16 thoughts on “The GAO And Climate”

  1. I blame the inflationary policy of the Fed. If properties weren’t so expensive because of regulations, subsidization and low interest rates, then these disasters would be a lot cheaper.

  2. The problem with NPV analysis is that the claim made by AGW alarmists is that spending now will prevent the future, so waiting to spend the money isn’t an option. AGW alarmists also don’t care about the cost because pocketbook suffering and punishment of certain individuals are public displays of sacrifice that will appeal to Mother Gaia.

    This part was good, There is absolutely no basis to support the claim that the $350 billion spent over the past decade in response to extreme weather and fire events was even remotely related to climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. Nor is there any evidence that decarbonization of our energy infrastructure will avert any future expenditures in response to extreme weather and fire events.

    This is often ignored. There are no climate change alarmist policies that will prevent hurricanes or forest fires, so the costs of dealing with natural events will not diminish. Even if we adopted all* of the alarmist policies, costs of dealing with natural events would increase because of population growth and how we manage forests.

    * Assuming we don’t adopt de-humanization of the planet. De-humanizing the planet wont prevent natural events but since there wont be anyone there to fix things, costs don’t come into play. Even less extreme de-humanization that merely moves unwilling populations might not lower costs because we will still fix things nature breaks.

  3. The climate we have to worry about is unreasoning children controlling billions of taxpayer dollars. Until we fix this, none of the rest matters.

    Reason only works on the reasonable. The game that’s being played is rhetoric is being given the same weight as reason. The only valid response to their arguments is “you’re an idiot!” followed by taking every lever of power away from them.

    1. The climate we have to worry about is unreasoning children controlling billions of taxpayer dollars. …The game that’s being played is rhetoric is being given the same weight as reason.

      Those are pretty hilarious coming from an acolyte of Donald J. Trump.

      1. See how I cheered ya up? But remember… actions speak louder than words. He’s a kid from Brooklyn… you simply don’t understand his language.

        He’s not trying to reason with anyone (and you must admit he’s doing a darn good job of not reasoning!) What he is doing is moving the ball down the court. One day you will wake up from your TDS and see. You still will not like him, but you will admit his good accomplishments. Later you may realize you didn’t help. But keep looking for the perfect. I’ll be right with you when you find ’em.

    1. since the market conditions in Saudi Arabia are fairly unique and it’s not clear the bidder, Masdar (owned by the United Arab Emirates) and its French partner EDF would actually make money at that price.

      Since much of the world isn’t Saudi Arabia, solar wont work everywhere. Solar does have some appeal but from an environmental aspect, its a loser. It takes up too much area, animal habitat. It also relies on toxic storage.

      The most promising thing in solar is SpaceX’s BFR.

      1. I wouldn’t expect solar power generated in Oregon to be as cheap as solar in SA – obviously, it’s the trend over the last decade that’s important, cheaper installation costs will make solar increasingly competitive in places not so ideal for it.

        “It takes up too much area” so stick it on roofs.
        “It also relies on toxic storage” What’s toxic about pumped hydro, thermal and flywheel energy storage?


      2. It’s not just the storage that is toxic. Google “china silicon tetrachloride”. You will find stories of whole villages in China being depopulated on account of pollution from solar cell manufacture.

        The fact that Andrew_W has swallowed a bunch of industry hype is manifest by the fact that these are subsidized prices. Remove the subsidies, and solar would collapse. It cannot compete with traditional sources.

        1. No, the majority are unsubsidized and if you google “China coal power plant pollution” you’ll also find lots of horror stories, as with any industry much of the pollution is an optional extra, not a requirement.

          1. “Articles generally talking about how China is cleaning up pollution from coal:.
            And what, in your mind pollution from PV production is an insurmountable problem?

          2. It is especially nasty stuff. And, the energy density is so poor that an awful lot of it would be produced if we ever reached a point where solar actually made a sizable dent in our energy mix. Along with all the tens of thousands of square miles of habitat that would have to be destroyed to make way for extensive solar farms, solar is just awful for the environment.

            Coal ash, on the other hand, has plenty of uses. Coal plants occupy a fraction of the land. And, it is non-intermittant, efficient, and clean today.

    2. I see you found the propaganda numbers. But what about the real numbers, accounting for capacity factor and storage? And not inflating the costs of dispatchable power to deal with the load unreliable “green” energy imposes on the grid when utilities are FORCED to buy it?

  4. >Those are pretty hilarious coming from an acolyte of Donald J. Trump.<

    The nevertrump crowd are amusing in a stupid way.

Comments are closed.