23 thoughts on “Cost Effectiveness”

  1. Since Algore famously predicted large scale destruction from increased and more powerful hurricanes due to alleged global warming, does the startlingly low number of hurricanes this year and last indicate (once again) that the theory is wrong?

    Question: what evidence would invalidate Algore’s global warming paradigm?

  3. Well, we think climate engineering is cheap and effective. As I said previously, the actual scientists proposing this would like to do some testing first. Also, the first rule of messes is “don’t make it bigger.” So, every ton of carbon we don’t emit is one less ton to mitigate against later.

  4. Fred: using natural variability to obfuscate trends and predictions is a standard denialist tool. Don’t be a tool yourself.

  5. Also, the first rule of messes is “don’t make it bigger.” So, every ton of carbon we don’t emit is one less ton to mitigate against later.

    That assumes that reducing a ton of carbon emission is cost free. It might be a lot cheaper to fix it later than to not emit it now. I suggest that you read Lomborg’s latest book. All of the nostrums demanded by our moral superiors are lousy deals, economically.

  6. It might be a lot cheaper to fix it later than to not emit it now. Or it might not. We don’t know. Therefore, if we can reasonably cheaply reduce our emissions, we should.

    Obviously, “reasonably cheaply” is a term of art, not science. I think things like CFLs and higher MPG cars count as “reasonably cheap.” Your mileage may vary (pun intended).

  8. Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish statistician and business school professor. He brings his economics and mathematical expertise to this question, which is one about economics, not climate science.

  9. Or it might not. We don’t know.

    But at least Lomborg has asked the question, and done the analysis. Most proponents of carbon reduction have not.

    I think things like CFLs and higher MPG cars count as “reasonably cheap.”

    Not if they make no market sense.

  10. Mr. Gerrib, how large a premium on the cost of your automobile would you be willing to pay to reduce your automobile’s CO2 emissions by one ton?

  11. Higher MPG cars are not a very effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. Replacing coal fired electrical generation with other forms is much cheaper, per unit of avoided CO2.

    To first order, we should stop burning coal before we focus on reducing the burning of oil, if the purpose is to reduce CO2 emissions.

    (Higher MPG cars may make sense for other reasons, but the CO2 savings will merely be a minor fringe benefit.)

  12. Paul, I agree, but I want to understand what Chris regards as “reasonably” cheap. Hence my question.

    FWIW, 100k miles in a 20 mpg car emits a grand total of perhaps 40 metric tons of CO2.

    Converting the entire US fleet to nuclear-generated electricity powered EVs reduces auto emissions by O( 1 gigaton CO2 / year).

    Is that a lot compared to volcanic activity?

  13. I drive a Saturn Vue hybrid, which replaced a Chevy Blazer, for a net gain of 10 MPG. The additional cost of the hybrid was IIRC around $3,000. (I get a friends and family GM discount, so the sticker difference might have been closer to $4,000). I’ll let y’all do the math.

    Volcanic CO2 is an obvious wildcard in the climate equation, one of many. I’m not convinced that global warming will be The End Of Civilization ™. However, I’m in no real hurry to get a definitive answer on that question.

  14. Paul says:


    Fred: using natural variability to obfuscate trends and predictions is a standard denialist tool. Don’t be a tool yourself.

    * I am noting reality using Algore’s methods. Is he a denialist and a tool?

    * You didn’t answer the question

  15. Fred: to answer your question — no, a single year’s decline in hurricanes in no way invalidates the hypotheses that there would be more or stronger hurricanes in a high-CO2 world. Of course, a single year’s enhanced hurricane count/intensity would not confirm those hypotheses either.

  16. CFL’s have a lousy power factor. The harmonic distortions of residential CFL bulbs unbalance the grid and make the power stations work just as hard as if they were driving incandescent bulbs. The utility companies will therefore need to invest heavily into upgrading the grid to accommodate these power factor changes. Think of the energy needed to upgrade the utility infrastructure of large residential areas. Kinda negates the whole exercise in my opinion if net reduction in C02 is your goal.

    I guess that is where the original article stated that many of the “solutions” we are using now will take 50 years to implement. Then, another 50 years before we may possibly realize any CO2 mitigation. I guess if the ice caps melt in a hundred years we can at least say, “Oh well, I screwed in my CFL light bulbs and sponsored a polar bear so don’t look at me.”

  17. Josh Reiter – not an electrical engineer, but I did a quick Google on power factor. First, if a 100w incandescent is replaced with a 25w CFL, the power factor is cut to 50, or half of 100.

    Second, power factor is not actual energy, it’s an artifact of AC phasing. Third, power factor is not a new issue – in my Navy days we called it “starting amps” on electrical motors, like in my house’s refrigerator and AC.

    Lastly, this guy seems to think there is no doubt that their overall energy balance is superior to incandenscent light.

  18. There are CFLs with high power factors, and regulations could be imposed to require high PF. Alternately, utilities could charge customers for reactive power as well as real power (not necessarily at the same rate), and also charge based on harmonic distortion. This would require smarter meters.

    Utilities can compensate for reactive power by installing PF correction devices on the grid. This has a cost, of course.

  19. So, Mr. Gerrib,

    If you went from a 10 mpg to a 20 mpg vehicle, then you will save about 40 metric tons of CO2 over a 5 year period for a 3K outlay up front.

    You value CO2 at ~$75-80 / ton.

    I don’t. Tell ya what, give ME the 3K, I’ll buy “carbon offsets” that total 40 metric tons of CO2, and pocket the differrence.

    I will leave to the interested whether or not the “carbon offsets” I purchase actually do anything beyond lining the pockets of some carbon arbitrageur (or abritragesse — I don’t discriminate).

  22. MG – your cost analysis excludes the fact that I save $$$ by reducing my fuel costs. Also, the problem with carbon offsets are that I don’t know if they work. I do know that I’m using less carbon and gas.

Comments are closed.