Getting to Net Zero Carbon Emissions – and Even Net Negative – Is Surprisingly Feasible and Affordable - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-28T23:22:30Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/getting-to-net-zero-carbon-emissions-and-even-net-negative-is?xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe numbers, a dollar per per…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-25:2117179:Comment:39764702021-02-25T16:16:41.708ZMaxhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Max
<p>The numbers, a dollar per person per year. This is cheap as far as cost go. $121 billion invested in the power infrastructure would produce about 5x the dollars invested each year. About the same as funding the military for one year, which is a cost, not an investment. Using these dollars for "green energy" is just smart.</p>
<p>1.8 percent GDP cost for climate change figures came from the U.S. government.</p>
<p>You can't compare cost if you do nothing. I can compare the cost of taking…</p>
<p>The numbers, a dollar per person per year. This is cheap as far as cost go. $121 billion invested in the power infrastructure would produce about 5x the dollars invested each year. About the same as funding the military for one year, which is a cost, not an investment. Using these dollars for "green energy" is just smart.</p>
<p>1.8 percent GDP cost for climate change figures came from the U.S. government.</p>
<p>You can't compare cost if you do nothing. I can compare the cost of taking a vacation to either Florida or Hawaii, but I can't compare the cost to vacation in Florida versers just staying home. If I didn't take a vacation, there's nothing to compare to.</p>
<p>Yes, the climate does change. The land where your house is built is changing too, just very slowly. Here where I live, it hasn't changed much in the last few thousands of years, but several millions years ago, my place was under a sea. The pace of climate change we are seeing today is not normal. </p>
<p>Our ability to adapt does set us apart from other life forms here on Earth. Does that mean we should not care if our actions are hurting or destroying those lives? I think a good question would be; Do we want to share the Earth? </p>
<p>It's cheaper and less disruptive to adapt as things change, until it ain't. But then it's too late.</p> I am interested in where you…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-25:2117179:Comment:39763632021-02-25T01:01:36.330ZChad Ellishttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ChadEllis487
<p>I am interested in where you are getting your numbers? I know of no metric that would consider an additional 121 billion per year, every year as “chump change”. And where do you get the 1.8 % GDP costs for climate change? This is at best a WAG, and at worst an activist created talking point. If we are to compare costs, what is the cost of doing nothing? We all know the climate is changing, always has, always will. Our ability to adapt is what sets us apart. What if it’s cheaper and…</p>
<p>I am interested in where you are getting your numbers? I know of no metric that would consider an additional 121 billion per year, every year as “chump change”. And where do you get the 1.8 % GDP costs for climate change? This is at best a WAG, and at worst an activist created talking point. If we are to compare costs, what is the cost of doing nothing? We all know the climate is changing, always has, always will. Our ability to adapt is what sets us apart. What if it’s cheaper and less disruptive to just adapt as things change? Especially if 2/3 of the planet does not believe in the man made climate change religion and does nothing. </p> Although global warming is in…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-23:2117179:Comment:39761032021-02-23T13:36:39.867ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Although global warming is indeed a concern for every country and a threat to every living thing on the planet, we are not yet to the point of the public support for far reaching and disruptive responses to emissions. In other words, the US needs to do whatever the public (voters) will support. Move too fast and spike energy prices and there will be public push back. Do that while not investing in creating new jobs and the public, in all its wisdom, will support more Trumpier policies. …</p>
<p>Although global warming is indeed a concern for every country and a threat to every living thing on the planet, we are not yet to the point of the public support for far reaching and disruptive responses to emissions. In other words, the US needs to do whatever the public (voters) will support. Move too fast and spike energy prices and there will be public push back. Do that while not investing in creating new jobs and the public, in all its wisdom, will support more Trumpier policies. Waste another 4 years without making substantive changes and most of the less disruptive options are no longer on the table. </p>
<p>Biden and Dems need to thread the needle for these 4 years. Institute policies that begin to reduce carbon and methane emissions while supporting green technologies and jobs. Considering the evolution in efficiencies and cost of batteries, solar and wind, 4 years will provide a much better benchmark for how much of our energy needs can be shifted from fossil fuels to renewables while keeping energy affordable. IMO, the bottom line is that most Americans care very much what their electricity cost and not at all about how it was generated. They will also move swiftly to EVs once cost parity is reached and passed. Of course a few decades later many will find that they can get along just fine without owning any vehicle. Autonomous EVs will be available on short term rental even for trips as simple as grocery store runs. Obviously that's looking 40 or 50 years down the line but that appears where modern life is headed. Besides the fact that many of us will like our cheaper, more dependable energy and EVs that are more efficient, cheaper to maintain and better performing than ICE vehicles, we will be even more fed up with and concerned about the increasingly disruptive extremes in weather and natural disasters. We are slow to grasp our vulnerabilities but once we reach a point where we are personally threatened, we will force politicians to make changes and take rational actions. As much as they are not disposed to do so.</p>
<p></p>
<p>See February 2021 in Texas. </p>
<p></p> I clearly misunderstand the e…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-23:2117179:Comment:39760062021-02-23T03:51:00.826ZSteve Phttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/StevePorter
<p>I clearly misunderstand the entire "climate change" issue. It is unquestionably a global issue. Remember the Al Gore lectures that if we don't do XX by YY, the World as we know it will cease to exist. Now, John Kerry is saying that if the US doesn't do XX by 2030, the world will be beyond hope. But, wait - this is a global issue. My point is this - how does the US define what WE must do by 2030 if we don't know what the other nations in the world are going to do? Without knowing what…</p>
<p>I clearly misunderstand the entire "climate change" issue. It is unquestionably a global issue. Remember the Al Gore lectures that if we don't do XX by YY, the World as we know it will cease to exist. Now, John Kerry is saying that if the US doesn't do XX by 2030, the world will be beyond hope. But, wait - this is a global issue. My point is this - how does the US define what WE must do by 2030 if we don't know what the other nations in the world are going to do? Without knowing what the collective "Planet Earth" is going to do, then it is scientifically impossible to make such projections. This isn't about doing nothing - it's trying to understand what steps can be taken, and some assurance that if said steps are taken, then certain results will be likely, or, stated differently, certain catastrophes can be avoided.</p>
<p>If one doesn't know what the entire world is going to do, then all of those "by 2050 ...." projections are just someone's best guess, and not based upon nearly enough evidence. Maybe the North American and Europe need to do all of these things in half the time - by 2025 - if China and India aren't going to do their part. But If China stops building new coal-fired power plants and takes other measures, then maybe 2030 isn't the date - maybe its 2040. I'm inclined to believe that there are well-meaning competent scientists working on this, but how on earth (pun intended) can they make projections when they have no idea what 2/3rd of the world's population is going to do?</p>
<p>Sorry - I'm back at the "government jobs" notion again.</p> Call it a jobs "replacement"…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-23:2117179:Comment:39761932021-02-23T03:05:00.500ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Call it a jobs "replacement" program if you like. Jobs related to fossil fuels have been on the decline for a few decades. That's not liable to slow, more likely to accelerate. Green jobs will an economic necessity. </p>
<p>No major power can be coerced into policies to lower carbon but climate disasters will be felt in those same countries. Doing nothing because others are not doing enough or as much is a form of cutting off your nose to spite your face. We can't wait for other…</p>
<p>Call it a jobs "replacement" program if you like. Jobs related to fossil fuels have been on the decline for a few decades. That's not liable to slow, more likely to accelerate. Green jobs will an economic necessity. </p>
<p>No major power can be coerced into policies to lower carbon but climate disasters will be felt in those same countries. Doing nothing because others are not doing enough or as much is a form of cutting off your nose to spite your face. We can't wait for other countries to act. In concert with our allies, we need to get serious and trust that as the climate warms and the far reaching impacts become undeniable, India, China and other major economies will follow suit.</p>
<p></p> Is this a "jobs program" or…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-23:2117179:Comment:39760042021-02-23T02:53:00.556ZSteve Phttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/StevePorter
<p></p>
<p>Is this a "jobs program" or measures required to protect the environment? There is no such thing as a US environment, or even a North American environment. There is only a global environment. My point is that whatever path the US takes, it will, in fact, be just a "jobs program" if China, India, and other nations of the world don't also get on a similar path. What is the point if the US takes the measures, and other nations don't. From the research, the global temperatures will…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Is this a "jobs program" or measures required to protect the environment? There is no such thing as a US environment, or even a North American environment. There is only a global environment. My point is that whatever path the US takes, it will, in fact, be just a "jobs program" if China, India, and other nations of the world don't also get on a similar path. What is the point if the US takes the measures, and other nations don't. From the research, the global temperatures will rise and we will have all of the dreaded consequences. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p> I read it as the infrastructu…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-22:2117179:Comment:39762712021-02-22T17:06:53.359ZMaxhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Max
<p>I read it as the infrastructure cost to convert to renewables was $1 per person per day. </p>
<p>US population: 330,000,000 x $1 = $330,000,000 per day x 365 = $121,545,000,000. </p>
<p>That's a little over 121 billion. Chump change. </p>
<p>Where did you get $128 million?</p>
<p>Cost related to % of GDP depends on what route is taken. US GDP in 2019, around $21 trillion. Projected cost anywhere from .02% to 1.2% of GDP. Let's go with 1%. That would be 210 billion dollars.</p>
<p>Cost…</p>
<p>I read it as the infrastructure cost to convert to renewables was $1 per person per day. </p>
<p>US population: 330,000,000 x $1 = $330,000,000 per day x 365 = $121,545,000,000. </p>
<p>That's a little over 121 billion. Chump change. </p>
<p>Where did you get $128 million?</p>
<p>Cost related to % of GDP depends on what route is taken. US GDP in 2019, around $21 trillion. Projected cost anywhere from .02% to 1.2% of GDP. Let's go with 1%. That would be 210 billion dollars.</p>
<p>Cost of Climate Change in the US per year: 1.8% of GDP. Almost twice as much. Texas just blew through 3 billion in the last couple of days.</p> The text of the legislation,…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-22:2117179:Comment:39762672021-02-22T16:39:12.302ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>The text of the legislation, which is a <strong><a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/leg_laws_acts.htm#4">nonbinding resolution</a>,</strong> lays out a broad vision for how the country might tackle climate change over the next decade, while creating high-paying jobs and protecting vulnerable communities.</p>
<p>Unlike a bill, this type of legislation is not presented to the president and cannot become law. Even if the Green New Deal passed in one or both chambers of…</p>
<p>The text of the legislation, which is a <strong><a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/leg_laws_acts.htm#4">nonbinding resolution</a>,</strong> lays out a broad vision for how the country might tackle climate change over the next decade, while creating high-paying jobs and protecting vulnerable communities.</p>
<p>Unlike a bill, this type of legislation is not presented to the president and cannot become law. Even if the Green New Deal passed in one or both chambers of Congress, separate legislation would have to be introduced to make any of the resolution’s goals a reality.</p>
<p>Much of the response to the proposal has focused on details that don’t appear in the resolution text. President Donald Trump, for example, suggested on Feb. 9 in a <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094375749279248385">tweet</a> that the plan would “permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military.”</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text">five goals</a>, which the resolution says should be accomplished in a 10-year mobilization effort:</p>
<ul>
<li>Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers</li>
<li>Create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States</li>
<li>Invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century</li>
<li>Secure for all people of the United States for generations to come: clean air and water; climate and community resiliency; healthy food; access to nature; and a sustainable environment</li>
<li>Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (“frontline and vulnerable communities”)</li>
</ul>
<p>factcheck.org</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Link to the full webpage: <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/" target="_blank">https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>IMO, although a globally focused study would be interesting to read, it has zero relevance for the path that the US and its partner countries must craft. New Green jobs and business models are reason enough to take that path. Climate change is an economic issue also. At some point in the future, even laggards such as China and India will be forced to change the way they power their nations. No country should be waiting on them.</p>
<p></p> Interesting article. It is b…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2021-02-22:2117179:Comment:39762622021-02-22T16:16:13.598ZSteve Phttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/StevePorter
<p>Interesting article. It is beyond me to translate the cost statements related to % of GDP to the "1$ per person per day" conclusion at the top of the page. A dollar a day per US occupant is, ball park, $128 million per year. This seems to be far less than the numbers thrown out by the Green New Deal. I'm assuming that's $128M per year, between now and 2050. </p>
<p>I'd be interested in seeing why this is so much different.</p>
<p>Final thought: I've said this before on this blog: …</p>
<p>Interesting article. It is beyond me to translate the cost statements related to % of GDP to the "1$ per person per day" conclusion at the top of the page. A dollar a day per US occupant is, ball park, $128 million per year. This seems to be far less than the numbers thrown out by the Green New Deal. I'm assuming that's $128M per year, between now and 2050. </p>
<p>I'd be interested in seeing why this is so much different.</p>
<p>Final thought: I've said this before on this blog: China and India are putting up coal-fired power plants every year. And, as far as my reading reveals, those two countries aren't doing much to change their ways. I'd like to see a study that follows the path laid out in the LBNL study discussed above, but includes the rest of the world, and makes real life assumptions about how fast China and India get to "net zero" and what happens to global climate assuming that those two countries make little effort to follow Europe and the US.</p>