Thus far, I don't believe that the warmists' theories are showing a better predicability for the short term than Dan's article's theory.
The real bottom line of this is that if we think that we need renewable fuels to take over the job of concentrated fossil fuels, how much can we afford to pay for doing so over what period of time.
Just found this notation:
“As an illustration, Germans will be paying more for electricity than any other major participant in the EU, according to the Household Energy Price Index for Europe. In September, Germans paid 40 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity,” the letter reads. “Even the ratepayers in Connecticut, who suffer the highest electricity rates in the U.S. (17 cents per kWh), pay less than half that.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/31/se...#ixzz2s1kc6OrQ
(This is a citation from a letter of 22 Senators to Obama)
As an example, I am paying 10 cents/kwh for electricity. To that one has to add the flat "customer fee" of $18. Let's set aside that flat fee for the moment. Even with my most modest usage during non-AC months, my usage will run about 600-700 kwh. That's $60-$70. Using Germany's cost that would mean $240/mo for electricity! It's like talking about a 400% inflation rate for turning on your lights.
That would mean that every business would also be paying much more as well; every factory, every office, every hospital, every farm, and every govt office! The cost of all our goods and services will increase accordingly.
Who will this hurt the most? The poorest people will hurt the most. Obama won't hurt. Al Gore won't. How many more jobs will go somewhere else where production costs are much less? That is Germany's problem right now, causing them to step back from "renewables" and move more toward NG.
And we would be doing this in the face of the POTUS' own admission that it will have no impact on global warming because India and China will continue to increase their CO2 production as those countries struggle to feed their ever-growing populations. Likely there will be some other Third World countries that will do the same to raise their countries out of desperate poverty.
Rather than debate whether we're warming, whether man is the primary reason for that warming, maybe we should be building the innovation to cope with the effects of climate changes. While bulk of the common people of India and China are still fighting to get somewhere near the standard of living of our poor, only the developed countries have the ability to develop such innovations. We are only in a position to do that with a strong economy. Such an economy is fueled by affordable energy.
It seems that Obama thought NG was a great fuel, lower CO2 pollution, etc. until he found out that we had tons of the stuff. Then it was not "clean" enough. Maybe we need to find a way to recycle our nuclear energy waste products and make nuclear safer? No CO2 from nuclear.
Meanwhile, if we really want to contain human-caused CO2, it might be a lot more cost effective to give free birth control to the countries whose population growth far exceeds their ability to feed and care for their increasing populations.