July 15, 2024, 07:01:01 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Points to Ponder  (Read 27600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4413
  • Mole Snacks: +223/-62
  • Gender: Male
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2007, 05:39:51 PM »
Gasoline regular is now over $3 and heading for $4

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3177
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-13
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2007, 06:55:19 PM »
According to the International Center for Technology Assessment, Gasoline is underpriced.

With reference to American goverment practises, federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to 100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion). services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world.  US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the worldsi? petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year.  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year.

Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks.  Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year.  The largest chunk of this total is federal, state, and local governmentsi? $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges.  Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interiori?s Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion).

Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world.  US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3
billion per year.  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year.  Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users.  These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually. On top of that, there are also substantial cost related to the environment, health and society.

In summary, there is an additional cost of $4-15 per gallon of petrol. These hidden cost are primarily paid by the tax payers while profiting oil companies.
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4413
  • Mole Snacks: +223/-62
  • Gender: Male
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2007, 05:52:16 PM »
Some statistics I have problems with.  If gasoline was $15 a gallon what percentage of the GDP would that be.

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4413
  • Mole Snacks: +223/-62
  • Gender: Male
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2007, 05:50:40 PM »
I listened to a radio show from 20 plus years ago that talked about food versus fuel. The speaker was on National Press Club (I think) saying if the USA uses crops to make fuel the underdeveloped world would starve (I paraphrase). Well recently another radio show talked about the price of fuel and food going up. It seems that not only does it take more money to get petroleum fuels to create crops; the crops are being used for fuel so the price of food goes up because crops are scarcer for food source. Something like 20 percent of crops (I would not rely on that figure) is being used for fuel (i.e. ethanol). So the food industry gets a double whammy in increased costs. Another radio show talked about the price of corn based products in Mexico causing food non-availability.  One point was made that our production was going to increase this year, so they said do not worry. Of course a drought throws that idea down the toilet. One wag said we let others starve so we can ride in a SUV (hyperbole?).


Offline constant thinker

  • mad scientist
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
  • Mole Snacks: +85/-45
  • Gender: Male
Re: Pyroelectricity
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2007, 09:21:02 PM »
Every time I go to get gas, I wonder how I'm going to pay for gas in the future if prices keep going up. I'm already averaging $45-50 per tank of gas every week to week and a half.

Is anyone familiar with pyroelectronics?

Apparently, a pyroelectric crystal can directly convert heat energy directly into electricity, but to date, no man-made material can replicate this material.

That would be extremely useful for making vehicles more efficient, even the batteries themselves.

(In America) next time you watch TV, pay attention to any car commercials. They are all starting to tout mpg around 30mpg for the new model cars. At least the car companies are starting to make more fuel efficient cars. The problem with this is I've seen estimates saying that the U.S. car fleet is averaging about 10 years old, which means it'll be another decade until those new model vehicles will be the majority of the car fleet.

...The world is in deep trouble if it doesn't figure out what to do about energy/environmental problems.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " -Ronald Reagan

"I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniels." -Frank Sinatra

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4413
  • Mole Snacks: +223/-62
  • Gender: Male
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2007, 09:15:40 PM »
Quote
According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China has surpassed the United States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

I just saw the above on wikipedia
I guess President Bush is correct that the Kyoto accord is flawed
This really surprised me.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2007, 11:37:16 PM by billnotgatez »

Offline enahs

  • 16-92-15-68 32-7-53-92-16
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2179
  • Mole Snacks: +206/-44
  • Gender: Male
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2007, 11:41:31 PM »
Quote
According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China has surpassed the United States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

I just saw the above on wikipedia
I guess President Bush is correct that the Kyoto accord is flawed
This really surprised me.



I do not know why.

It never had the possibility to reduce energy waste as a whole, just regulate some countries to produce less while others produce more.

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3177
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-13
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2007, 04:32:19 PM »
Quote
According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China has surpassed the United States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Even so, Annex I & II member states fulfill their reduction committment. It is not a failure or a flaw of the Kyoto Protocol. After-all, developing countries and economies in transition such as China do not have a kyoto-based committment to reduce their emission although they are clearly the benefeciary of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

I just saw the above on wikipedia. I guess President Bush is correct that the Kyoto accord is flawed. This really surprised me.

CDM serves to accelerate the transfer of clean technology and energy efficient technology from developed countries to developing countries. In doing so, it results in slowing down the rate of carbon emission growth in Annex II member states such as China. To conclude indeed the Kyoto Protocol is flawed, then one has to taken in account the uptake of energy efficient and/or clean technology in China without CDM and the consequent emission levels before agreeing with Bush's comment that Kyoto Protocol is flawed. Indeed, emission levels in China are not growing as fast as expected so there is a degree of success in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. On top of that, one has to evaluate the acceptance of clean technology in developing countries by non-CDM means as a result of CDM financing in the developing country. Clearly, this is Bush's attempt to discredit the Kyoto Protocol amidst of growing domestic pressure within the USA on the white house to adopt the Kyoto Protocol.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 01:08:48 PM by geodome »
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4413
  • Mole Snacks: +223/-62
  • Gender: Male
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2007, 12:46:35 PM »
Quote
According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China has surpassed the United States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

I thought someone had posted erroneously to Wikipedia but this news is still there. Why it surprised me was that many of the so-called experts i heard said it was going to take 10 years.

I wonder if the same error is in the Gore film.

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3177
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-13
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2007, 11:48:29 AM »
Title: The Carbon Market Has a Dirty Little Secret.,  By: Lavelle, Marianne, U.S. News & World Report, 00415537, 5/14/2007, Vol. 142, Issue 17

Quote
The Carbon Market Has a Dirty Little Secret 
Section: Nation & World
Europe's flawed cap-and-trade system actually seems to encourage pollution

The law of unintended consequences has struck again.

Two years ago, the European Union created a market to control carbon dioxide emissions by setting a cap, then issuing tradable "allowances." But those chits are now trading for pennies on the dollar. It's become so cheap to emit greenhouse gas that it now pays to burn more dirty fossil fuel than less. Along the way, millions of dollars have been spent on projects of questionable environmental value.

"I think the experience in Europe has demonstrated that cap and trade may in fact not work at all," Rep. John Shadegg, an Arizona Republican, noted at a recent hearing.

Unreal limits. Advocates of a market-based approach insist it can be effective-and would be more politically palatable than alternatives such as a carbon tax-as long as the United States is careful to avoid Europe's missteps. One of the biggest: Nations were too generous with their industries in initially handing out carbon emission allowances. Too much supply drove down the price of pollution to less than 80 cents per ton as of last week. Futures trading on the market suggests the price will recover when a second, more stringent program phase begins in 2008. But even if values recover, controversy is likely to persist over the environmental value of the carbon-reduction projects the system has spawned in China and elsewhere in the developing world. It's a cheap way for companies and countries to earn new tradable carbon allowances; some wonder whether there's sufficient proof that the activity is helping head off climate change.

Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, argues that simple rules and credible monitoring and enforcement are essential to creating a carbon market that works better. "I have great respect for what happened in Europe, and they put together a program at a breakneck pace that is of historic magnitude," he recently told Congress. "But they had to make some decisions in doing so that I think we would not want to replicate here."

This is a demonstration of the lack of understanding of the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon Reduction is achieved through acceleration of clean technology transfer and improved foreign investment climate for energy efficient projects. In fact, the carbon credits generated through CDM/JI projects are not produced through out the shelf-life of the project. A typical CDM project has a life of 7 to 10 years, although the project installation is meant to survive for at least 20 years. In another words, the reduction in carbon emission is only experienced at the end of the credit period. A delayed response in reduction or stabilisation of worldwide carbon emission is thus expected.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 08:05:36 PM by geodome »
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4413
  • Mole Snacks: +223/-62
  • Gender: Male
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2007, 10:22:53 AM »
Can we agree that the Kyoto Protocol is too flawed to effect carbon dioxide emissions?

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3177
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-13
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2007, 10:10:40 PM »
A typical CDM/JI project has a life of 7 to 10 years, although the project installation is meant to survive for at least 20 years. In another words, the reduction in carbon emission is only experienced at the end of the credit period.

Can we agree that the Kyoto Protocol is too flawed to effect carbon dioxide emissions?

Nope. If not for this carbon credits that are generated in the short term, there would be no incentive for developed countries to accelerate the transfer of clean technology to developing countries. This effectively leads to a stabilisation of carbon emission in developing countries as the CDM/JI projects increase in number while these projects mature. At the same time, the carbon credits that was acquired in the short term provides more time and flexibility for companies in developed countries to reduce their emission.

At the same time, I realise that most people would assume that each CDM/JI project would exhibit 100% carbon credit delivery, ie. the actual carbon emission reduction of the projet equals the expected emission. However, the actual carbon credit delivery varies significantly, from as low as 8% to as high as 112% and mode delivery at 80%.

I have include a pictorial representation of the Carbon Market below. I hope it would give you a better idea of how the ETS and CDM/JI would result in reduced carbon emission worldwide and why we should support the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012.

ETS stands for Emission Trading Scheme. If you don't understand how an ETS works, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading for more information.

NAP stands for National Allocation Program, which refers to the program in which each country will distrubute the Assigned Allocation Units (AAU) it receives from the UNFCCC. In the case of the European Union, the European Commision receives the AAU from the UNFCCC and redistribute them to each EU member state using its own allocation priority in the form of European Union Allowance (EUA).

1 EUA = 1 AAU received by the European Union.
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4413
  • Mole Snacks: +223/-62
  • Gender: Male
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #27 on: August 31, 2007, 05:11:04 PM »
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9657621

I do not remember if I mentioned this before but
National Geographic
and
National Public Radio
are presenting a series called
Climate Connections

Sponsored Links