Why Do Renewable Energy Sources Need Government Subsidies?

/

If you read the progressive press, or even a little of it, with an interest in matters of energy policy, then surely you know by now that it has become cheaper to produce electricity using the wind and sun than using fossil fuels. You know that because you have read it over and over again, in authoritative articles written by, and quoting, people who seem to know what they are talking about, and with no one ever raising any skeptical questions.

Here are some of the articles that may be among what you have read on this subject:

  • There was the Financial Times on November 8, 2018, in a piece titled “New wind and solar generation costs fall below existing coal plants.” The Financial Times — now there are people who really know what they are talking about. The article mainly relies on a study then just out from investment bank Lazard, reporting on what is called the “Levelized Cost of Energy” for various sources of generation: “The cost of new wind and solar power generation has fallen below the cost of running existing coal-fired plants in many parts of the US . . . New estimates published on Thursday by Lazard, the investment bank, show that it can often be profitable for US generation companies to shut working coal plants and replace their output with wind and solar power.” . . .

Read More

Manhattan Contrarian Quiz: Achieving Perfect Fairness In A Property Tax System

/

Every so often here at Manhattan Contrarian, we have a Quiz. For example, you may remember the big Climate Tipping Points Quiz back in October 2018, or the Racist And Sexist Remarks And Slurs Quiz from August 2018, or even the What Is Science Quiz from April 2017. That last one had only one question. Today’s Quiz is again a one-question test. The question is, How do you achieve perfect fairness in a property tax system? We will consider specifically the property tax system in New York City — which is widely criticized for being both convoluted and also greatly “unfair” — and examine two very different recent demands to fix the “unfairness.” Your task will be to determine which of the two demands will produce success in fixing the unfairness. Three other possible answers to the Quiz are “both,” “neither” and “it is not possible to have a perfectly fair property tax system.”

Before getting to the two demands, perhaps I should mention that the convolutedness of NYC’s current property tax system is very much the result of dozens if not hundreds of tweaks along the way, each seemingly intended to increase the “fairness” of the system as perceived by some particular bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats at some point in time. And yet the complaints only increase. Always, the complainer can point to some respect in which his or her treatment by the system is obviously and grossly “unfair.” This must be fixed immediately!

Our first demand originates with a group called Tax Equity Now NY LLC. . . .

Read More

China Update: The "Reasonably Enlightened Autocrats" At Work

/

It’s almost a decade ago now, but who can forget perhaps the greatest New York Times op-ed of all time, penned by columnist Thomas Friedman in September 2009, with the headline “Our One-Party Democracy.”? In case you are struggling to remember back that far, recall that in the 2008 elections the Democrats had swept to control of all levers of power in Washington — the Presidency and both houses of Congress. And yet still, they didn’t seem to be getting anywhere on issues that Friedman saw as critical, particularly healthcare and “climate change.” All they could do was fight among themselves in the Congress. Oh, wouldn’t it just be so much better if instead of this messy democracy thing, we could have some “reasonably enlightened autocrats” like they have in, say, China, who could address our pressing problems by just promptly imposing the solutions that are so painfully obvious to our genius progressive elites?

[W]hen [one-party autocracy] is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can . . . have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar.

Yes, China and its “reasonably enlightened autocrats” were truly poised back then to seize “climate leadership” from the United States, and relegate us once again to the scrap heap of history. Indeed the phrase “climate leadership” — referring to the enlightened policies of China — became a recurring motif for the Times in the intervening years.

Perhaps it is time to check in for a little update. . . .

Read More

The Total Futility Of Trying To Save The Planet By Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

/
The Total Futility Of Trying To Save The Planet By Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In trendy progressive states here in the U.S., we know how we are going to solve “climate change.” We are going to slash our “greenhouse gas” emissions. Here in New York City, we’re going to reduce our GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. If you don’t believe it, you can just ask Mayor de Blasio. New York State? Same goal, 80% by 2050. California also has a goal of reducing GHG emissions 80% by 2050. Surely, this will solve the problem.

New York and California seem to think that they are big stuff in the world. After all, who is more important than we wealthy coastal U.S. elites? But unfortunately, on a global scale, we don’t really have enough population to count for much. As usual, when it’s time to do the arithmetic, the progressives fall on their faces. Let’s look at some numbers.

New York State has a population of about 20 million. California has about twice that population, 40 million. For comparison, the country of India has a population of about 1.4 billion — about 23 times the combined total of New York and California.

For greenhouse gas emissions, the latest number I find for New York . . .

Read More

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXII

/
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXII

My post from Sunday, which was Part XXI of this series, achieved a record number of readers for any of my posts — around 100,000 and counting — and has 50 comments so far. Thanks to all who have taken the time and effort to comment. Many of the comments are thoughtful and insightful, which I greatly appreciate. Several commenters express doubt or skepticism as to some or all aspects of the post. Being a lover of all doubt and skepticism, I thought it would be worthwhile to respond to some of these questioners.

Several commenters point out that Part XXI discusses only one temperature station — Darwin, Australia — out of about two thousand that are used to produce the world’s official temperature records. For example, Shawn comments:

Ok that's one station one sample over time,, can u do the same for all the other stations around the world.

And NorEastern comments:

The problems with any single point analysis are numerous.
1: Adjustments because of sensor changes are opaque to everybody without an electrical engineering degree. We, the public, cannot evaluate adjustments because we do not have the needed expertise and the device specs.
2: There are tens of thousands of sensors distributed across the globe. . . .

My first recommendation to such questioners is that they read Parts I through XX of the series. If you do that, you will quickly find out that this is not about just one station, but hundreds, if not every single one of the 2000 or so (not “tens of thousands”) that make up the world’s official surface temperature records. . . .

Read More

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time-- Part XXI

/
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time-- Part XXI

Just a few days ago (February 19), I posted part XX of this series. The subject of that post was a new compilation of historical temperatures for Australia (going back to 1910), known as ACORN2, just out from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The effect of ACORN2 was to increase the reported rate of climatic warming in Australia by 0.2 deg C per century over the previous compilation known as ACORN1, which had only been issued about 6+ years ago and had itself also increased the reported rate of warming as against the previous official records by about 0.2 deg C per century. The increased rate of warming is entirely accomplished by adjusting earlier-year temperatures downward.

Could there possibly be anything honest about what is going on? My source for the February 19 post — independent Australian researcher and blogger Joanne Nova — provided a link to the the BoM’s 57-page Research Report that supposedly justified the changes. That document appeared “impenetrable” both to Nova and to me, but maybe some much cleverer person could figure out what they were doing?

Well, now we move to the next step. . . .

Read More