Bala Verde said:
I did, therefore my questions.
Oh no, not the 'high prices for everything' argument!
Energy prices have gone up before people even started talking about 'greening the economy'. The use of conventional resources such as oil and gas does not guarantee that prices remain at the same level either.
And as a side note, even if prices appear to go up after 'green policies' are enacted one can question for how long they go up, if they will come down, and if they are actually caused by an event that precedes the price rise.
To add to this, I remember an Iraq invasion or something that made people say 'all prices go up in the US and particularly energy, hurting mostly poor and working poor'... I bet you have that picture of yourself standing on the barricades protesting the war and vehemently supporting the rights of the poor, side by side with the hotchpotch movement of the anti-globalistas framed on the wall right?
Structural job losses of 2.4-2.7 million! That is certainly a lot. I reckon you have researched that claim with the same scrupulousness and intellectual rigor as the 'climate change' thesis.
I honestly believe you are teasing me a little
Shifting to new modes of production and/or the incorporation of new technology has - as far as I know - almost always to a certain extent been associated with job losses. How is it then that unemployment rates always fall back to old levels (structural unemployment) and do not stay consistently higher which is what would happen if jobs are lost forever. Even with all the outsourcing to other countries such as China and India, it seems people have managed to find new jobs...
With all the technological advances/changes made in the US since 1900, you should have had a 95% unemployment rate by now! I mean the invention of the computer must have been hard to swallow for all those people who were previously employed doing the tasks that could be done by computers.
Hmm, wait a minute. The 'invention of the computer' also... created jobs! Incomprehensible, and a shocking realization.
I agree however that the timing of said changes could be an issue for discussion.
Oh come on Scott, you can do better than that. IPCC and CRU rule the world and they prevent 'honest scientists' from publishing anything. How do they do that again?
All those angry scientists out there who feel unjustly treated because their papers have never been accepted by these peer reviewed journals. It's maddening! And by the sheer size of their community one would have expected long ago an almost proletarian revolution of scientists who have been dispossessed of their rightful place in all those existing scientific journals.
On top of that, I didn't know IPCC was a publisher, or a peer reviewed journal. The CRU is a 'climate research unit' affiliated with a university (University of East Anglia)... It's a sheer travesty, the way they subdue each and any individual's right to express their different opinions on climate change.
I never heard that 'conventional' energy sources were going to be banned. That's quite the news, worthy of any major newspaper's front page!
As far as simplistic characterizations and misrepresentations can go, very reasonable indeed!
As to potential job losses with cap and trade the real question is, who knows?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8230a041-2d13-4812-b5ed-ea9b2965faa0
CRA International admittedly takes "their best guess".
"• Utility Rates and Utility Bills – Energy cost impacts consider the combined effect of
changes in the prices of the fundamental energy commodities and the added cost of
limiting carbon emissions. In the case of electricity and natural gas supplied through
companies regulated by utility commissions, free allowance allocations will mitigate
some of the total cost borne by retail customers. ACESA provides free allocations to
such local distribution companies, but requires that the full cost of carbon still be
reflected in the rates per unit of energy each customer uses. Relative to energy
costs in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2009 Baseline level, retail natural gas
rates would rise by an estimated 10% ($1.20 per MMBtu) in 2015, by 16% ($2.30 per
MMBtu) in 2030, and by 34% ($5.40 per MMBtu) in 2050. Retail electricity rates are
estimated to increase by 7.3% (1.1 cents per kWh) relative to baseline levels in 2015,
by 22% (2.8 cents per kWh) in 2030 and by 45% (6.1 cents per kWh) in 2050. To the
extent that utilities return the value of their free allocations under ACESA to
customers through reductions in fixed charges, actual total bills for electricity and
natural gas will not rise as much as the rates. Total utility bills may even decline in
the first years of the policy if there is also substantial investment in end-use efficiency
and/or conservation in response to the higher energy rates."
"Transportation Fuel Costs - After an estimated 12 cents per gallon increase in 2015,
costs of using motor fuels are estimated to increase by 5% (23 cents per gallon) in
2030 and increase by 11% (59 cents per gallon) in 2050, relative to baseline levels.
These cost impacts consider the combined effect of changes in the market prices of
the fundamental energy commodities, the added cost of limiting carbon emissions,
and projected shifts towards a lower-carbon mix of energy sources used to fuel the
average vehicle."
"
Employment – A net reduction in U.S. employment of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs in
each year of the policy through 2030. These reductions are net of substantial gains
in “green jobs.” While all regions of the country would be adversely impacted, the
West, Oklahoma/Texas and the Mississippi Valley regions would be
disproportionately affected.
• Wages – Declines in workers’ wages will become more severe with time. The
earnings of an average worker who remains employed would be approximately $170
less by 2015, $390 less by 2030, and $960 less by 2050, relative to baseline levels.
Now, you can read this and remain un-concerned if you would like. I don't really care. You may speculate any movement of pricing you want and their effects. Some folks believe energy to be at the very center of our way of life. You may choose not to.
You may argue when the automobile became mass produced it devastated the buggy whip business. The green jobs produced may be so massive it dwarfs other job losses... Please cite something that argues this point because I have not seen it (not saying the info does not exist).
Never meant to imply traditional sources of energy were to be banned. My point is there is one political side that routinely attempts to block this country from producing it's own energy, fossil or otherwise. Care to guess which side does that?
Ever compared our electricity production (how it's produced)to much of Europe, especially France? How long has it been since a reactor has been built in the US?
In terms of the IPCC and CRU... it is suggested by those scientists who are not impressed with the 'science' of the climate change crowd who are making these claims, oh, and of course the emails of Phil Jones himself suggesting they may need to 'change' the peer review process... hmmmm.
I notice you cite annecdotal stories regarding computers and that's fine. Computers are not energy. It's a bad analogy.