Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 54   Go Down

Author Topic: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science  (Read 50554 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #900 on: September 21, 2019, 06:20:01 pm »

I'm surprised that your electric company doesn't offer off-peak rates. Is it like that just in your area or across the entire USA?
In Ontario, we have 3 time slots how the electricity is charged - Peak (7am-9am and 5pm-7pm), standard - during the day between the peak hours and Off-Peak at night. Weekends are Off-Peak all day. The Off-Peak price is only half of the Peak price. That helps not only to save some money for the homeowners, but also it offloads to some degree the demand during the peak hours.

It's possible there's a difference between summer and winter.  But looking at my current bill, it shows only one multiplier.  My bill is split between the deliverer who owns the power lines and the supplier who provides the electricity.  We have an option and can select the lowest supplier which I do.  Our town makes a deal with the supplier for the lowest rate and then passes that rate along to the homeowners to want to use it.  If they get a better rate next year from another supplier, we'll switch to them.  The deliverer who owns the lines has a base charge.  We're stuck with them of course since they own the lines.  But together over the last year of using 10,000KWH, I only paid $1133 for electricity or about US$0.115 cents per KWH.  That's CAN$1502 or CAN$0.152/KWH.   That's the combined rate of the owner and supplier. I suspect the rate from the supplier is a fixed amount because our town negotiated it with the supplier.  I believe if I had stayed with the owner of the lines for the supply also, they have summer/winter and possibly day/night rates. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #901 on: September 21, 2019, 06:29:15 pm »

Apples and Oranges. CO2 is not properly priced (or is even subsidized), so even Nordhouse recommends adding a Carbon Tax.
Adding a carbon tax is a tax.  Taxes reduce the money available for capital investment and raising salaries.   So the economy suffers.  Additionally, carbon taxes transfer money from one industry to another.  That distorts the free market that establishes the best investments that help an economy.  The government is favoring  one industry over another which misallocates investments putting more money in poor ones rather than better ones. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #902 on: September 21, 2019, 06:39:45 pm »

It's possible there's a difference between summer and winter.  But looking at my current bill, it shows only one multiplier.  My bill is split between the deliverer who owns the power lines and the supplier who provides the electricity.  We have an option and can select the lowest supplier which I do.  Our town makes a deal with the supplier for the lowest rate and then passes that rate along to the homeowners to want to use it.  If they get a better rate next year from another supplier, we'll switch to them.  The deliverer who owns the lines has a base charge.  We're stuck with them of course since they own the lines.  But together over the last year of using 10,000KWH, I only paid $1133 for electricity or about US$0.115 cents per KWH.  That's CAN$1502 or CAN$0.152/KWH.   That's the combined rate of the owner and supplier. I suspect the rate from the supplier is a fixed amount because our town negotiated it with the supplier.  I believe if I had stayed with the owner of the lines for the supply also, they have summer/winter and possibly day/night rates. 

Germany pays $0.3022/KWH including all taxes which is 2.6 times my rate.  My rate above also includes all taxes.  I thought Bart might be interested.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #903 on: September 21, 2019, 06:43:02 pm »

Germany pays $0.3022/KWH including all taxes which is 2.6 times my rate.  My rate above also includes all taxes.  I thought Bart might be interested.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power

Oh.  I forgot to mention.  Germany produces 40% of their electricity from solar and wind.  So much for "free green" electricity. 

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #904 on: September 21, 2019, 08:18:24 pm »

It's possible there's a difference between summer and winter.  But looking at my current bill, it shows only one multiplier.  My bill is split between the deliverer who owns the power lines and the supplier who provides the electricity.  We have an option and can select the lowest supplier which I do.  Our town makes a deal with the supplier for the lowest rate and then passes that rate along to the homeowners to want to use it.  If they get a better rate next year from another supplier, we'll switch to them.  The deliverer who owns the lines has a base charge.  We're stuck with them of course since they own the lines.  But together over the last year of using 10,000KWH, I only paid $1133 for electricity or about US$0.115 cents per KWH.  That's CAN$1502 or CAN$0.152/KWH.   That's the combined rate of the owner and supplier. I suspect the rate from the supplier is a fixed amount because our town negotiated it with the supplier.  I believe if I had stayed with the owner of the lines for the supply also, they have summer/winter and possibly day/night rates.

I made a mistake when quoting our prices in my previous post.
Below are Ontario official electricity rates for 2019 (in CAD). Peak rates slightly cheaper than yours, off-peak rates only half of those:

DAY OF THE WEEK   TIME OF DAY   TOU PERIOD   TOU PRICE
Weekends & Holidays:   All day   Off-peak   $0.065 per kWh

Weekdays:   7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.   Mid-peak   $0.094 per kWh
                       11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.   On-peak   $0.134 per kWh
                         5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.   Mid-peak   $0.094 per kWh
                         7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.   Off-peak   $0.065 per kWh
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #905 on: September 21, 2019, 09:09:05 pm »

I made a mistake when quoting our prices in my previous post.
Below are Ontario official electricity rates for 2019 (in CAD). Peak rates slightly cheaper than yours, off-peak rates only half of those:

DAY OF THE WEEK   TIME OF DAY   TOU PERIOD   TOU PRICE
Weekends & Holidays:   All day   Off-peak   $0.065 per kWh

Weekdays:   7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.   Mid-peak   $0.094 per kWh
                       11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.   On-peak   $0.134 per kWh
                         5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.   Mid-peak   $0.094 per kWh
                         7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.   Off-peak   $0.065 per kWh

Those are great rates.  Electricity is cheap in Canada.  Is that because you have a lot of water and dams?

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #906 on: September 21, 2019, 09:22:25 pm »

Yes, there is a lot of stationary and flowing water in Ontario. We used to have several coal generating stations, but I believe that they were all phased out. Now we have a wide mix of clean power plants - nuclear, hydro, natural gas, landfill gas, biomass, and wind. Many small hydro stations on smaller rivers in central Ontario. Even a couple of solar stations.

Here is a complete list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generating_stations_in_Ontario
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #907 on: September 21, 2019, 10:30:54 pm »

I think you sell a lot of electricity to NY and other parts of the USA.  Maybe even NJ where I live.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #908 on: September 21, 2019, 10:37:31 pm »

Not so much Ontario, as Quebec. And most of that electricity comes from Newfoundland Power company.
 
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #909 on: September 22, 2019, 06:09:52 am »

A good collection of articles about the climate change (causes, effects, and evidence) can be found on the NASA climate site:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 07:33:40 am by LesPalenik »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #910 on: September 22, 2019, 08:01:48 am »

Problem is you have people like Sanders who want to spend fifteen trillion dollars without telling us the negative effects of using all those financial resources on this one project.   Where is all the money coming from? What other important programs do you cut? And the US only produces 14% of the earth's CO2.  Where does the money come from for the rest of the world?  Would you want to be paying for electricity as much as the Germans do? When parents shut air conditioners off to their children's rooms because of ever higher electric prices,   the kids will stop marching in the streets over climate change.  😎

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #911 on: September 22, 2019, 08:59:07 am »

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government reached an agreement to commit at least 100 billion euros ($110 billion) on climate protection by 2030.

Quote
Export powerhouse Germany accounts for around two percent of the worldwide emissions blamed for heating the Earth's atmosphere, melting ice caps, rising sea levels and intensifying violent weather events.

After two blistering summers and a wave of Fridays For Future student strikes and other environmental protests, the Merkel government has faced rising pressure to step up its efforts to protect the climate.

The coalition now looks to commit to spending "in the triple digit billions", or at least 100 billion euros.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-planning-climate-action-worth-over-100-bn-000816077.html
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #912 on: September 22, 2019, 09:17:56 am »

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government reached an agreement to commit at least 100 billion euros ($110 billion) on climate protection by 2030.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-planning-climate-action-worth-over-100-bn-000816077.html

From the article:

"The EU's biggest economy is set to miss its climate targets for next year but has committed itself to meeting the 2030 goal of a 55 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels."

So they've already cheated on their promises in Paris.   That's why we've pulled out.   Because Paris is a joke.  Just like Europe's promise of 2% regarding NATO.   Germany cheated on that too.   Just like Germans cheated on their diesel engines.   Why would anyone believe these new promises?  PS: they're tiny anyway.  Only 10 billion a year.   

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #913 on: September 22, 2019, 09:36:35 am »

So they've already cheated on their promises in Paris.   That's why we've pulled out.   Because Paris is a joke.  Just like Europe's promise of 2% regarding NATO.   Germany cheated on that too.   Just like Germans cheated on their diesel engines.   Why would anyone believe these new promises?  PS: they're tiny anyway.  Only 10 billion a year.

Are you saying that Merkel is lying and that she broke an agreement? Trump would never do anything like that.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #914 on: September 22, 2019, 09:54:49 am »

Our Democrat candidates for president running for the 2020 election want America to spend trillions of dollars on "green".  Sanders, the most generous, wants to spend $16.3 Trillion dollars.  By comparison, that's more than 3/4's of the entire US GDP for a year.  That's more than the combined GDP of Germany, Japan, Italy, France and Britain.   It's about a dozen times your AUstralia's GDP.  The amount boggles the mind and rattles your pocketbook.

Beside all the spending on the programs you mentioned, think of all the money not spent on other things like cancer research, feeding the poor, housing the homeless. creating a national health program for everyone, etc. There's no discussion going on about this.  We're going off hell bent on spending money without any thought of allocations.  It's about politics. 

Meanwhile, the US Federal government's deficit is already $1.07 Trillion dollars just for this year.  Our debt is over $22 Trillion.   Too bad we can't create electricity like we print money.

Alan,
I've always been amazed at the size of the US government's debt. A debt of 22 trillion represents about $67,000 for every man, woman and child in the USA, and that doesn't include the personal debt of US citizens, in terms of mortgages and credit card debt, and so on, which is currently about 13.3 trillion in total.

I can appreciate that major projects like building the great wall on the Mexican border, or building numerous additional dams to reduce flooding and trap water to reduce sea level rise, would increase that debt significantly, and therefore such projects are not likely to go ahead.

A similar situation, applies to most other countries, especially less developed countries. I guess we'll just have to 'muddle along' as usual.  :(
Logged

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #915 on: September 22, 2019, 10:04:02 am »

That's why we've pulled out.

The United States has not "pulled out" of the Paris agreement.  The Trump Administration has announced its intention for the United States to withdraw from the agreement in November, 2020.  If Trump loses the presidential election next year, it is likely that the new president will rejoin the agreement.  Even if Trump is re-elected, it is far from certain that he will proceed with the withdrawal: he sometimes shifts his positions radically, even diametrically, after talking to a family member or a favorite Fox News cable TV commentator—or for no discernible reason whatsoever.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #916 on: September 22, 2019, 10:04:58 am »

Are you saying that Merkel is lying and that she broke an agreement? Trump would never do anything like that.
You know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.🤔

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #917 on: September 22, 2019, 10:37:12 am »

The United States has not "pulled out" of the Paris agreement.  The Trump Administration has announced its intention for the United States to withdraw from the agreement in November, 2020.  If Trump loses the presidential election next year, it is likely that the new president will rejoin the agreement.  Even if Trump is re-elected, it is far from certain that he will proceed with the withdrawal: he sometimes shifts his positions radically, even diametrically, after talking to a family member or a favorite Fox News cable TV commentator—or for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Thanks for correcting me.  I forgot this.  It's true Trump said that he thinks we should do something about climate change.  But he knows a bad deal when he sees it.  And Paris is a bad deal, even if countries like Germany didn't cheat on it.  Why? Because China and India are exempt.  How can China especially as the number one CO2 polluter be exempt?   They're the second largest economy in the world.  America and other would be hurt economically by Paris while China does nothing and advances itself economically.  WIth their aggressive militaristic outlook, that makes it worse.   Trump doesn't like to get screwed.  He does the screwing.   Paris has put additional economic burdens on other countries and frankly without China, you;ll never reduce CO2.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #918 on: September 22, 2019, 10:52:54 am »

I just found an article that confirms my concerns that there aren't any good analysis and documentation of the amount we spend and for what regarding the climate.  There's no way to know how to go forward if we don't even know what we've done.  Spend Spend Spend  is not a plan. How much?  Where it should be allocated?  How much should be left for damage remediation, cancer research, and other needs?  Right now it's mainly political.  That's also why they're such skepticism.

"Congress isn’t getting an accurate accounting of what is being spent. Nor is it getting information about the financial risks of doing nothing. There aren’t even clear goals for what we want to do, so it’s hard to know how to measure success or failure"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-the-government-spending-on-climate-change-we-dont-know-and-neither-do-they/



faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #919 on: September 22, 2019, 10:59:25 am »

I just found an article that confirms my concerns that there aren't any good analysis and documentation of the amount we spend and for what regarding the climate.  There's no way to know how to go forward if we don't even know what we've done.  Spend Spend Spend  is not a plan. How much?  Where it should be allocated?  How much should be left for damage remediation, cancer research, and other needs?  Right now it's mainly political.  That's also why they're such skepticism.
Give it a rest. You keep repeating yourself. By now we all know where you stand on the issue.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 11:04:30 am by faberryman »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 54   Go Up