A large group of investors wants clarity and consistency in govt policies http://www.ceres.org/incr/files/investor-files/2012-global-policy-letter And some technology firms want not to be left out if any money gets put on the table BBC News - Defence firms seek broader agenda All possibly related to the upcoming Doha conference. I spare you links to media pundits' suggestions that curtailing US-energy industry tax benefits could be part of 'fiscal cliff' negotiations. Your reality may vary... But the first link is worth a look. 22 trillions sounds like a lot of money.
I think they want more tax payer money, but hey that's just cynical me. Clarity is better though for everyone. If we have clearer rules then we will likely slow down the politics of this all and get to some of the science. As long as companies like duke and shell see government money from legislation, and coch brothers see losses of profit, we are going to be talking politics not science. I would take that number with a big grain of salt. IIRC this summer the green investment money was around $700B, they are including investments that just have a little food coloring on them. If you invest in Siemens or GE that make wind turbines and nuclear power plants and other ghg lowering things, do you consider that a green investment. I don't.
Second link (7th paragraph) puts the amount @ 40 trillion over 25 years. Seems like the costs are going to vary widely. IMHO. DBCassidy
Actually, there are a lot of pre-Doha documents hitting the streets right now. The World Bank's 'Turn down the heat' is a monster download of 14 MB, but if you can get your eyes past the gloomy predictions, there is a lot of the science that AustinG is looking for. Actually, they have not got around to some interesting 2011 and 2012 studies that even here at PriusChat have been discussed. Anyway, a bit if a stopgap for those who are having a hard time waiting for IPCC AR5 To me what seems missing before this conference are the latest hoax, embarrassing email disclosures, fudged data revelations. All the things usually offered to counter-balance earth system science. What's up with that? Did US presidential politics take the wind out of everybodys' sails?
This op ed piece is 2 months old but the politics continues Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century? - Forbes The reason we don't hear as much now is because the media is scrambling with the fiscal cliff and the euro debt crisis. They don't have time to cover the fudged data. The real data seems to be going against both those that call it a hoax, and those that smell disaster right around the corner. Sandy and the Bloomberg and Christy politics takes some wind out of republican politicians that want to call hoax. PBS did an excellent piece on how the government is drastically under pricing insurance in coastal areas, even for historic storms, which encourages over development in harms way - even if the sea levels were not rising. Coal prices have gone up, while natural gas looks relatively plentiful in the near future. Any politician outside of West Virginia or Kentucky that wants to claim we need more coal, is in for unhappy constituents. Even Pennsylvania, a historic coal state, now looks willing to cut ghg emissions for power plants. Costs to reduce ghg look much lower than the hoax people were pretending, though costs to really cut emissions by 80% in 2050 still looks impossible without spending all gdp
Actually, we, US government, require more tax money from those not paying taxes on income. Most working Americans are taxed on 100% of their income, while those who make money off of stock scams, are taxed on 10% of their income. The tax breaks and lack of regulation has shifted a larger portion of US income to a small minority while the tax burden has shifted the opposite direction of income. Also keep in mind that the $1T unfunded military budget is the real reason behind the deficits and debt of Reaganomics over the last 30 years. A $7 per gallon tax on gasoline would be needed to pay for the 30 years of oil wars.
Naural gas prices in the U.S. have put a dent in domestic coal usage. The coal producers can look to China and India to satisfy their appetite for energy consumption. IF GHG are lowered in the U.S., but increases in Chuna and India, my question is: what have we gained? We all breathe the same air on this planet. If any real gains are to be made in reduction of GHG, it has to be done on a global scale, with evry nation on this planet making an effort to do so. A more interesting question is: if everybody did reduce their GHG (locally, national, and internationally), but GHG keep climbing, what then? Could it be now said, that no matter what we humans do, the issue of GHG increasses, is beynd our control. Could it be now addressed as naturally occuring climate change that has been happening since the beginning of time? The amount of data collected and weather records we have is very small compared to the age of the Earth. We have barely scratched the surface on data collection to see any real meaningful trends that have occured in the past. It is the past that holds a gold mine of information on what is truly happening with the climate. As we move forward as a civilization and develope new technologies to help learn of past climate trends, we can then begin to understand what is going on. Yes, we see changes in the climate, but a vast amount of work must be done, if not expanded. This has to be done so we can all get a better understanding of our world. DBCassidy
