Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Bubba]

OK…arguing about whether something specific is or isn’t a subsidy still misses the point. All of them, whether tax credits, tax deductions, direct purchase price reduction, all of them are subsidies of one sort of another. No. If we didn’t choose to subsidize certain behaviors, we would eliminate them all and have a flat tax with no deductions or credits of any kind.

A flat tax on what? Income? Isn't income gross revenue minus expenses? Are you going to argue expensing a capital purchase like a groomer is not a legitimate expense and therefore is a "subsidy of one sort or another"?

The choice of what constitutes a capital expenditure and what is an expense is an accounting decision (an art rather than a science). Not really.
Once it is decided that something is capital, how it is treated in the tax code is a political decision, ie what to encourage via tax treatment. In other words, a subsidy No. of that which one wants to encourage.

In general, expenses for items that are used up in a year are expensed immediately. Buy fuel for the groomer, deduct it immediately. Expenses for large items that last a long time are (in general) not allowed to be completely expensed in the year of purchase, but the expense must be spread out to reflect the lifetime of the item. Like a truck or a groomer, or a lift. Nothing political about it.

Yeah, again, capital expenses are normally deducted via depreciation over the life expectancy of the capital acquired. Oil companies get a special dispensation from the government where they can elect to deduct the entire amount of capital expenditure for oil drilling/exploration all at once instead of over many years. Yes, but this does not make it a subsidy.

You can argue all you want about calling it a subsidy or not, but you can't really dispute that it is a major special benefit granted to oil companies. I'm not saying we should take it away, or that it's bad policy. But lets not be blind to what it is. It is a special benefit whose value exceeds all the EV credits paid out in any given year. No, it is a special method of depreciation that reflect the risk, there is no net benefit over time.

The "net benefit over time"* of all accelerated depreciation is zero. Depreciation is just a timeline (greater than one year) of expensing large purchases. It affects cash flow, ie deduct me now or deduct me later. The total deduction over time is still the same. It only affects the tax year(s) in which the expense is taken. Equating a difference of tax year of a deduction method with an actual credit off the tax bill has no foundation, other than to try to justify EV subsidies to people that don't understand how our tax code works.

it sounds like an accelerated rate of depreciation. They still get to deduct 100% of the cost, just over a shorter period of time. With many multiple wells being drilled each year, over time it must balance out. And they have no idea how long these wells will produce oil/ income.

Ding Ding! No surprise this concise answer comes from someone who has actually filled out a form 4562 for depreciation on his taxes. Here we see no net benefit. Accelerated depreciation can be a cash flow benefit if equipment purchase is done unevenly, but the net effect is still no subsidy. It is not political. This is very different and distinct from an actual tax credit. The credit is never recovered by the IRS, you get to keep it. It is a credit against your total tax bill, you get to keep more dollars in your pocket. We have a different word for that and that word is - subsidy.

Easydriver cannot deduct the cost of a car he drives for personal use. If he buys an EV. the government says, 'thank you, reduce your tax bill by $7,500.' Easydriver writes a check for $7,500 less than he would otherwise that year to the IRS. That's different than depreciation. It's a real discount paid for by the government. (It doesn't even require business use) It's a subsidy.

So back to Exxon. Yes, they get a few different depreciation methods than others get, but they reflect the unique nature of their business. Commercial real estate has different depreciation rules that reflects their business. Neither one gets a subsidy. Neither one matters if you earn 500 billion or 500 thousand. It just sounds better to blame a billion dollar company if you have an agenda.

*You could argue net present value differences for uneven cash flow years, but that is too far in the weeds.
**Do not confuse cash flow with after tax cash , ie money in your pocket.

Seriously? Now you're making me laugh a little. You speak as if these rules are God-given, absolute rules of accounting as if they cannot be changed. Accounting rules have developed over time, made by man and can be changed by man. It happens all the time. Someone at some point in time figured out that depreciation of an asset over time made sense (I agree) but that period of time varies according to other man-made rules. We have accelerated depreciation, normal depreciation, even electric utilities that have multiple sets of books with different rules of depreciation. You even acknowledge that oil companies have different forms of depreciation for different purposes, rules made by government for specific purposes (encouragement of certain activities through the tax code, ie subsidization) so, at this point, you're making no sense. You may not want to call it a subsidy but if government is providing a benefit for some activities through the tax code they are effectively subsidizing that activity. And, if government is making that decision through the tax code, it is by definition political.

[Big Bob]

If I pay for an asset fully that tax year, I deduct the full amount that year so i don't pay taxes on it.It's called a Section 179 deduction, it does have upper limits and tests to qualify. That makes the most sense to me as a small buisness man. And drilling for fossil fuesl is a crap shoot, you don't always strike oil. Can a dry well be written off in the tax year that it was drilled? It was a total waste of cash!

[Bubba]

IMG_4287.jpeg (219.86 KiB) Viewed 12438 times

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Judith Curry: How Climate “Science” Got Hijacked by Alarmists
One of the key elements which makes the "climate consensus" argument seem so compelling (if you don't have the time or inclination to try to understand the actual science) is the idea that "ALL THE SCIENTISTS AGREE!"

Well actually they don't but... why do SO MANY agree... if the actual science is quite weak?? This video explains why this is so. MOST published scientists agree with ideas that are not scientifically compelling. This video explains why.

This is a GREAT video, explaining in a compact format, the story of Judith Curry. She is a personal hero.

She was a celebrated "climate scientist." Then she did what an actual scientist should do... respond to her critics. In that process she started to understand the actual dynamics within "climate science" and tried to help correct errors in the field. When she did this, just like with any other cult, she was punished.

It takes less than ten minutes to understand how ONLY consensus are allowed funding... and why claims of a consensus are indeed an artifact of government funding policies.

If you actually believe the "consensus must be correct" argument and care about the planet (so many of you seem to care) take the time to watch this short video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVi01vJ4nxM

[twilkas]

Huff's book "How to Lie with Statistics" '54, Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" '88, spell out concepts of what's going on currently. Good for Judith for sticking to her training, need more from the likes of her. I'm alarmed at the dismissiveness; if stats and facts so horribly wrong amongst trained scientists, debate it, that shouldn't be a problem, should be welcomed in that profession. It's an industry with many getting paid good money, won't change anytime soon.

[asher2789]

Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" '88

i love seeing references to chomsky out in the wild

i dont really follow this thread because i dont see the point in debating the finer details of an obvious problem that has been infected with muddying propagandist sh*t from the fossil fuel companies for decades (talk about manufacturing consent...), but this summer has made it obvious to me that we are doomed no matter what we do at this point (and individual actions dont solve systemic problems, but capitalism works on making individuals feel like things are their fault and not the byproduct of a structural failure due to corporate greed and capture of politicians). even if we stopped consuming all fossil fuels tomorrow (impossible), what were witnessing now is the baked in results of overshoot. and its only going to get worse, because year after year we manage to consume more, not less, fossil fuels. and weve already surpassed peak oil in 2004... infinite growth is a cancer in any other system but in the west its FREEDOM!!!!111!!1!! and dont you dare criticize an economic system that incentivizes this behavior! better yet, MOVE! if you dont like leave and let the door hit you on the way out! vuvuzeula!! ifone!! (typical boomer response to anyone under 40 criticizing their failure of leadership for the past four decades leaving the rest of us with a giant mess to deal with when theyre dead)

• yellowknife, capital of the northwest territories in canada, 20k people with one road out, 900 miles to the next major area, evacuated due to fire risk.
• kelowna, town in british columbia, 30k people evacuated due to fire risk.
• maui, tragic fires killed at least 100 people, with ~800 missing, became tragic via drought conditions and strong winds from a hurricane.
• the atlantic by florida is hot tub temperature.
• category 4 hurricane went up the pacific coast of mexico, to make landfall as a cat 1 and hit socal as a tropical storm. thats totally normal.
• south america broke all time high temperatures... in the middle of their winter.
• the lack of antarctic ice this winter (our summer) is a six sigma event.
• phoenix had over a month of temps over 110 every day where simply falling on the pavement would lead to severe burns and hospitalization.
• the south had a string of wet bulb temperatures that would make human life impossible without AC (and will likely become one of the first mass casualty events of climate change in the west, when the power grid eventually fails).
• the northeast, including VT, has had catastrophic crop failures due to the endless deluge of r*in, with entire towns flooded, adding to the housing crisis as well. mount washington recorded the most rainfall this summer ever since theyve been taking measurements, 43" so far, previous record was 36". imagine if that was snow?
• oh and the AMOC is collapsing, which is going to lead to more erratic weather and crop failures and who knows what else.
• the oceans are warmer than ever, which means the weather is going to become more erratic and harder to predict than ever before. twice this summer already ive been in flash flood risks for r*ins that werent even predicted, let alone the absurd quantity falling in such a short time.

all these people losing their homes and livelihoods to climate change, worldwide, is going to lead to societal collapse. were not going to be able to handle the influx of climate refugees and the displaced. the dumbing down of education since bush's no child left behind act (which i luckily missed most of the harm of) has led to a population that completely lacks critical thinking skills. 20% of the population is illiterate and almost 50% cant even read at a sixth grade level, which is the level of literacy necessary to think critically. the end result is going to be fascism, as it is the natural end point of capitalism. people who lack critical thinking skills are prime targets for fascist leaders.

[Heywood jablowmee]

I’ll take “Cliff Notes” for a thousand, Alex.

[Mister Moose]

20230918_132604.jpg (98.15 KiB) Viewed 12048 times

[Mister Moose]

Wall Street Journal
Editorial Board

U.S. coal emissions this year will be roughly half as much as in 2015. Liquefied natural gas exports to Europe also helped replace Russian gas while a relatively warm winter reduced demand for heating fuel. Not that the West’s emissions reductions will matter much as long as China and India continue to build more coal plants.

China’s emissions this year are set to climb by 0.5 gigatons while India’s will increase by 0.3 gigatons. Last year China approved 106 gigawatts of new coal power, four times as much as in 2021 and about as much as the peak electricity demand in France and Britain combined. Western leaders can keep tilting at windmills while China burns more coal.

Irony alert: China’s National Development and Reform Commission says that at least 200 gigawatts of coal capacity will be needed to support its solar and wind energy build-out. [...] Solar and wind energy can provide cheap power at the margin but must be backed up by fossil fuels or nuclear power. Batteries are getting better, but they are still expensive and can’t scale.

In other words, in the name of reducing CO2 emissions, China is increasing CO2 emissions. That more or less sums up the failure of the climate lobby.

[Bubba]

CFV: Poll results show Vermonters at odds with lawmakers on carbon reduction

https://vermontbiz.com/news/2023/decemb ... iB85LPzmjN

[Bubba]

IMG_4683.jpeg (106.4 KiB) Viewed 11258 times