Comments on: Parsing the President: no “climate change”? http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/ Your guide to American economic policy Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:47:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: The President’s press conference: climate change | KeithHennessey.com http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1845 The President’s press conference: climate change | KeithHennessey.com Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:29:57 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-1845 [...] cap-and-trade legislation as a clean energy technology bill.  He has been doing this consistently since his first press conference, and it reaffirms for me that his political and communications advisors think that addressing [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1845','The President’s press conference: climate change | KeithHennessey.com'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1845','The President’s press conference: climate change | KeithHennessey.com','[...] cap-and-trade legislation as a clean energy technology bill.  He has been doing this consistently since his first press conference, and it reaffirms for me that his political and communications advisors think that addressing [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] cap-and-trade legislation as a clean energy technology bill.  He has been doing this consistently since his first press conference, and it reaffirms for me that his political and communications advisors think that addressing [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: The President’s press conference: climate change | KeithHennessey.com http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1844 The President’s press conference: climate change | KeithHennessey.com Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:26:03 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-1844 [...] legislation as a clean energy technology bill.  He has been doing this consistently since his first press conference, and it reaffirms for me that his political and communications advisors think that addressing [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1844','The President’s press conference: climate change | KeithHennessey.com'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1844','The President’s press conference: climate change | KeithHennessey.com','[...] legislation as a clean energy technology bill.  He has been doing this consistently since his first press conference, and it reaffirms for me that his political and communications advisors think that addressing [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] legislation as a clean energy technology bill.  He has been doing this consistently since his first press conference, and it reaffirms for me that his political and communications advisors think that addressing [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Steven Christopher http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Steven Christopher Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:42:39 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-34 Dr. Michelle Foss from the Center for Energy Economics at UT gave an extremely interesting lecture on the economic implications of climate change policies to the Houston Economics Club meeting that I attended. I am sure you would find it interesting. Her powerpoint can be found here: <a href="http://www.thehoustoneconomicsclub.org/documents/Foss_THEC.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.thehoustoneconomicsclub.org/documents/...</a><div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('34','Steven Christopher'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('34','Steven Christopher','Dr. Michelle Foss from the Center for Energy Economics at UT gave an extremely interesting lecture on the economic implications of climate change policies to the Houston Economics Club meeting that I attended. I am sure you would find it interesting. Her powerpoint can be found here: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thehoustoneconomicsclub.org\/documents\/Foss_THEC.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/www.thehoustoneconomicsclub.org\/documents\/...<\/a>'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Dr. Michelle Foss from the Center for Energy Economics at UT gave an extremely interesting lecture on the economic implications of climate change policies to the Houston Economics Club meeting that I attended. I am sure you would find it interesting. Her powerpoint can be found here: http://www.thehoustoneconomicsclub.org/documents/...
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Alexander Scott http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Alexander Scott Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:12:11 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-33 I'd like to respond to the point about limited supplies of uranium. While conventional reactors require uranium fuel enriched in U-235 (which is somewhat rare), breeder reactors are able to convert U-238 (much more abundant) into fissionable plutonium, so that at the end of a power cycle there is actually more useful fuel than at the beginning. This process also occurs in conventional reactors (to some degree), which is why the power output is greater at the endf of the fuel cycle than at the beginning. There are legitimate concerns about nuclear proliferation, since this is an easy way to make bomb material. However, if you are starved for power, a breeder reactor will greatly extend the lifetime of your fuel supply (roughly a factor of 10).<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('33','Alexander Scott'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('33','Alexander Scott','I'd like to respond to the point about limited supplies of uranium. While conventional reactors require uranium fuel enriched in U-235 (which is somewhat rare), breeder reactors are able to convert U-238 (much more abundant) into fissionable plutonium, so that at the end of a power cycle there is actually more useful fuel than at the beginning. This process also occurs in conventional reactors (to some degree), which is why the power output is greater at the endf of the fuel cycle than at the beginning. There are legitimate concerns about nuclear proliferation, since this is an easy way to make bomb material. However, if you are starved for power, a breeder reactor will greatly extend the lifetime of your fuel supply (roughly a factor of 10).'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I'd like to respond to the point about limited supplies of uranium. While conventional reactors require uranium fuel enriched in U-235 (which is somewhat rare), breeder reactors are able to convert U-238 (much more abundant) into fissionable plutonium, so that at the end of a power cycle there is actually more useful fuel than at the beginning. This process also occurs in conventional reactors (to some degree), which is why the power output is greater at the endf of the fuel cycle than at the beginning. There are legitimate concerns about nuclear proliferation, since this is an easy way to make bomb material. However, if you are starved for power, a breeder reactor will greatly extend the lifetime of your fuel supply (roughly a factor of 10).
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Roy http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Roy Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:05:39 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-32 The problem I see is that minus a belief in the importance of "climate change" there is nothing "dirty" about emitting CO2. And if the point is not CO2 itself but other byproducts of burning coal, that implies a far different strategy than playing around with carbon sequestration. The relentless use of "clean" to mean "not emitting a perfectly harmless, colorless, odorless, inert gas that humans exhale" distorts discussion on this subject. If Obama is planning to impose this scheme for some other reason than a belief in climate change then Obama is bonkers.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('32','Roy'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('32','Roy','The problem I see is that minus a belief in the importance of "climate change" there is nothing "dirty" about emitting CO2. And if the point is not CO2 itself but other byproducts of burning coal, that implies a far different strategy than playing around with carbon sequestration. The relentless use of "clean" to mean "not emitting a perfectly harmless, colorless, odorless, inert gas that humans exhale" distorts discussion on this subject. If Obama is planning to impose this scheme for some other reason than a belief in climate change then Obama is bonkers.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> The problem I see is that minus a belief in the importance of "climate change" there is nothing "dirty" about emitting CO2. And if the point is not CO2 itself but other byproducts of burning coal, that implies a far different strategy than playing around with carbon sequestration. The relentless use of "clean" to mean "not emitting a perfectly harmless, colorless, odorless, inert gas that humans exhale" distorts discussion on this subject. If Obama is planning to impose this scheme for some other reason than a belief in climate change then Obama is bonkers.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Marcus http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Marcus Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:47:53 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-31 I agree with your bit of research, except I'd say many years away. Yet the President has said he wants no new coal plants until we have such or similar technologies available. This is from October 2007: "And we must find a way to stop coal from polluting our atmosphere without pretending that our nation's most abundant energy source will just go away. It won't. . . . . That's why we must invest in clean coal technologies that we can use at home and share with the world. Until those technologies are available, I will rely on the carbon cap and whatever tools are necessary to stop new dirty coal plants from being built in America - including a ban on new traditional coal facilities."<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('31','Marcus'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('31','Marcus','I agree with your bit of research, except I'd say many years away. Yet the President has said he wants no new coal plants until we have such or similar technologies available. This is from October 2007:\n\n"And we must find a way to stop coal from polluting our atmosphere without pretending that our nation's most abundant energy source will just go away. It won't. . . . . That's why we must invest in clean coal technologies that we can use at home and share with the world. Until those technologies are available, I will rely on the carbon cap and whatever tools are necessary to stop new dirty coal plants from being built in America - including a ban on new traditional coal facilities."'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I agree with your bit of research, except I'd say many years away. Yet the President has said he wants no new coal plants until we have such or similar technologies available. This is from October 2007:

"And we must find a way to stop coal from polluting our atmosphere without pretending that our nation's most abundant energy source will just go away. It won't. . . . . That's why we must invest in clean coal technologies that we can use at home and share with the world. Until those technologies are available, I will rely on the carbon cap and whatever tools are necessary to stop new dirty coal plants from being built in America – including a ban on new traditional coal facilities."

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Marcus http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Marcus Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:43:11 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-30 He may be finessing his message more now, but he was pretty specific about climate change and cap-and-trade in October 2007: "As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming - an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face." He can probably satisfy these commitments using the Clean Air Act rather than relying on new legislation, except it will take years and will be like using a hammer to perform dentistry.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('30','Marcus'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('30','Marcus','He may be finessing his message more now, but he was pretty specific about climate change and cap-and-trade in October 2007:\n\n"As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming - an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face."\n\nHe can probably satisfy these commitments using the Clean Air Act rather than relying on new legislation, except it will take years and will be like using a hammer to perform dentistry.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> He may be finessing his message more now, but he was pretty specific about climate change and cap-and-trade in October 2007:

"As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming – an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face."

He can probably satisfy these commitments using the Clean Air Act rather than relying on new legislation, except it will take years and will be like using a hammer to perform dentistry.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Marcus http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Marcus Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:42:23 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-29 Yup, we should look at all aspects of an activity. Regarding nukes. I was amused to see the most recent Science magazine. On page 1538 two scientists heap praise on the President for allowing government scientists to now do their work, unfettered by politics. On page 1557 a scientist at Yucca Mountain is quoted as saying Obama's decision on Yucca Mountain is "a slap in the face to the . . . integrity of the scientists who have worked out here." I guess unfettered science is good, until it doesn't support your position.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('29','Marcus'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('29','Marcus','Yup, we should look at all aspects of an activity.\n\nRegarding nukes. I was amused to see the most recent Science magazine. On page 1538 two scientists heap praise on the President for allowing government scientists to now do their work, unfettered by politics. On page 1557 a scientist at Yucca Mountain is quoted as saying Obama's decision on Yucca Mountain is "a slap in the face to the . . . integrity of the scientists who have worked out here." I guess unfettered science is good, until it doesn't support your position.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Yup, we should look at all aspects of an activity.

Regarding nukes. I was amused to see the most recent Science magazine. On page 1538 two scientists heap praise on the President for allowing government scientists to now do their work, unfettered by politics. On page 1557 a scientist at Yucca Mountain is quoted as saying Obama's decision on Yucca Mountain is "a slap in the face to the . . . integrity of the scientists who have worked out here." I guess unfettered science is good, until it doesn't support your position.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Billy Ruffn http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Billy Ruffn Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:39:35 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-28 Nathan, I applaud your call for "full disclosure" of externalities, but there are externalities in almost every eco-friendly power source that nobody wants to talk about, e.g. thousands of sq. miles of desert covered with solar panels plus large quantities of water required to keep the panels clean, the "visual pollution" of wind farms in Nantucket Sound (ask Teddy K. about that one) not to mention all the dead bats, land transformed from a "natural" state to agricultural purposes to cultivate bio-fuels, rivers dammed for hydropower. Nothing's perfect, but one thing is certain -- nuclear power is the only zero/low CO2 alternative that's capable of producing a sufficent quantity of energy at reasonable cost and in a reasonable time frame. The failure of the clean and green AGW crowd to put nuclear power at the head of the list of alternative energy alternatives suggests to me that they are either ignorant of the laws of physics or that there is more to their agenda than cooling the earth.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('28','Billy Ruffn'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('28','Billy Ruffn','Nathan,\nI applaud your call for "full disclosure" of externalities, but there are externalities in almost every eco-friendly power source that nobody wants to talk about, e.g. thousands of sq. miles of desert covered with solar panels plus large quantities of water required to keep the panels clean, the "visual pollution" of wind farms in Nantucket Sound (ask Teddy K. about that one) not to mention all the dead bats, land transformed from a "natural" state to agricultural purposes to cultivate bio-fuels, rivers dammed for hydropower. Nothing's perfect, but one thing is certain -- nuclear power is the only zero\/low CO2 alternative that's capable of producing a sufficent quantity of energy at reasonable cost and in a reasonable time frame. The failure of the clean and green AGW crowd to put nuclear power at the head of the list of alternative energy alternatives suggests to me that they are either ignorant of the laws of physics or that there is more to their agenda than cooling the earth.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Nathan,
I applaud your call for "full disclosure" of externalities, but there are externalities in almost every eco-friendly power source that nobody wants to talk about, e.g. thousands of sq. miles of desert covered with solar panels plus large quantities of water required to keep the panels clean, the "visual pollution" of wind farms in Nantucket Sound (ask Teddy K. about that one) not to mention all the dead bats, land transformed from a "natural" state to agricultural purposes to cultivate bio-fuels, rivers dammed for hydropower. Nothing's perfect, but one thing is certain — nuclear power is the only zero/low CO2 alternative that's capable of producing a sufficent quantity of energy at reasonable cost and in a reasonable time frame. The failure of the clean and green AGW crowd to put nuclear power at the head of the list of alternative energy alternatives suggests to me that they are either ignorant of the laws of physics or that there is more to their agenda than cooling the earth.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Keith Stokes http://keithhennessey.com/2009/03/27/parsing-the-president-no-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Keith Stokes Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:38:51 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/?p=1072#comment-27 Great blog. Fingers crossed that Obama sidesteps Gore's blowhard nonsense.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('27','Keith Stokes'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('27','Keith Stokes','Great blog. Fingers crossed that Obama sidesteps Gore's blowhard nonsense.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Great blog. Fingers crossed that Obama sidesteps Gore's blowhard nonsense.
Reply – Quote
]]>