Are We Ready To Debate This or Here Skip Goes Again - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-28T23:44:43Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/are-we-ready-to-debate-this-or-here-skip-goes-again?commentId=2117179%3AComment%3A3886632&feed=yes&xn_auth=noRevealed: quarter of all twee…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-21:2117179:Comment:38888822020-02-21T16:23:28.998ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p><strong>Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots</strong></p>
<p>Draft of Brown study says findings suggest ‘substantial impact of mechanized bots in amplifying denialist messages’</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/oliver-milman">Oliver Milman</a> in New York Fri 21 Feb 2020 03.00 EST theguardian.com</p>
<p>The social media conversation over the climate crisis is being reshaped by an army of automated…</p>
<p><strong>Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots</strong></p>
<p>Draft of Brown study says findings suggest ‘substantial impact of mechanized bots in amplifying denialist messages’</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/oliver-milman">Oliver Milman</a> in New York Fri 21 Feb 2020 03.00 EST theguardian.com</p>
<p>The social media conversation over the climate crisis is being reshaped by an army of automated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/twitter">Twitter</a> bots, with a new analysis finding that a quarter of all tweets about climate on an average day are produced by bots, the Guardian can reveal.</p>
<p>The stunning levels of Twitter bot activity on topics related to global heating and the climate crisis is distorting the online discourse to include far more climate science denialism than it would otherwise.</p>
<p>An analysis of millions of tweets from around the period when Donald Trump announced the US would withdraw from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/paris-climate-agreement">Paris climate agreement</a> found that bots tended to applaud the president for his actions and spread misinformation about the science.</p>
<p>The study of Twitter bots and climate was undertaken by Brown University and has yet to be published. Bots are a type of software that can be directed to autonomously tweet, retweet, like or direct message on Twitter, under the guise of a human-fronted account.</p>
<p>“These findings suggest a substantial impact of mechanized bots in amplifying denialist messages about climate change, including support for Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement,” states the draft study, seen by the Guardian.</p>
<p>On an average day during the period studied, 25% of all tweets about the climate crisis came from bots. This proportion was higher in certain topics – bots were responsible for 38% of tweets about “fake science” and 28% of all tweets about the petroleum giant Exxon.</p>
<p>Conversely, tweets that could be categorized as online activism to support action on the climate crisis featured very few bots, at about 5% prevalence. The findings “suggest that bots are not just prevalent, but disproportionately so in topics that were supportive of Trump’s announcement or skeptical of climate science and action”, the analysis states.</p>
<p>Thomas Marlow, a PhD candidate at Brown who led the study, said the research came about as he and his colleagues are “always kind of wondering why there’s persistent levels of denial about something that the science is more or less settled on”.</p>
<p>The researchers examined 6.5m tweets posted in the days leading up to and the month after Trump announced the US exit from the Paris accords on 1 June 2017. The tweets were sorted into topic category, with an Indiana University tool called Botometer used to estimate the probability the user behind the tweet is a bot.</p>
<p>Marlow said he was surprised that bots were responsible for a quarter of climate tweets on an average day. “I was like, ‘Wow that seems really high,’” he said.</p>
<p>The consistent drumbeat of bot activity around climate topics is highlighted by the day of Trump’s announcement, when a huge spike in general interest in the topic saw the bot proportion drop by about half to 13%. Tweets by suspected bots did increase from hundreds a day to more than 25,000 a day during the days around the announcement but it wasn’t enough to prevent a fall in proportional share.</p>
<p>Trump has consistently spread misinformation about the climate crisis, most famously calling it “bullshit” and a “hoax”, although more recently the US president has said he accepts the science that the world is heating up. Nevertheless, his administration has dismantled any major policy aimed at cutting planet-warming gases, including car emissions standards and restrictions on coal-fired power plants.</p>
<p>The Brown University study wasn’t able to identify any individuals or groups behind the battalion of Twitter bots, nor ascertain the level of influence they have had around the often fraught climate debate.</p>
<p>However, a number of suspected bots that have consistently disparaged climate science and activists have large numbers of followers on Twitter. One that ranks highly on the Botometer score, @sh_irredeemable, wrote “Get lost Greta!” in December, in reference to the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg.</p>
<p>This was followed by a tweet that doubted the world will reach a 9-billion population due to “#climatechange lunacy stopping progress”. The account has nearly 16,000 followers.</p>
<p>Another suspected bot, @petefrt, has nearly 52,000 followers and has repeatedly rejected climate science. “Get real, CNN: ‘Climate Change’ dogma is religion, not science,” the account posted in August. Another tweet from November called for the Paris agreement to be ditched in order to “reject a future built by globalists and European eco-mandarins”.</p>
<p>Twitter accounts spreading falsehoods about the climate crisis are also able to use the promoted tweets option available to those willing to pay for extra visibility. Twitter bans a number of things from its promoted tweets, including political content and tobacco advertising, but allows any sort of content, true or otherwise, on the climate crisis.</p>
<p>Research on internet blogs published last year found that climate misinformation is often spread due to readers’ perception of how widely this opinion is shared by other readers.</p>
<p>Stephan Lewandowsky, an academic at the University of Bristol who co-authored the research, said he was “not at all surprised” at the Brown University study due to his own interactions with climate-related messages on Twitter.</p>
<p>“More often than not, they turn out to have all the fingerprints of bots,” he said. “The more denialist trolls are out there, the more likely people will think that there is a diversity of opinion and hence will weaken their support for climate science.</p>
<p>“In terms of influence, I personally am convinced that they do make a difference, although this can be hard to quantify.”</p>
<p>John Cook, an Australian cognitive scientist and co-author with Lewandowsky, said that bots are “dangerous and potentially influential”, with evidence showing that when people are exposed to facts and misinformation they are often left misled.</p>
<p>“This is one of the most insidious and dangerous elements of misinformation spread by bots – not just that misinformation is convincing to people but that just the mere existence of misinformation in social networks can cause people to trust accurate information less or disengage from the facts,” Cook said.</p>
<p>Although Twitter bots didn’t ramp up significantly around the Paris withdrawal announcement, some advocates of action to tackle the climate crisis are wary of a spike in activity around the US presidential election later this year.</p>
<p>“Even though we don’t know who they are, or their exact motives, it seems self-evident that Trump thrives on the positive reinforcement he receives from these bots and their makers,” said Ed Maibach, an expert in climate communication at George Mason University.</p>
<p>“It is terrifying to ponder the possibility that the POTUS was cajoled by bots into committing an atrocity against humanity.”</p>
<p> </p> Thanks, Gale. The ranks of c…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-19:2117179:Comment:38882632020-02-19T14:58:24.717ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Thanks, Gale. The ranks of climate deniers is quickly thinning. And conservative politicians are realizing that continuing to deny the science is a losing proposition. Maybe the debate and plans of action will move a little quicker now.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Red-state Utah embraces plan to tackle climate crisis in surprising shift</span></strong></p>
<p>theguardian.com<strong> …</strong></p>
<p>Thanks, Gale. The ranks of climate deniers is quickly thinning. And conservative politicians are realizing that continuing to deny the science is a losing proposition. Maybe the debate and plans of action will move a little quicker now.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Red-state Utah embraces plan to tackle climate crisis in surprising shift</span></strong></p>
<p>theguardian.com<strong> </strong> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/andrea-smardon"><span>Andrea Smardon</span></a> in Salt Lake City</p>
<p>Wed 19 Feb 2020 <span>06.00 EST</span> Last modified on Wed 19 Feb 2020 <span>06.02 EST</span></p>
<p>Utah aims to reduce emissions over air quality concerns as other red states are also starting to tackle global heating</p>
<p>In a move to protect its ski slopes and growing economy, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/utah">Utah</a> – one of the reddest states in the nation – as just created a long-term plan to address the climate crisis.</p>
<p>And in a surprising turnaround, some of the state’s conservative leaders are welcoming it.</p>
<p>“If we don’t think about Utah’s long-term future, who will?” Republican state house speaker Brad Wilson said at a recent focus group to discuss the proposals.</p>
<p>At the request of the Republican-dominated state legislature, a University of Utah economic thinktank produced <a href="https://gardner.utah.edu/utahroadmap/">the plan</a> to reduce carbon emissions affecting both the local air quality and the global climate.</p>
<p>Project lead Thomas Holst, an energy analyst, never expected to be at the helm of an effort like this. A few years ago, the Utah legislature passed a resolution urging the EPA to “cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated”.</p>
<p>But now the perspectives of some state lawmakers – and of Holst, who spent most of his career in the oil and gas industry – have shifted.</p>
<p>“The economist Adam Smith talked about an invisible hand that guides the economy, and in this particular case, the cost of renewable energy, whether it’s wind or solar, has gone down so rapidly and made itself so market efficient versus fossil fuels, that there is a change, and the change can’t be ignored,” Holst said. “So now is the opportunity for a state like Utah which is rich in both renewables as well as fossil fuels to embrace that change and get out ahead of it.”</p>
<p>Other red states and municipalities are slowly starting to address global heating. After banning the words “climate change” from state environmental agencies, Florida now has a chief resilience officer tasked with preparing for sea level rise. After a year of disastrous flooding, Nebraska lawmakers <a href="https://journalstar.com/legislature/call-for-nebraska-climate-change-plan-advances-to-full-legislative/article_ab0fa9f9-ad13-539d-95a4-56d715267015.html">advanced a bill</a> to develop a climate change plan for a full legislative debate.</p>
<p>Utah prides itself on being business friendly – and it has a rapidly growing tech sector concerned about environmental issues, as well as booming tourist economy that revolves around the ski industry and public lands.</p>
<p>The Utah plan, known as the Utah Roadmap, began, like a number of recent environmental initiatives, with young people clamoring for action. High school students drafted a <a href="https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/HCR007.html">resolution</a> that recognized the impacts of the climate crisis and encouraged emissions reductions, and persuaded two Republican lawmakers to sponsor it. Environmental advocates say it was the first measure of its kind to pass in a red state. The legislature followed up with state money for experts to provide policy recommendations.</p>
<p>Another factor that has primed Utah leaders to address the climate crisis is the state’s unique air quality issues. The majority of the population lives in mountain valleys where in winter, temperature inversions can trap air pollutants, often reaching levels that impact health, particularly among children and the elderly.</p>
<p> “It cuts across political lines. [Clean air] is not a partisan issue in our state,” said Utah speaker Wilson. “There is absolutely overlap between air quality concerns we have and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”</p>
<p>Natalie Gochnour, the head of the economic policy institute that drafted the Utah Roadmap, said its proponents managed to turn a hyper-partisan issue into a shared priority by emphasizing the local impacts of the climate crisis. Research <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257804322_Planning_for_climate_change_across_the_US_Great_Plains_Concerns_and_insights_from_government_decision-makers">suggests</a> that framing policy around economic benefits and sustainability allows local leaders to respond to climate change without getting caught up in political divisions.</p>
<p>“That tends to pull some of the politics out of it – not for everybody – but for many. I think enough to create momentum on Capitol Hill,” Gochnour said.</p>
<p>Clean air concerns are also the reason officials are pushing Utah gas refineries to produce cleaner gasoline, and when the Trump administration announced <a href="https://viewer.gutools.co.uk/environment/2018/apr/02/environmental-protection-agency-emissions-standards-cars-trucks-rollback">plans</a> to roll back clean car standards, Utah’s bipartisan clean air caucus held a press conference urging Congress to resist the move.</p>
<p>It cuts across political lines. Clean air is not a partisan issue in our state</p>
<p>Holst, the roadmap project lead, acknowledged that blue coastal states have taken the initiative on ameliorating climate change, but he sees potential for Utah. “Is there an opportunity for a red state to take a leadership role? We believe that there is. And by composing a road map, by encouraging our legislative leaders to embrace this, we believe that there can be a change, and that Utah will be willing to take a leadership role,” he said.</p>
<p>Utah’s per capita carbon emissions are higher than most states, in part because it’s nearly twice as reliant on coal, but utilities serving Utah customers plan to close many of their coal power plants by 2030, converting to wind, solar, natural gas, and possibly hydrogen. Republican state lawmaker Melissa Garff Ballard has an ambitious plan to make Utah a source of hydrogen power serving the western US.</p>
<p>Among the Utah Roadmap’s top priorities is to reduce CO2 emissions by half over the next decade – a challenge for a state with a growing population. The plan suggests focusing on energy-efficient buildings and clean transportation options. It recommends expanding Utah’s network of charging stations, incentivizing the purchase of electric vehicles, and involving auto dealers in strategies to increase the zero-emissions vehicle supply.</p>
<p>Business leaders have told Holst they are drafting a document that would pledge to move forward with the Utah Roadmap’s recommendations.</p>
<p>“What I’m interested in is a viable future for the state of Utah,” Republican state representative Stephen Handy said. “There are still a number of Utah legislators who don’t want to look at the science that’s very obvious on climate change, but we’ve come a long way.”</p> Common Sense seems to be a lo…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-19:2117179:Comment:38881602020-02-19T07:53:17.584ZGalehttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Gale
<p>Common Sense seems to be a lost trait these days! I agree 100% with your points, appreciating common sense thinking inside and outside the BOX for the good of all parties concerned! Thank-you Skip! </p>
<p>Common Sense seems to be a lost trait these days! I agree 100% with your points, appreciating common sense thinking inside and outside the BOX for the good of all parties concerned! Thank-you Skip! </p> Democrats and Republicans sho…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-13:2117179:Comment:38866322020-02-13T20:55:41.393ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p><strong>Democrats and Republicans should both embrace this common-sense, planet-saving reform</strong></p>
<p>By <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/">Editorial Board</a> Washington Post Feb. 13, 2020 at 11:23 a.m. CST</p>
<p>CLIMATE CHANGE was the most important issue for a quarter of voters in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire on Tuesday; only health care ranked higher,…</p>
<p><strong>Democrats and Republicans should both embrace this common-sense, planet-saving reform</strong></p>
<p>By <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/">Editorial Board</a> Washington Post Feb. 13, 2020 at 11:23 a.m. CST</p>
<p>CLIMATE CHANGE was the most important issue for a quarter of voters in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire on Tuesday; only health care ranked higher, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/exit-polls-2020-new-hampshire-primary/?tid=lk_inline_manual_1&itid=lk_inline_manual_1">according to exit polls</a>. Every serious Democratic candidate has a plan. Even some Republican politicians, their science-denying president notwithstanding, are concluding that action on climate is essential for their political survival as well as the planet’s well-being.</p>
<p>But what action? Sometimes we seem to face an unpalatable choice among President Trump’s obstruction and backsliding, feel-good Republican Band-Aids (let’s plant a few trees!) and the overweening, inefficient and ultimately unrealistic overreach of the the Green New Deal. So there’s reason to celebrate the release Thursday of a climate plan by an alliance of corporations, environmental advocacy groups, economists and prominent citizens that bills itself as “the broadest climate coalition in U.S. history.”</p>
<p>The coalition includes giant oil companies such as ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, utilities (Exelon) and car manufacturers (Ford, General Motors) but also the World Resources Institute, Conservation International and the World Wildlife Fund. It has luminaries from Republican administrations, including former secretaries of state James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz, and Democratic ones, such as Janet L. Yellen, President Barack Obama’s appointment as Federal Reserve chair, and Steven Chu, Mr. Obama’s energy secretary.</p>
<p>What unites them is a plan that is more ambitious and effective in carbon reduction than Mr. Obama’s energy plan or the Paris accord; doesn’t increase the deficit by so much as a dime; leaves most Americans financially better off; encourages innovation; and provides an incentive for other emitters, including China and India, to act. How is that possible? The plan would levy a steadily rising tax on carbon (oil, gas, coal) to cut U.S. carbon emissions in half from 2005 levels by 2035. The timeline is aggressive — steep cuts, and soon — and there’s a backstop if they don’t materialize.</p>
<p>Such a tax is the best way to promote innovation, Ms. Yellen told us, and encourage firms and consumers to switch to cleaner energy (though the government would still be wise to invest in research to speed the transition). The government would remit all of the tax receipts in equal shares; a family of four would get a $2,000 dividend check every year. Seventy percent of households would get more back than they would pay in higher energy costs, with the poorest faring best.</p>
<p>Two other key features: The plan would impose a fee on imports from countries without comparable plans. That would keep companies from just moving factories to countries where they could emit more — and it would encourage other nations to join what would quickly become a customs union of lower emitters. And the carbon fee would replace most federal energy-sector regulation, though automobile standards, appliance efficiency regulation and state rules (if states so chose) would be retained.</p>
<p>That deregulation will offend advocates who would rather dictate the mix of solar, wind and other renewables to be attained. But, as long as the price continues to rise, a tax is a more efficient, predictable route to wringing carbon out of the system than bureaucratic fiat could ever be. In short, the only reason for a Republican to oppose this plan is that there’s nothing here for a Democrat to dislike, and vice versa. Congress should find its way past that obstacle to embrace common-sense, planet-saving reform.</p> More energy executives and pr…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-13:2117179:Comment:38866292020-02-13T20:33:41.518ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>More energy executives and pro-hydrocarbon analysts are beginning to understand the inevitability of public demand for responses to a warming climate. I wish that they had reached that realization some years ago. Aside from Mr. Krystinik's suggested thermostat setting and his attempt to call into question the pace of climate change, I think his suggestions merit discussion. Eliminating flaring and putting that gas to use should be something all but the hardest of greens can support. …</p>
<p>More energy executives and pro-hydrocarbon analysts are beginning to understand the inevitability of public demand for responses to a warming climate. I wish that they had reached that realization some years ago. Aside from Mr. Krystinik's suggested thermostat setting and his attempt to call into question the pace of climate change, I think his suggestions merit discussion. Eliminating flaring and putting that gas to use should be something all but the hardest of greens can support. Aggressive industry programs to reduce fugitive emissions across the entire supply change should also be a no brainer. I do not mind debating the time line of climate change as long as reasonable measures are taking place and their effectiveness is being measured in real time to allow for periodic adjustments to policy. The approach should be measured and incremental....and it should have started five years ago. Thanks for posting.</p>
<p></p> Lecturer to take deep dive in…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-13:2117179:Comment:38866892020-02-13T20:20:03.333Zphoenixhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/phoenix80
<div class="article-title"><h1 class="headline entry-title">Lecturer to take deep dive into climate change debate</h1>
<p class="byline">By <a href="https://www.mrt.com/author/mella-mcewen/">Mella McEwen</a><span class="local-credit">, MRT.com/Midland Reporter-Telegram</span></p>
<span class="timestamp">Updated 8:57 pm CST, Sunday, February 9, 2020 …<br></br></span></div>
<div class="article-title"><span class="timestamp"><br></br></span></div>
<div class="asset_gallery"></div>
<div class="article-title"><h1 class="headline entry-title">Lecturer to take deep dive into climate change debate</h1>
<p class="byline">By <a href="https://www.mrt.com/author/mella-mcewen/">Mella McEwen</a><span class="local-credit">, MRT.com/Midland Reporter-Telegram</span></p>
<span class="timestamp">Updated 8:57 pm CST, Sunday, February 9, 2020 <br/></span></div>
<div class="article-title"><span class="timestamp"><br/></span></div>
<div class="asset_gallery"><div class="hst-resgallery-container non-grid static-frame"><div class="control-panel"><span id="gallerySection"></span><div class="control-panel-inner"><div class="caption"><div class="slide-count"></div>
<div class="caption-remote"><div class="caption-full"><p>Lee Krystinik, coming to Midland for the PBS-SEPM Robert Read Distinguished Lecturer series, will look at practical steps that can be taken to address climate change, including by the oil and gas industry.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ctpl-mediumrectangle4" class="ctpl-mediumrectangle clearfix"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Debate continues to swirl around climate change, the environment and the future of energy.</p>
<p>Hoping to offer a deep dive into the debate, the Permian Basin section, SEPM - Society for Sedimentary Geology - is hosting Lee Krystinik of Arlington for a lecture on the concerns and ways to find a pragmatic energy reality.</p>
<p>His presentation is part of the society's Robert Read Distinguished Lecturer Series. It’s planned for 6 p.m. March 5 at the Bush Convention Center. The public is invited to attend.</p>
<p>There’s a misconception that the energy industry “is not focused on climate or the environment,” said Sandra Elliott, chapter president. “We are, every day. We think about those issues more than people realize.”</p>
<p>Mike Raines, president-elect, said, “Some basis of opinion is not based on reality. It’s easy to get a window of a picture instead of the whole picture.”</p>
<p>He described Krystinik’s approach as “from the aspect that ‘I’m hearing things from both sides and I can’t decide which is right.’”</p>
<p>So, he attempts to take aspects from both sides of the question and mold them into a pragmatic approach, Raines said.</p>
<p>“Hopefully, by the end of his talk, both sides will be mad,” Raines said.</p>
<div class="asset_factbox"><div class="factbox_r sc-med-gradient-bar business"><div class="factbox_r_content"><h2 class="box-shadow">Want to go?</h2>
<p>Where: Bush Convention Center</p>
<p>When: 6-9 p.m. March 5</p>
<p>Cost: $50 per person, $40 for full-time students</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Krystinik said his speech will have two main goals.</p>
<p>“First, to offer basic information without making a call, so the audience can make their own decisions from the data that’s collected with funds from tax dollars,” he said in a phone interview. “Two, I’m going to talk about what’s known, what the assumptions are, what the policies are and what we should be doing.”</p>
<p>Krystinik stressed that he believes climate change is occurring and that mankind is contributing, but he takes a larger perspective on the issue.</p>
<p>“Most reports say the models have climate change in the 95th percentile; that means there’s a 5 percent chance it will occur. If you use data over models, the data is much lower in probability -- in the 20th percentile. That doesn’t say warming is not happening, or that we’re not part of the cause. It says it’s not happening as fast. With that, we have time to do a series of sensible things to address warming,” Krystinik said.</p>
<p>“I say, what’s changed and what hasn’t? You hear a lot about hurricanes and fires, floods, windstorms, snow vortexes, weather quakes,” he said. “How much has really changed over time? Over 50 years? Over 100 years?”</p>
<div class="asset_zone zoneInlineA"><div class="hst-freeform hdnce-e hdnce-item-92605"></div>
</div>
<p>He said media reports discuss how more frequent and intense hurricanes have become. But, he said, looking back over the last 140 years, “there have been hurricane cycles that have been worse.”</p>
<p>He cited headlines about how the earth is warming. But, he said, “over the last 65 million years, if you measure the temperatures, we’re about the coldest the earth has been in the last 50 (million) to 60 million years.”</p>
<p>He said that listening to reports about climate change, “you think the world is coming to an end tomorrow. (But) the rate of change is tens of hundreds of years. With that, we can adapt and make sensible changes.”</p>
<p>It’s a monumental task, Krystinik said.</p>
<p>“If we were to go ahead and say that when we get to 2050, the world would be clean and green. That would require new nuclear plants, costing $8 (billion) to $9 billion each, to be built every day of every week of every month of every year between now and 2050 to get there.”</p>
<p>If a person wanted to be carbon neutral, he said they would have to plant three trees a day every day to reach that goal.</p>
<p>“People say, ‘OK, what do I do to cut down on the number of trees I’d have to plant?’” he said.</p>
<p>There are pragmatic, practical ways individuals, companies, industries and countries can address climate change without shattering economies, he said.</p>
<p>Krystinik said he sets his thermostat at 49 degrees in the wintertime and uses a space heater for additional warmth and sets it at 80 to 82 degrees in the summer.</p>
<p>“It’s not comfortable for a lot of people, but it makes a difference.”</p>
<p>Hanging clothes outside to dry instead of using a dryer would make a difference. Eliminating a flight between Texas and New York or Texas and San Francisco would be the equivalent of switching from a gasoline-powered car to an electric vehicle for a year -- two years if those flights were round-trip. Synthetic fabrics are responsible for 10 to 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.</p>
<p>The oil and gas industry should commit to using the various technologies available to eliminate flaring, he said, such as micro-plants that convert natural gas to liquids.</p>
<p>As for public policies, “I’d tell President Trump the sooner you shift the nation from coal to natural gas, you’d cut our carbon footprint 50 percent by going to natural gas. I feel for the people who mine coal, but it’s two to four times the carbon footprint of natural gas.”</p>
<p>He said there are great oil- and gas-related jobs in traditional coal-mining states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, home to the Marcellus Shale gas play.</p>
<p>Countries shifting from burning coal to natural gas would make a powerful impact, he said.</p>
<p>That would be a challenge, he said, because many developing countries see coal as an energy source that they can use to lift their people out of poverty, even though coal is the worst fossil fuel for the environment.</p>
<p>“It’s not our place to tell them they can’t do that,” he said.</p>
<p>His ultimate goal is to balance both sides of the debate.</p>
<p>“Solar, wind, fusion, these are all things we should do, things I support,” he said. “But to rely only on them to supply all the energy we need now? If you’re good with rolling blackouts and having your refrigerator or television run only one or two hours a day. I support research and development of improved alternative energy -- fusion, solar, wind, energy efficiency. But each piece has to be a pretty big darn big piece to have an impact.”</p> The fastest way to cut carbon…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-13:2117179:Comment:38866102020-02-13T16:57:20.474ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p><strong>The fastest way to cut carbon emissions is a ‘fee’ and a dividend, top leaders say</strong></p>
<p>By <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/steven-mufson/">Steven Mufson</a> Feb. 13, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. CST washingtonpost.com</p>
<p>A group of prominent politicians, economists and corporate executives is renewing its push in Congress for a plan that would tax carbon and refund all the money to Americans in payments of approximately $2,000 a year for a family of…</p>
<p><strong>The fastest way to cut carbon emissions is a ‘fee’ and a dividend, top leaders say</strong></p>
<p>By <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/steven-mufson/">Steven Mufson</a> Feb. 13, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. CST washingtonpost.com</p>
<p>A group of prominent politicians, economists and corporate executives is renewing its push in Congress for a plan that would tax carbon and refund all the money to Americans in payments of approximately $2,000 a year for a family of four.</p>
<p>As congressional Republicans work to come up with a response to climate change, and Democratic <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2020/02/04/the-energy-202-climate-change-among-top-concerns-for-iowa-democratic-caucus-goers/5e3845d5602ff15f82798389/?tid=lk_inline_manual_2&itid=lk_inline_manual_2">primary voters are flagging</a> climate as a top issue, the Climate Leadership Council believes it has an opportunity to win supporters from both sides of the aisle by seeking deep emissions cuts, relying on markets and eschewing regulations.</p>
<p>“There is wide agreement among economists that this is the most effective and market-friendly way to reduce carbon emissions,” former Federal Reserve chair Janet L. Yellen said in an interview.</p>
<p>Carbon dioxide emissions represent a large percentage of the greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, warming the planet.</p>
<p>Leaders of the council met over dinner Monday with nine of the 12 members of the Senate Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group of senators trying to come up with policies that will curb climate change, long a divisive issue in Congress.</p>
<p>Sens. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), leaders of the caucus, have not endorsed any particular plan and issued a statement Wednesday saying, “We look forward to continuing these conversations with a wide range of stakeholders and perspectives from across the country.”</p>
<p>The council’s proposal is ambitious. It would impose what it calls a “carbon fee,” which in 2021 would be set at $43 a ton and rise every year by 5 percentage points above inflation. That would double the price of a ton of coal, tax natural gas at $2.28 per thousand cubic feet and raise gasoline pump prices by about 38 cents a gallon.</p>
<p>While the fees collected would go back to American families to help offset higher energy costs, they also would act as an incentive for individuals and companies to slash carbon emissions to a level lower than what President Barack Obama’s administration pledged under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, the council says. U.S. emissions would fall to around 32 percent below 2005 levels and continue to generate reductions.</p>
<p>The plan also calls for sweeping away a large number of regulations now governing emissions because the carbon “fee” would make such restrictions unnecessary, the council said.</p>
<p>Several climate-related proposals are being discussed in Congress. On Tuesday, Sen. Thomas R. Carper (Del.), the top Democrat member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced the Clean Economy Act that would aim to achieve a net-zero-emissions economy by 2050. It would leave the setting of interim targets to the Environmental Protection Agency.</p>
<p>Nathaniel Keohane, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said that the carbon fee-and-dividend plan needed sponsors in Congress. “The real test will be: Do they get a bill from someone with a voting card,” he said. “Do you have support on the Hill?”</p>
<p>Keohane said he liked many aspects of the proposal, such as a part mandating that the carbon fee would be increased even faster if it was failing to get enough greenhouse gas reductions. But Keohane said that EDF would still favor “an enforceable limit” set by regulation to make certain the targets are achieved.</p>
<p>Led by President Ronald Reagan’s treasury secretary James A. Baker and secretary of state George P. Shultz, the Climate Leadership Council proposal has plenty of high-powered backing. More than 3,500 U.S. economists, four former Federal Reserve chairs, 27 Nobel laureates in economics, and 15 of 16 living former chairs of the presidential Council of Economic Advisers. (Joseph Stiglitz, who was head of President Bill Clinton’s council, is the exception.)</p>
<p>More than a dozen senior executives from companies that support the tax-and-dividend plan recently joined the council and attended the dinner with the senators. The corporate officials included the chief operating officer of ConocoPhillips, the chief executive of utility giant Exelon and the chief executive of Procter & Gamble’s largest division.</p>
<p>Other recent additions include Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and one of the architects of the Paris climate agreement; Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; retired general Jim Mattis, Trump’s former defense secretary; and Ernest Moniz, Obama’s energy secretary and now a professor at MIT.</p>
<p>“We will never solve our climate problem unless environmentalists work together with Big Business and Big Oil,” Figueres said in a prepared statement.</p>
<p>But the carbon-fee-and-dividend plan has not caught fire in Congress, whose members are skittish about potential blowback from voters opposed to new taxes.</p>
<p>Rep. Garret Graves (La.), the top Republican on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, said, “Democrats like sticks, and we like carrots.”</p>
<p>Graves added later in a statement Wednesday night that “House Republicans stand united against carbon taxes and burdensome regulations.”</p>
<p>Baker, in a prepared statement, said that Democrats would get a carbon fee, and Republicans would “get rid” of “growth-limiting regulations that stifle our economy.”</p>
<p>Most taxes on consumption are regressive, falling more heavily on the nation’s lowest-income earners. Dividends change that distribution. Baker said that “70 percent of American families would get more money from the carbon dividend than they would pay in higher energy costs.”</p>
<p>Yellen said that “a core feature of this plan is protecting American households, particularly those most vulnerable to damage.” She said, “The most vulnerable lower-income groups do the best in terms of coming out ahead.”</p>
<p>The council’s leaders say that the fee-and-dividend plan also addresses other economic problems. Many lawmakers support big spending programs for research and development, and many, including supporters of the Green New Deal, say that deficit spending is justified and should be seen as investments.</p>
<p>“We know that innovation and long-term investments are going to be critically important to solve this problem,” Yellen said. “This is the best way to incent those innovations.” She also said that the plan works “without ballooning the deficit.”</p>
<p>But Stiglitz, now teaching economics at Columbia University, said in an email that he opposes the idea of a dividend because “we need pricing + regulations + public investment,” such as public transportation and research and development. “That means we’ll need to spend at least part of the revenue [of the carbon tax] for public investment,” he said, adding that it was “more efficient” than refunding the carbon fee and “then trying to tax it back.”</p>
<p> </p> I'm afraid that would be a wa…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-13:2117179:Comment:38865272020-02-13T13:54:26.351ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>I'm afraid that would be a waste of both our time. Whenever you read of how CO2 is essential for plants and increases in CO2 would have salutary effects for agriculture, it is an indication of truthful facts being used with the intent to obscure the real threat. Avoid the unavoidable science.</p>
<p>This discussion was meant as an invitation to suggest/debate a middle of the road approach to decreasing GHS emissions without adversely impacting American consumers. All we seem to hear are…</p>
<p>I'm afraid that would be a waste of both our time. Whenever you read of how CO2 is essential for plants and increases in CO2 would have salutary effects for agriculture, it is an indication of truthful facts being used with the intent to obscure the real threat. Avoid the unavoidable science.</p>
<p>This discussion was meant as an invitation to suggest/debate a middle of the road approach to decreasing GHS emissions without adversely impacting American consumers. All we seem to hear are the extremes of both sides of the issue. Both of which are example of the extreme partisan world we live in. And neither of which represent a rational path forward.</p>
<p></p> So help him, professor.tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-13:2117179:Comment:38863302020-02-13T06:07:38.960Zessayhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/essay
<p>So help him, professor.</p>
<p>So help him, professor.</p> Carl, you need a little help…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-02-12:2117179:Comment:38863942020-02-12T22:45:54.203ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Carl, you need a little help with your climate understanding and your cut-and-paste abilities. Your disagreement is so noted.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Carl, you need a little help with your climate understanding and your cut-and-paste abilities. Your disagreement is so noted.</p>
<p></p>