gas tax. Let drivers just pay the costs of their driving. Why do they need government handouts?
Auto theft control is a subsidy, but solar panel theft control is not? What makes you think the rest of the book is any better?
Anyway, you're just unhelpfully changing the subject.
The question is this: how much do governments spend on services whose entire purpose is to benefit motorists, and how much tax revenue to they take in from motoring-related activities?
If it turns out that spending exceeds revenue, then people who drive a little are subsidizing those who drive a lot.