Individual nations can make informed decisions regarding energy independence. They can then individually pursue that goal as aggressively as they believe is in their best interests. The process must begin by convincing an informed electorate that the change is essential; and, that the proposed approach to reaching the goal is reasonable and achievable. While that is no small task, I believe it could be accomplished. However, I do not believe it can be accomplished using the "cockamamie" approaches which have so far emanated from the US Congress.

Individual nations can also make informed decisions regarding global climate change. However, individual nations cannot effectively act to halt/reverse global climate change, even if they act to reduce/terminate their emissions of chemicals which might contribute to climate change. The issue is a global issue; it is amenable only to a global solution. Anything less that a global effort to affect climate change is doomed to failure before the first expenditures are wasted.

Individual nations pursuing an approach similar to your suggestions above, focused on nuclear and renewables, could become energy independent on a rational schedule as well as reduce/eliminate their global climate change emissions. Successful implementation of such a program would achieve the desired level of independence. However, in the absence of a similar concerted effort on the part of every other nation on the globe, their reduction/elimination of global climate change emissions would have little or no effect on global climate change emissions. (If the vessel to which you are adding something is already overfull, adding to it more slowly will not solve the problem.)

If human-induced global climate change is a serious problem, the "seven percent solution" (Kyoto) is no solution at all. It is a silly and dangerous attempt to trivialize the scope of the required solution to encourage the taking of the first step onto the "slippery slope". That is, it is fundamentally dishonest; and, it richly deserves any ridicule heaped upon it.

Ed

I also note the following, from a comment at the end of an article in your referenced Carbon Tax Centre - Congressional Budget Office Confirms Superiority of Carbon Taxes

"It is amazing that something as sensible as a carbon tax is so feared in Washington because it is called a tax. To provide political cover for the cowardly politicians who might otherwise consider implementing it, the word “tax” needs to be removed from the concept of “Carbon Tax”. Perhaps “Carbon Revenue Shift” or “Carbon Emissions Fee” or maybe something such as “Atmosphere Pollution Charge”. ... he who defines the terms of the debate controls the debate."

That scheme is obviously flawed, as I'm sure you well know. It suffers the well-known Free Rider failure, where it becomes "in the best interest" of every nation to sit back and wait for every other to solve the problem at minimal cost to themselves, witness recent history.

Referring back to the carbon "Tax vs. Trade" discussion, it seems wierd to me that the US hasn't yet caught on to how advantageous the Tax approach would be to the US versus Europe, especially as North Sea N Gas runs out and the fallback is coal. US dependence on coal should be much lower than eg. Germany, so isn't Europe simply promoting trading as an easier way to get away with using coal than a direct "Carbon Use Fee"?

The crisis is energy, not CO2.

If the collective decision is that we must do something about CO2 emissions, then set emissions targets (e.g. pounds per megawatt-hour electric) like is done with actual pollutants, while letting industry string together groups of plants. For instance the XYZ power company has a coal plant, combustion turbine and wind generators. How the XYZ Company hits the target is up to them. Of course if they miss the emissions target, they are subject to hefty fines. Technically, such a regulatory system is easy to implement with the metering and plant controls systems already in place at the plants and everybody has to report NOx, SO2 etc. emissions already.

PS I would not let this degenerate into the "trading" of emissions; too easily abused. Hit the targets for your group of generating facilities or face the consequences. I believe this would help phase out the old-dog, inefficient and polluting plants as the emissions targets are lowered.

In general I'm dissatisfied with my knowledge of this subject, although there are a few things that I think that I know. First and foremost, emissions trading is the wrong way to go.

What Michael has suggested is essentially "cap & trade", with the caveats that the cap is a company-level cap and the trading is among plants within the same company's generating fleet. As the cap declined, not only would load growth have to be served by low emission generation, but increasing amounts of existing load as well.

The key thought missing here is that the lowest level to which the cap would be lowered must be established at the beginning. The incremental investments required to meet the declining cap would be made in very long-lived facilities. It is absolutely essential that none of these investments be made in plants which would not satisfy the cap within their useful lives.

"You've got to be careful, if you don't know where you're going, because you might end up someplace else.", Yogi Berra, American philosopher

That is in line with what I suggested earlier, that instead of a tax or emissions trading, tariff schedules on exports of GHG should be in place. Since this is no a tax, the tariffs schedules would have a range that would be negative, meaning that company export below the threshold level would generate a credit for the company. This is just an idea for discussion to suppress GHG, by changing the tariffs schedules and reducing the corresponding thresholds as time goes on.

The case for WTO disciplines has already been studied earlier, I recall around the year 2000 in the energy and environment task forces of the WTO. In fact, there is an important unfair competition issue involved, making GHG suppression a trade issue amenable to binding agreements.

Just like Demand Integration, GHG Suppression, is just another externality that can be handled by 2GRs for the electricity industry. California is once again in the process of shaking-up the power industry, as can be seen in the EWPC article High Leverage Shake-Up in California. Since California has probably invested more than any other place in the world in the suppression of GHG gases, their companies could well become competitive by the process. The coalition of California businesses promoting “direct access” should look closely into this idea.

It is very clear that in the process, transportation should undergo GHG Suppression and thus shift to electricity. That is already happening with cities mass transportation initiatives.

How does WTO become a global lawmaker?

What constitutes a "miracle" attitude?

What has the WTO accomplished which convinces you that it could be entrusted with anything?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Jose, As to using EWPC, I gather the idea is to artificially modify the tariffs within the structure of the regional transmission operators (not too dissimilar to the “transmission constraint” charge). However, who foots the added cost of the higher tariff? The consumer? The generator/power company or does the RTO grab the money? Seems to me it should be deducted from the price received by the generator with CO2 emissions outside the target. However, I remain uncertain as to whether EWPC would work for constraining CO2 emissions. Under no circumstances would I put up with WTO, the UN or any of the other such oxygen wasters dictating devastating economic requirements on any country. Targets and cooperative agreements – OK, dictates, no.

Don – hybrid vehicles that charge at night from the power grid reduce oil consumption. We can also turn coal into transportation fuels. Absolutely last thing I’d do is further tax oil because the money ends up in the hands of the politicians. I’d use tax breaks on buying more fuel efficient vehicles and require the politicians reduce government expenditures to cover the cost! True that would make it difficult for them to buy votes, but too bad.

Mike

Now lets look at this statement by Mike about free markets. The first time I heard of Adam Smith, I was working for the US Navy, and somebody told me that Adam Smith was responsible for "our" prosperity. I tuned out of course. A month or so ago I attended a lecture by a gentleman who had actually read Adam Smith's book, and he pointed out that Smith was crazy about free markets EXCEPT when it involved national security. National security to me means, among other things, not letting local industry move to another another country or another part of the world because of craziness like emissions trading and/or an excessive price of electricity. For example, industrialists in Sweden have said that they will move everything that is movable if the electricity price here continues to rise.

One other thing about the oil price. Apparently the US government and others have asked the OPEC countries to increase output, but it seems that their request was ignored or dismissed. That makes all the sense in the world to me from a strictly theoretical point of view. I would also like to know why the big oil companies were not requested to raise production, since OPEC only produces 29 mb/d of a global consumption of 86 mb/b. ANSWER: because given global requirements, we are short of oil, and nobody knows this better than those companies - regardless of what they tell the TV audiences.

Finally, as Ed Reid implied, this CO2 suppression campaign is going nowhere fast.

Governments develop budgets. Money from tax and tariffs are forecasted and balanced to meet the budget approved by the legislative body of the country. If new money comes in from GHG Suppression, that same amount is deducted in other taxes.

GHG Suppression tariffs are collected (payed) from (to) generators and 2GRs (that aggregate end-customer transactions) to the government based on the balances of each market agent on the periodic wholesale economic transactions performed by the market coordinator.

On the miracle: Fred wrote “This conclusion can be adjusted. If a miracle had taken place, . . .” The miracle works like this (taken from the WTO Website):

Virtually all decisions in the WTO are taken by consensus among all member countries and they are ratified by members' parliaments. Trade friction is channelled into the WTO's dispute settlement process where the focus is on interpreting agreements and commitments, and how to ensure that countries' trade policies conform with them. That way, the risk of disputes spilling over into political or military conflict is reduced.

At the heart of the system — known as the multilateral trading system — are the WTO’s agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world’s trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody’s benefit.

The agreements were negotiated and signed by governments. But their purpose is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.

[Binding. A better take . . . ]

There is no legally binding agreement that sets out the targets for tariff reductions (e.g. by what percentage they were to be cut as a result of the Uruguay Round). Instead, individual countries listed their commitments in schedules annexed to Marrakesh Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. This is the legally binding agreement for the reduced tariff rates. Since then, additional commitments were made under the 1997 Information Technology Agreement.

[An alternative on Energy and GHG Subsidies that distort trade . . .]

Subsidies and countervailing measures …

This agreement does two things: it disciplines the use of subsidies, and it regulates the actions countries can take to counter the effects of subsidies. It says a country can use the WTO’s dispute settlement procedure to seek the withdrawal of the subsidy or the removal of its adverse effects. Or the country can launch its own investigation and ultimately charge extra duty (known as “countervailing duty”) on subsidized imports that are found to be hurting domestic producers.

I'm thinking that an organic energy drink, with a 40 year code date, and a little carbon for some fizz, might be an emerging market.

Someone might also notice that the atmosphere is worldwide, so a carbon tax has to be a global tax. Otherwise, ABC Corp. in the U.S. could obtain their carbon-intense resources from a company in a country with no carbon tax. Maybe a global carbon market could develop. I guess it's possible.

And then there is enforcement. I bet its easy to cheat on releasing a colorless, odorless gas that immediately mixes with the ambient atmosphere. Just a wild guess here.....

Depletion of oil and NG will limit their long-term carbon outputs, so the real problem is coal. (I've said this before, ad nauseum...) New technologies, including nuclear technologies, need to be developed that are cheaper to use than coal. That's the only realistic strategy to limit future coal use. I think this is possible, though a challenging technical endeavor. And even if implemented, it somehow needs to be widely distributed to make a difference. Also a big challenge.

The final major source of carbon output is deforestation. Hopefully, humanity can see a reason behind preserving some of our remaining forests beyond their inaccurate labeling as carbon sinks.

"Governments develop budgets. Money from tax and tariffs are forecasted and balanced to meet the budget approved by the legislative body of the country. If new money comes in from GHG Suppression, that same amount is deducted in other taxes. "

What ever gave you that idea? Certainly not the US government!

Any carbon reservoir that is increasing in size acts as a sink; any that is shrinking acts as a source. Old growth forests, as you note, are in equilibrium--acting as neither sinks nor sources. It's newly reforested lands that serve as sinks, though there are obvious limits to how much land is actually available for reforestation. Just planting trees somewhere where they'll only be cut down again in a few years doesn't (shouldn't) count.

Increasing soil carbon inventories through ammending soils with "agrichar" is a legitimate carbon sink. It's potentially a huge one. Increasing soil carbon by switching from annual crops--with their shallow root systems--to perrenials is another viable strategy. There's a little-publicized line of agricultural development that aims to develop perrenial replacements for key annual crops. It's a long path that will take many years before it begins to pay off, but it's potentially vital.

Everybody always notes that CO2 is a global problem, and therefore requires a global solution. Well, yes and no. That's mostly an easy excuse for inaction.

I don't see that there's any need for some great international agreement that every nation signs onto. If country X seeks to give its businesses an economic advantage by declining to tax carbon emissions, there's an obvious and easy remedy: import tarrifs. The countries that have signed on for reducing carbon emissions can adopt trade policies that make it more advantageous for other nations to join them instead of seeking an economic edge for their own businesses.

I think you have just defined an alternative approach to a "global solution" - play or pay.

Regardless of how you get there, either everybody cuts emissions or those who do don't buy from those who don't. That is: you cut your emissions, or we will cut them for you.

Works for me.

Ed

Some time ago a scholar in another part of Sweden wrote and informed me that both "theoretically and empirically" emissions trading has been proved viable, as a result of which I invited him to my university where we could discuss this matter in an open forum. He wisely decided that he had better things to do with his time, because I would have cut him off at the knees. Emissions trading hasn't worked and it isn't going to work. It has nothing to offer, and should never have been considered.

In this morning's London Financial Times there was a short piece about how some hedge funds are not allowing investors to withdraw what they have left of their stake. When I saw that I suddenly found myself thinking about a fool who is a director of the Swedish Central Bank, and who recently sang the praise of hedge funds. I immediately circulated a note saying that his praise was due to his wanting a job with a hedge fund, which to me was obvious, though apparently not to many others. It's the same thing here. There is an emissions trading gravy train on the track, and undoubtedly a passel of finance/hedge-fund professionals and hustlers are itching to get aboard. Let them, but please don't tell me that I should wish them 'bon boyage'.

You know how people are always saying "do the math", well in this matter of emissions trading they should do the economics, or read some of the comments in this forum.

I think you've both brought up some very good points here, definitely worthy of expansion.

My concern about using forests for carbon sinks (even growing ones) is the impermanence of the solution, at least potentially. As I understand these arrangements, a forest owner is paid annually NOT to cut it down. But what happens when the payments stop? Then the whole thing gets cut down, and the previous years carbon credits were illusory.

I admit to being fuzzy about the soil carbon inventories concept. That also seems hard to monitor and subject to abuse. And let's face it, the lion's share of the carbon emissions is due to fossil fuel use and perhaps cement manufacture, not deforestation, and not soil decarbonization.

The notion of restricting trade due to carbon emission behavior is reasonable in theory, and probably what should be pushed for. But that means some international body decides what a country should be doing. That might be messy to implement. Also, one could argue that trade with certain countries like China should also be conditioned on some issue with Human Rights, OSHA-like rules, or environmental degradation. But no one seems too interested in challenging them on any of these more specific and easily measured problems, let alone carbon emissions.

But I think that could be addressed as well. Given how most all major companies want to be perceived as "Green", this might be a good time to raise the carbon emissions issues (as well as these other ones) and tag products from every country, depending on how they are produced.

This "greening of globalization" is perhaps what a body like the WTO had not intended, but it is probably just what is needed to go forward.

By default, signatories countries of WTO are bound to follow the trade disciplines. So I repeat, for the electricity industry "The WTO could be entrusted as the "single agency” with "the power to enact globally binding environmental legislation." Clearly the WTO disciplines should be developed with a corresponding "miracle" attitude in place." Arnold is helping unvail the miracle.. "GHG Suppression tariffs are collected (payed) from (to) generators and 2GRs (that aggregate end-customer transactions) to the government based on the balances of each market agent on the periodic wholesale economic transactions performed by the market coordinator."

The following quote, from a staff writer for the Midland Reporter-Telegram, Waste not want less:

, if read correctly and in co-ordination with other articles I've seen lamenting the shortage of CO2 needed for Enhanced Oil Recovery in older fields, provides an interesting new (for me) perspective on the incentive for a) Ethanol promotion (CO2 main byproduct) and b) IGCC coal-burners (again, CO2 main byproduct). c) moving the FutureGen project from Illinois to Texas. ??? {QUOTE} "It is estimated in the Permian Basin alone, a little over seven to almost 11 billion barrels of oil is still potentially recoverable using CO2," he said. "Keep in mind we've only made 32 billion barrels so far in the Permian Basin."

The amount of CO2 necessary to realize those figures is huge though, Melzer said, and thanks to oil prices, well beyond what is available locally.

"With all this growth we are running out of CO2 in the Permian Basin. It's not cheap to go find another source of CO2. And we've got to find a lot of it. By some estimates done by some people that ought to know, by next year we're going to be 600 million cubic feet a day short of CO2. And that's about 40 percent of what we use today of new CO2," he said noting that the shortages of the gas for EOR currently also exist in Wyoming, South Dakota and Mississippi.

Capturing CO2 produced as a by-product from coal to hydrocarbon liquification projects and ethanol production are two potentially viable sources for efficiently collecting CO2. {/QUOTE}

For interest, that billion mcf fossil CO2 / day from underground reservoirs (at 8,000/365 = 22 tpd CO2 / megawatt day) is equivalent to perhaps (10^9 cu ft * 0.066 kg / cu ft / 1000 kg / ton) 66,000 tpd (rounded severely), equivalent to operating 3,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation continuously. This just to recover a small percentage of oil from one small production area. What's the REAL CO2 footprint of oil?

To Fred's point about nuclear, it's likely nuclear would look a lot more attractive at the carbon prices that would be required for natural gas to displace coal assuming gas prices rise in accordance with increased demand. However, the analysis also points out that the number of new nuclear plants that would be needed far exceeds the number already operating in this country, and that costs for nuclear plants already in the pipeline are increasing rapidly.

Bottom line: economic dislocation in the electricity sector alone will be larger than most people imagine. Although I hate scaremongering, this is one instance where if the policy direction is to reduce carbon emissions, telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the likely costs may help focus attention on more cost-effective solutions.

Fred, one other point I think we can agree on is that it's going to take a variety of resources and solutions to displace fossil fuels. One of my favorites, which seems to be catching on, is algae of various kinds that can turn sunlight and CO2 into a precursor for the liquid fuels we use today.

Al Gore. I don't pay much attention to Mr Gore. If he had had any competence at all he would have become president of the U.S., in which case my shares might be worth more money. I also didn't like the Kyoto circus, and my point about carbon taxes was that if you are going to go in that direction, they make more sense than emissions trading, which I view as a scam.

Of course, the thing that is interesting about your comment is what you don't say, which is that Lomborg and Crichton and phonies like that know the score, while Nobel Prize physicists and chemists should stay out of this rumble. Also, that the peak oil hypothesis is a dog's breakfast - note, "breakfast", since as the Chinese once said, eat your breakfast, give half your lunch to your friend, and give your dinner to your enemy.

About Jack Ellis' comment. I agree with all of it. There are some bad days ahead, and it's depressing to think about them. Too little and too late is the way that historians in the 22nd century might be forced to describe this era for many countries. Now, I wonder just which countries those are going to be?

Fred

I love it. Complains about the quality of other's science, then throws out a pure speculation as if it were fact. What nonsense. Water vapour quantity in atmosphere is a CONTROLLED variable, not a CONTROLLING variable. (eg. the simple version is "Higher the temperature, higher the water vapour content of atmosphere. Atmosphere pretty much always contains it's max. content of water vapour for it's temperature." )

Looking at the light duty vehicles I agree that plug-in hybrid vehicles to some degree could reduce fuel needs. For the many people living in large cities, and parking in the street ,it may not, however, be so easy to plug in each evening. Cold wheather is another problem. Winter time the heating needs would have to be met using battery power. This means either reduced range, or increased battery capacity. Bigger batteries means increased weight and reduced energy efficiency.

All things considered it does not seem to be such a bad idea to prioritize rhe use of sustainable biomass resources for supply of really efficient biofuel alternatives. Power needs could be met via other options.

Finally, regarding carbon sinks and forest potentials: About two thirds of Sweden's land area is covered by forests. The annual growth has over the last fifty years gone from 60 to 80 million cubic metres of wood and the annual harvesting, has in the same period gone from 50 to 75 million cubic metres. Since less wood is harvested than the annual growth we have a sustainable situation. Gross Swedish GHG-emissions expressed in CO2-equivalents amount to some 96 million tonnes. The forests, however, absorb some 25 million tonnes, leaving net emissions of 71 million tonnes. In comparison the CO2 emissions in the transportation sector amounts to 21 million tonnes corresponding with roughly 7 million tons of oil use. Some 25 % of the present annual forest growth would be required to substitute all oil use, still leaving 75 % for paper pulp, timber and other uses (greater experts than I could provide more accurate numbers).

As for the environmental bit, the completely ignorant 'shadow' finance minister in Sweden, Thomas Östros, has stated that he is ashamed of Sweden's commitment where global warming is concerned. Translation: he want to join the other parasites in Brussels. Note the word "other".

Now, what about some back of the envelope calculations. Sweden produces almost 95% of its electricity with hydro and nuclear, and you say that two-thirds of Sweden is covered by forests. That means to me that, in theory, Sweden doesn't really have much left to do in the global warming war. But even so, should they try to do more - well, probably, as long as it doesn't interfere with my income.

And that is the problem. It's going to hurt us in the pocketbook, unless some bright people actually can pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat. I'm not taking either side of that bet, at least not right now.

If you accept (as the IPCC apparently does) that global average temperature is increasing; and, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is causing, or even significantly contributing to, the temperature increase; and, that either or both of the temperature increase and the CO2 concentration increase are undesirable; then, the only logical conclusion is that CO2 emissions must be stopped (not reduced) as rapidly as possible.

If the vessel into which you are pouring something already contains more of that something than is desirable, continuing to pour that something into the vessel more slowly will not solve the problem. Also, if you share the vessel with others, even stopping pouring that something into the vessel will not solve the problem if the others who share the vessel continue pouring. Then, once everyone who shares the vessel stops pouring, the process of solving the problem, by removing some of what has been poured into the vessel, can begin.

I am not a climate scientist. I have not played a climate scientist on TV. I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, "I hold these truths to be self evident". If any of you detect a logical fallacy in the paragraph above, I would appreciate your pointing it out. I remain fascinated that the real climate scientists toiling away in the bowels of the IPCC have either not stumbled upon these truths, or have chosen (for whatever reasons) not to share them with the rest of us mere mortals.

Fred

The discount hotel chain uses a series of commercials, including one in which a person is touring a nuclear power plant when an emergency occurs. He suggests a course of action, which is successful in averting a failure. He is then asked if he is a nuclear expert, at which point he replies: "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." The message, obviously, is that it is very smart to stay at HIE.

The reference to playing a climate scientist on TV is a play on yet another current commercial.

I sometimes forget that the entire Energy Pulse community is not necessarily "in on the joke". My bad.

Ed

Fred

Who have you heard advocating "a gradual progression to zero increase over say 40 years"? My concern is that those who may understand this rather simple concept seem to be afraid to stand up in public and say it. If this is what must be done, then a 35 mpg CAFE standard is a waste of time and money; the focus should be on zero emission vehicles. (I do not mean remote emission vehicles, powered by fuels which emit elsewhere, such as at the local coal-fired generating station.)

However, it is based on this logic that I laugh at those still advocating the "7% solution". As I believe you know, I have laid out a conceptual plan for a 95% reduction by 2050. It ain't pretty. However, if it is what must be done, then maybe we need to begin "drinking it pretty". I have no idea how much neat, non-denatured ethanol that would take, though I am willing to participate in the experiment.

Ed

So what is it we should "drink pretty"? The difficulties of doing it or the results of not? I'm in for either, sounds like a huge long-lasting party.

Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will do little to mitigate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.

Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.

Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.

Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.

Carbon tax revenues can be rebated to the public through dividends or tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.

Power needs we can meet with all types of renewable energy - solar power, wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermical power etc, but fuels for use in vehicles is another matter. For considerable time ahead we must rely on renewable hydrocarbons, and this is the reason why it is so important to ensure that the biomass resources are used as efficiently as possible for this purpose.

If you take lignocellulosic matter and produce methane 70 % of the energy contents will be transformed into fuel, 20 % recovered for heat and power, and 10 % consumed in the process. If I take the other extreme, ethanol, you will recover less than 30 % as fuel, 40 % as heat and power, and some 30 % lost in the process. Synthetic biodiesel will end up in between with around 50 % fuel yield.

If we are serious about replacing oil we should thus go for the most efficient alternative - methane.

This business about using methane was pointed out by one of the other regular contributors to this forum. I accepted it immediately, but I'm afraid that the movers and shakers are not in a hurry to make a commitment. Incidentally, this paper is NOT about global warming because that is one of the many subjects that I don't know very much about. Instead it deals with expanding the use of nuclear energy to ensure a slice of inexpensive and reliable power, and putting a lot of renewables on top of that. And if you want to discuss that well, I'm at your service.

Of course what I could also say is that it isn't about global warming or nuclear or renewables but about irrationality, and how these days the TV audience is determined to make a mess of everything they get their hands on.

Consumers are individually rather smart, but collectively rather sheepish. Let's take the decision away from the group (policy/subsidy/research grant) and give it to the individual. I say we reinstate the oil drilling royalties and dole out that money to alternative energy startups. Then we have to ensure that there are no ties between them and the current conglomerates and lastly, we have to remove the stifling rules against anything against the status quo. I have found so many 'large potential' technologies that I'm convinced it would only take half the time AND money being proposed today to solve the whole enchalada. Too bad they're all struggling year after year in myriad little battles instead of making energy.

And now we have this report on May 1, 2008: 'Global warming is taking a break that could last for another 10 years or so. That's the latest word from a team of climate researchers in Germany. Global average temperatures should remain above normal, the team suggests. But additional warming – already on hold over the first seven years of this decade – is likely to remain that way for another decade. The reason? The team says it expects natural shifts in ocean circulation to affect temperatures in ways that temporarily out-wrestle the effects of rising greenhouse-gas emissions. The forecast is "very bold," cautions Tom Delworth, a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University. But, he adds, it represents the cutting edge of climate modeling. The German effort is one of the first widely published attempts to offer climate forecasts on time scales of a decade or so, rather than a century or more. The findings appear in Thursday's edition of Nature.'

And this from Steven Milloy of Junkscience: 'Researchers belonging to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in Nature (May 1) that, after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations… temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature.'

I suggested that this year would be the year that this insanity was beginning to get corrected. It's happening, despite all the denialist comments by several respondents above.

I suspect they will not want to know any of it, but GW and obviously AGW is now on hold for at least 10 years because of good old mother nature.

I guess doomsday has been postponed for a while. Al must be hysterical over this, but then he always was. Hansen and Schmidt will probably do their best to muddy the waters.

John.