cg22165 (Chris Golledge)


Comment history

Letter: A better future

You are right; there is loss associated with transporting energy. There is a lot of wind energy potential here in Kansas. I wonder if access to cheap energy would attract or repulse companies looking to set up a manufacturing plant?

April 23, 2015 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: A better future

The short answer to your question is yes, energy and everything produced by energy will become a little more expensive.

How much? Well, fossil fuels used for energy represent about 7% of our GDP, and the cost of the energy used to produce something is reflected in the final cost. It is not straightforward to determine how much prices will increase because some alternatives will not scale well and some will enjoy economies of scale that they currently don't. And, it is hard to predict what balance of alternatives the market will settle on.

Nuclear could be around 1% more expensive than coal, and wind could be around 15% less expensive.

One percent of 7% is not very much; nuclear is a viable option. After the initial investment, areas with access to wind energy (like Kansas) would see declining costs for electricity.

Yeap, it is likely that air transport will rise proportionately more than other transportation systems that do not require liquid fuels. Biodiesel is a viable option because the tax only applies to carbon pulled from the ground as fuel and released into the air as CO2.

Pick your poison, a little bit more expensive energy during the transition phase, or rapidly growing costs for things like food over the long haul. One study in particular out of K-State indicates a 20% loss in winter wheat yields per acre for every degree Celsius of warming.

April 23, 2015 at 12:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas ponders new protections for campus religious groups

The are constitutional rights to assemble and speak. There is no constitutional right to be supported by a government institution while speaking or assembling.

April 12, 2015 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate change

The first person to put forward the idea that burning fossil fuels would Chang the climate was Arrhenius in 1896. How old are you?

April 10, 2015 at 8:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate change

Try to stay on topic; the charge was that only liberals would support such a tax. Are Schultz and Paulson liberals?

But sure, I'll take the bait. Would you considered your own opinion on policy and economics to be more, or less, fallible than Schultz and Paulson?

April 10, 2015 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate change

Fred, I was unaware that people like George Schultz and Hank Paulson (George W. Bush's Secretary of the Treasury) are on the liberal end of the spectrum. There are a fair number of conservatives who have come around to the idea that increasing the price of carbon-based fuels is the most cost effective and least government intrusive way to mitigate climate change.

Yes, this tax is the answer. If you want to motivate the market, change the price structure. Fossil fuels are artificially low in price because the damages they cause are not reflected in their price. See Pigouvian Tax,

BTW, we already have the technology required to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, not that improvements can't always be made. Energy companies just need incentive to use them.

April 9, 2015 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Florida’s Scott deep in climate denial

Who gets to decide what violates decorum?

March 24, 2015 at 2:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Florida’s Scott deep in climate denial

I already gave you what you asked for. Moore said there is no proof, but there are 150 years of lab experiments and direct observations of the effects that our CO2 production has.

If you don't understand the evidence showing the effects of CO2, I can only suggest taking some physics courses, or accepting that there are things you don't understand. Doubtless, you are unwilling to do either of those, or we would not be having this conversation.

March 24, 2015 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Florida’s Scott deep in climate denial

Here is a tip-of-the-iceberg explanation as to why Scott and others are called deniers.

Conservation of energy is a scientific law. Gas spectroscopy is a well established science over 150 years old. Tyndall was one of the early pioneers. Here is a picture of Earth's energy output. There is a rather obvious notch taken out of the spectrum by CO2. This notch gets bigger as the amount of CO2 increases; this fits the theory developed in laboratories and it has been observed by infrared cameras in orbit around the earth. The suns energy continues to flow in, but increasing CO2 reduces the outflow. Energy builds up within the system, and the earth warms up. It warms up until energy outflow again equals energy inflow.

Scott's, Moore's, and Groenhagen's beliefs are at odds with observable facts.

Kevin, if you aren't aware of the connection between Tyndall, gas spectroscopy, and why the article linked to by Bob Smith is full of incorrect statements like, "I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change ... There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis...", maybe you should refrain from commenting.

March 24, 2015 at 12:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Florida’s Scott deep in climate denial

Maybe you should clarify who you think is the useful idiot, yourself?

March 24, 2015 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )