Comments for Rooted

Comment on Hate campaign against climate scientists hits the denier spin-cycle by kakadu

kakadu — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:14:22 +0000

Even the sceptics are not that stupid that they will put their death threats into writing. Verbal abuse and intimidation work just as well and are much harder to prove.

Comment on Renewable energy can power (nearly all of) the world by Hamis Hill

Hamis Hill — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:43:55 +0000

There are obvious different levels of understanding in the above posts with mostly condesention from the higher to the lower.
One wonders how the higher levels could ever have been reached had similar condesention been delivered to them when they were at lower,( as they most certainly were), levels of understanding.
This seems to be typical of the modern professionals, rather unwilling to bring others up from the lower levels of understanding they once occupied themselves and indulging in the egotistical delusion that they did it all by themselves, that they did not have good, patient instructors.
My understanding is that boiler life is enhanced by constant operating temperatures.
And this will require a certain level of heat input whether derived from coal burning or solar heat. That is the source of the beginner’s confusion and in about fifty posts nothing was done to alleviate that confusion. Coal will always have to be burnt at some rate in order to maintain the constant temperature and so the life of the boiler.
Solar thermal cannot do this at night and the other renewables do not need boilers to drive the generators. So a fail for the experts, all too common and recognised by George Bernard Shaw in his statement “The expert is, in the truest sense, an idiot”.
There’s a lot of them about. A bit late two months after the last post, but just had to post a comment.

Comment on Climate change & the Murray Darling: when our most divisive enviro issues meet by green-orange

green-orange — Thu, 31 May 2012 04:22:10 +0000

@”Tim Stubbs from this group recently told a senate enquiry (again) that 30% water cuts in the drought only lead to 1% cuts in the Gross Value of Irrigated Agriculture”

Considering that over half the water is used to flood irrigate grass and weeds for grazing, its unlikely that a 30% cut will result in _any_ reduction in net production at all.

Comment on Heartland unleashes the Unabomber in its newest advertising campaign by Fran Barlow

Fran Barlow — Mon, 21 May 2012 04:50:30 +0000

Gift of tradable emission permits = free access to sewer + right to sell access.

They only get one or the other or some balance between the two, so your join should be an “OR” . In the end though the cost they escape is borne by the end users of all the businesses bearing the cost. The only way they can avoid that cost is if in practice there is no cap, but then the permits would be as useful as Weimar notes from 1923.

The bottom line is this — while the big polluters can be partially shielded, many of their trading partners — often their clients — will get the cost shifted onto them. In the end, that makes fossil HC less valuable by a more complex route. So in the end, the FossilHC crowd would prefer that simply nothing be done. There is no free dump here, to paraphrase an old idea, unless no explicit or implicit (i.e. regulatory burden) price is imposed.

Comment on Heartland unleashes the Unabomber in its newest advertising campaign by Gavin R. Putland

Gavin R. Putland — Mon, 21 May 2012 00:38:18 +0000

“All free permits can do is transfer the cost of the big polluters not polluting or polluting less to everyone who isn’t a big polluter.”

And wouldn’t big polluters like that? – privatizing profits and socializing costs?

“They would sell their excess permits to others who were not polluting enough to get the free permits.”

And wouldn’t they like that too?

“In the end, any system that reduces the value of fossil HCs or things dependent on that value holding up is going to be opposed by business.”

What if it creates a new class of speculative assets which automatically hedge “fossil HCs or things dependent”, and which are gifted to those who need the hedge?

“Any system that denies business the right to use the biosphere as a free sewer will be opposed by them.”

Gift of tradable emission permits = free access to sewer + right to sell access.

Comment on Heartland unleashes the Unabomber in its newest advertising campaign by Fran Barlow

Fran Barlow — Fri, 18 May 2012 06:58:04 +0000

Hmmm… I wish I hadn’t added the bit after the dash

Indeed. Actually I don’t think even then that they would fervently believe in global warming. In the end, it doesn’t matter to the right whether big polluters get to pollute for free. All free permits can do is transfer the cost of the big polluters not polluting or polluting less to everyone who isn’t a big polluter. They would sell their excess permits to others who were not polluting enough to get the free permits.

In the end, any system that reduces the value of fossil HCs or things dependent on that value holding up is going to be opposed by business. Any system that denies business the right to use the biosphere as a free sewer will be opposed by them. It’s the outcome they oppose rather than the means.

Wouldn’t everyone like to be able to have an unlimited amount of any kind of rubbish collected for free. (I think I saw that in The Simpsons). The problem is the collective action problem — what serves every individual will in a zero sum game, if everyone gets served, harm almost every individual, and worse, harm exactly along the lines of existing inequality.

That’s why we must stop the big polluters from being big polluters by whatever means is adequate and timely.

Comment on Heartland unleashes the Unabomber in its newest advertising campaign by Gavin R. Putland

Gavin R. Putland — Fri, 18 May 2012 05:02:11 +0000

Hmmm… I wish I hadn’t added the bit after the dash.

Comment on Heartland unleashes the Unabomber in its newest advertising campaign by Fran Barlow

Fran Barlow — Fri, 18 May 2012 03:20:04 +0000

The Right would fervently believe in global warming if only the Left would agree that big polluters should get their tradable emission rights free of charge – and sell them for massive windfall gains as emission caps are lowered.

That doesn’t make sense. If the cap is low and the permits are valuable and the polluter sells them then it has to find a way not to emit the pollution (since the emissions are then not the subject of the permits, but are covering someone else’s emissions). That’s fine if they can operate without polluting, but if they can’t they have to buy them right back, or get fined. The fines would be larger than the value of the permits by some margin.

Comment on Climate change & the Murray Darling: when our most divisive enviro issues meet by Hamis Hill

Hamis Hill — Fri, 18 May 2012 01:22:23 +0000

For those actually concerned with the reality of climate change instead of battles of opinion the library of the Hydrogeological section of the NSW water resources commission had a scientific repoert titled “Riverine Response to Altered Hydrologic Regimen”, cannot recall the authors name, concentrating on the Murrumbidgeee and Murray “mesopatamia”or Riverina. The study concluded that the Murrumbidgee was only 5000 years old and began to flow(an altered hydrologic regimen) after a 10,000year drought, before which much higher rainfall left the river bed of an ancient stream of massive size still visible on aerial photographs and, yes, even from space between the present Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers.This is in your face evidence of climate change. Any comment or or is all just about opinions and nothing about fact? This is a hopeless debate if all interested parties have conditioned themselves to believe that ‘Science” ps a foreign langage that ony a few specialists can read, write and speak. Amodern day Tower of Babel doomed to ruin?
The first peoples’ Dreamtime stories confirm the findings of this report, by the way, is it too much to ask that those interested in the debate track down, read and comment on this vital part of our continent’s recent geological history and abandon their obsession with babble?

Comment on Climate change & the Murray Darling: when our most divisive enviro issues meet by johnno42

johnno42 — Wed, 16 May 2012 06:33:46 +0000

Astounded to hear the Wentworth Group is independent – they sure as hell look and sound like a lobby group to me. Credible? If that includes using data to mislead and if you want an example Tim Stubbs from this group recently told a senate enquiry (again) that 30% water cuts in the drought only lead to 1% cuts in the Gross Value of Irrigated Agriculture. The only problem is Tim, and his mate Quentin Grafton before him, didn’t adjust their data for inflation (1% becomes 15% when adjusted for inflation) and used a year in which horticulture (which is the real high value end of irrigation industry) got a 100% allocation, that is the only impacts were on crops like cotton and rice, however much of the buyback is coming from horticultural areas.