Bureaucrats Completely Incapable Of Making Reasonable Trade-Offs https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...ely-incapable-of-making-reasonable-trade-offs excerpt: This phenomenon of inability to make remotely reasonable trade-offs has been on full display in some of the environmental news of the past couple of weeks. Take as one example the new dishwasher rule, announced on May 5. This one comes from the Department of Energy. It imposes on dishwasher manufacturers what they call “new standards for water and energy efficiency.” In the press release, the main sales pitch to the people is that this is going to save you money — lots of money — along with reducing “carbon emissions” and “saving water.”: DOE expects the new rule to save consumers nearly $3 billion in utility bill savings over the ensuing 30 years of shipments and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5 million metric tons—an amount roughly equivalent to the combined annual emissions of 1.6 million homes. DOE also expects the new rule to save 240 billion gallons of water, which is equivalent to the water in 360,000 Olympic-sized pools. $3 billion — that’s a lot of money! Actually, not. It’s $3 billion over 30 years, or $100 million per year. There are 123 million households in the U.S., so this is well less than one dollar per year per household. Similarly, the supposed CO2 emissions reductions are less than trivial: 12.5 million metric tons over 30 years is 417,000 metric tons per year. That compares to some 6.34 billion metric tons of emissions for the U.S. in 2021, and 37.12 billion metric tons for the world. So the reduction in CO2 emissions, if actually achieved, would be 0.0066% of U.S. emissions, or 0.0012% of world emissions. But wasn’t U.S. electricity production supposed to be carbon free by 10 years from now? If so most of the supposed emissions reductions from more efficient dishwashers will never happen. Meanwhile, everyone has noticed that prior Department of Energy energy and water efficiency standards for dishwashers have had the effect of making them run much longer and not get the dishes clean. The new standards, requiring the use of even less water and electricity to wash the dishes, can only make things worse. All to save less than a dollar a year? Almost everybody would gladly pay an extra dollar per year — or maybe even five — for a dishwasher that actually worked. Why can’t we have that option? Because the environmental crazies at the DOE couldn’t care less about making you waste your time pre-washing dishes or waiting for an endless cycle to end before you have the dishes to cook dinner. more at the link
subsidence in the news Land around the U.S. is sinking. Here are some of the fastest areas. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/05/30/land-sinking-us-subsidence-sea-level/ excerpts: Gulf Coast: Houston The western Gulf Coast is experiencing some of the fastest land subsidence rates in the United States. Analyzing land subsidence rates in large coastal cities, Bekaert and his colleagues found Houston has the fastest peak subsidence rates — about 17 millimeters (0.67 inches) per year from 2014 to 2020 — in the United States. Other research showed parts of Houston lost over 3 meters in elevation in certain areas since 1917. Such land subsidence can worsen damage during extreme weather events. Researchers found that the majority of areas flooded during 2017′s Hurricane Harvey showed relatively high subsidence rates. Land subsidence in the Houston-Galveston area is largely caused by groundwater withdrawals. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, removing water from fine-grained silts and clays underground compresses the aquifer and lowers the land surface. Some regions experience high land subsidence rates because of withdrawal of local oiland natural gas reserves. A smaller portion of land subsidence can be attributed to fault movement in the area. Gulf Coast: New Orleans Parts of New Orleans are also experiencing high rates of sinking, due to both human-induced and natural processes. Research showed that rates are highly variable across the city, ranging from 150 to 500 millimeters (6 to 20 inches) over the past 20 years. Past data from 2009 to 2012 showed the highest subsidence rates along the Mississippi River near industrial areas in Norco and Michoud — experiencing up to 50 millimeters (2 inches) of sinking a year. To the east of Norco, the Bonnet Carré Spillway, intended to reduce flood risk for New Orleans, experienced up to 40 millimeters (1.6 inches) of sinking a year behind the structure. NASA reported a primary contributor is pumping groundwater. Subsidence deeper underground is also caused by the shifting of faults, according to the city of New Orleans. While Houston and New Orleans are notable subsiding locations, other places in the Gulf also experience high rates. In a large area north of Tampa Bay, subsidence rates have been clocked at up to 6 millimeters (0.24 inches) per year, about twice as much as global sea level rise, from 2015 to 2020 due to groundwater pumping. The Tampa Bay area is also relatively flat, meaning rising seas may overwhelm large swaths of the low-lying area. East Coast: New York City With more than 8 million people, New York City is the most populated city in the United States. It’s also sinking about 1 to 2 millimeters (0.03 to 0.08 inches) per year, on average. People living in subsiding cities like this may see higher sea-level rise — rates up to four times faster — than more stable regions. “If now the water is going up and your land is going down, then your houses will be flooded,” said Matt Wei, a geophysicist at the University of Rhode Island. “That’s the issue.” Wei said much of the city’s land subsidence are responses to glacial retreat after the most recent Ice Age. During the last Ice Age, ice sheets weighed heavily on the land and caused the crust beneath places such as Canada and the northeastern United States to stretch and sag. Places on the periphery of those sagging areas, though, such as around New York and the Chesapeake Bay, bulged upward. When the ice sheets began retreating about 12,000 years ago, those sagging areas started to rise back up while the bulging areas are settling back down. Wei said to think of it like a balloon. If you push down on a balloon, parts near your hand will go down while other parts farther away will go up. Once you remove your hand, the balloon will try to bounce back to its original shape, causing some sections to rise and others to lower. He said the same process plays out on Earth except on “a much larger scale and also a much slower speed.” For the most part, Wei said land subsidence in New York City is consistent with what researchers anticipated from this glacial rebound. However, some sections of the city showed higher rates of subsidence than expected. In a new study, Wei and his colleagues found that the weight of buildings around New York City are actually pushing down the land in some areas, contributing further to land subsidence. While the average rate in the city is 1 to 2 millimeters per year, some areas are experiencing about 4.5 millimeters (0.18 inches) per year. “New York City is sinking not because of the weight of the buildings. It’s mainly because of the glacier rebound,” Wei said. “But there are places suggesting the weight of the buildings might [have] contributed to the accelerated rate.” more at the link
https://reason.com/2023/06/01/frances-ban-on-short-haul-flights-will-kill-people/ France's Ban on Short-Haul Flights Will Kill People You're 2,200 times more likely to die when traveling by car as opposed to by airplane. by Veronique de Rugy 6.1.2023 12:01 AM Too many politicians are thespians. When there's a conflict—as there often is—between appearing to solve problems and actually helping to solve those problems, politicians can almost always be counted on to put appearance over substance. Unfortunately, politicians succumb to this bias even when their theatrics make real problems worse. Consider French President Emmanuel Macron's boast last week that his government banned many flights between cities within 2.5 hours of each other by rail. Nothing today is more en vogue than climate theatrics, sometimes at the expense of realistic, helpful policies. Macron obviously relishes the opportunity to pose as a courageous hero astride a white horse helping to save humanity from its self-destructive addiction to fossil fuels. As pointed out by many observers, France's ban on short-haul flights is riddled with so many exceptions that the resulting reduction of carbon emissions will fall far short of what Macron wants the world to believe. Nevertheless, maybe some flights will be banned and less aviation fuel will be burned. Hooray! At least it's something! But before you get too excited, let me tell you about another French figure: Frederic Bastiat, an economist and statesman who was active in the middle of the 19th century. Bastiat's most famous writing is a wonderful essay titled "That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen." In it, he urged people to look beyond the immediate effects of government intervention. When you do so, and when you think about more than what government officials triumphantly trumpet, you'll often discover additional consequences that no one wishes to take credit for. In the case of the ban on short-haul flights, it's easy to see what Macron sees and wants: more people traveling by train. Let's grant that this effect is good and then look beyond the initial claims about saving aviation fuel. What about more people traveling by automobile? After all, rail travel isn't the only alternative to air travel, especially in France where train strikes are a regular occurrence. Denied the much greater speed of air travel, many people will opt to skip the inconvenience of buying a ticket altogether and travel by car. One undesirable effect is a longer time spent traveling. Because people's time is valuable and could otherwise be spent working, studying or with family and friends, the cost of traveling what the French government considers to be short distances will rise. Did Monsieur Macron carefully weigh this cost against the ban's benefits? I'm pretty sure he didn't. He just assumed that people's time is of sufficiently low value to justify the flight ban. Tres arrogant! Looking even further past "that which is seen," you'll see why any reduction in the burning of fossil fuels will almost certainly be less than what the French government hopes. Not only do automobiles, like airplanes, burn fossil fuel, but the amount burned by automobiles can be greater per passenger mile. On average today for commercial aircraft, one gallon of fuel carries each passenger about 67.1 miles. The typical French automobile sold in 2019 gets about 42.8 miles per gallon. These facts means that if someone in France chooses to drive alone in one of these cars—say, from Paris to Nantes—rather than traveling by train, he will burn 57 percent more fuel than he would have while flying. And even if there are two people on this car trip, the amount of fossil fuel burned per person will be only about 22 percent less than if these two travelers had instead flown. This math may still lead many readers to jump to the conclusion that at the very least, piling three or more people into a car for that same trip will be desirable. But peering one more step beyond that which is seen counsels against this. Here we finally see the most frightening "unseen" consequence of the short-haul flight ban: the likelihood of more roadway deaths. A recent study out of Harvard University found that, for people traveling within the United States, Europe, and Australia, the chances of being killed while flying are 1 in 11 million, while the chances of being killed while driving are 1 in 5,000. Put differently, you're 2,200 times more likely to be killed when traveling by car as opposed to by airplane. By diverting some travelers from the air to the roadways, the French government will almost certainly cause more travelers to die. Political theater, it turns out, can be deadly.
Introduce socialism?? Everytime you sound like a intelligent smart man you say something ridiculous. How is the left Introducing socialism when it comes to its fight against climate change?? Socialism???
None of these conspiracies make sense. A cabal of wealthy powerful people trying to introduce socialism? Why? That's the thing about right wing conspiracies. No analyzing of systems. No analyzing of motive, opportunity cost etc. Ask a right winger to summarize power structures in society and they'll have you write a Hollywood thriller script because these people have no clue how society functions.
I'm just confused why he mentioned socialism in a climate change thread? What does socialism have to do with raising temperatures?
I believe in climate change 100%. However, I think it's too late and we're all f**ked anyway, so drill baby drill!
If it's too late to "save" us from climate change the solution here wouldn't be to drill more but to do a mass hunting campaign of every gas and oil executive and polticians who gets donations from them, round them up and do summary executions. I believe that's a fair response to ****ing up civilization and the planet at that epic scale. But fortunately for those execs, I don't think it's too late.
We can do both? Oil production is at record levels in America right now and we're transitioning to green energy. We can do both at the same time. Don't be naive my friend
How are global governments handing out roughly trillions a year in tax subsidies to O&G not socialism? It seems like O&G is dependent on government welfare almost as much as Elon Musk.
We very possibly are already past the tipping point to stop climate change but we can still ameliorate some of its effects. Also moving off of fossil fuels to renewables has many other benefits besides climate change. It improves air and water quality. Increases efficiency and reduces the geo political power of states like Russia.
I think the article does a good job suggesting that because people value their time (i.e., time is money), it is quite possible that more people will hop in a car to drive than travel by rail.