Is Climate-Friendy Flying Possible? The US Tries Subsidizing Sustainable Aviation Fuels (msn.com) 138
"Unlike automobiles, jumbo jets cannot run on batteries," notes the Washington Post.
So Friday the White unveiled a plan for "subsidizing sustainable aviation fuels" — which could also give the U.S. a leg up in a brand new industry: Senior White House officials said the program would make the airline industry cleaner while bringing prosperity to rural America. But environmental groups and some scientists expressed reservations about the plan, which would award subsidies based on a scientific model that has previously been used to justify incentives for corn-based ethanol. Studies have found the gasoline additive is exacerbating climate change.
The new tax credits, created through President Biden's signature climate law, are meant to spur production of jet fuels that create no more than half the emissions of the petroleum-based product. Each gallon of such fuel qualifies for a tax credit up to $1.75 per gallon. "The concern is they will end up subsidizing fuels that take an enormous amount of land to produce," said Tim Searchinger, a senior research scholar at Princeton University... Administration officials said on a call with reporters Thursday that they are carefully weighing such concerns. Agencies are in the process of updating the scientific model for gauging climate friendliness of jet fuels, they said, and it will be revised to factor in the emissions impact of cropland converted from food to fuel production. Federal agencies plan to complete their revisions by March 1.
"The sustainable aviation fuel industry is a potential 36 billion gallon industry that for all intents and purposes is just getting started," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on the call. "This is a big, big deal."
So Friday the White unveiled a plan for "subsidizing sustainable aviation fuels" — which could also give the U.S. a leg up in a brand new industry: Senior White House officials said the program would make the airline industry cleaner while bringing prosperity to rural America. But environmental groups and some scientists expressed reservations about the plan, which would award subsidies based on a scientific model that has previously been used to justify incentives for corn-based ethanol. Studies have found the gasoline additive is exacerbating climate change.
The new tax credits, created through President Biden's signature climate law, are meant to spur production of jet fuels that create no more than half the emissions of the petroleum-based product. Each gallon of such fuel qualifies for a tax credit up to $1.75 per gallon. "The concern is they will end up subsidizing fuels that take an enormous amount of land to produce," said Tim Searchinger, a senior research scholar at Princeton University... Administration officials said on a call with reporters Thursday that they are carefully weighing such concerns. Agencies are in the process of updating the scientific model for gauging climate friendliness of jet fuels, they said, and it will be revised to factor in the emissions impact of cropland converted from food to fuel production. Federal agencies plan to complete their revisions by March 1.
"The sustainable aviation fuel industry is a potential 36 billion gallon industry that for all intents and purposes is just getting started," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on the call. "This is a big, big deal."
Can be paid for (Score:3, Insightful)
...by taxing normal air-fuel like any other fuel.
Jo Sixpack pays taxes on his fuel, Jo Billionaire should too.
Re:Can be paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
...by taxing normal air-fuel like any other fuel.
Tax-free aviation fuel is stupid, but the rationale is that other countries don't tax it, so America shouldn't tax it either to remain competitive. It is an economic race to the bottom.
Let's do some math: TFA says aviation uses 36 billion gallons annually. Google says an acre of soybeans produces 60 gallons of oil. So we'd need 600 million acres of soybeans just for aviation.
Google also says that America has 384M acres of arable land. So 156% of it needs to be used for aviation fuel.
So this appears to be a ridiculously unworkable plan.
Instead of subsidizing green fuel, we should tax regular fuel. That will bring in revenue rather than spending it and incentivize alternatives and conservation. The tax revenues could be used for something sensible, like building more wind turbines.
Re: (Score:3)
A *stupid* race to the bottom, since airlines in other countries are not actually in competition with airlines in the US. If they want to operate here, they'd end up paying the same taxes.
Hear, hear on a fuel tax. Or a fossil-carbon tax. Personally I'd tax all fossil carbon products upon extraction or importation into the country, perhaps with a VAT-like system to waive whatever carbon taxes they can prove were already paid overseas. That would also catch a lot of synthetic fertilizers, which are pumpin
Re: (Score:2)
A *stupid* race to the bottom, since airlines in other countries are not actually in competition with airlines in the US. If they want to operate here, they'd end up paying the same taxes.
That isn't the competitiveness they are talking about. It is the competitiveness of businesses in general in the US. Business travelers are 12% of all air traffic in the US. And the US tourism industry makes $1.9 trillion per year. If it is more expensive to fly into the US than to fly to international destinations, that would impact the travel industry in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
That would only affect *outbound* flights, not inbound, for which the fuel would be bought overseas. And you could easily offer tax exemption exclusively to international flights if that's your concern.
Not to mention, a worldwide tax exemption on aviation fuel seems like it should be a major target for those international climate mitigation agreements in the first place. Why the F are we all subsidizing airlines compared to other modes of transportation?
Re: Can be paid for (Score:2)
God you people are stupid. This has nothing to do with whether you should for revenue but whether you legally can charge vessels under a different flag taxes.
You canâ(TM)t, therefore vessels would stop operating under the US flag and operate under a flag of convenience, thereby losing income taxes, jobs and regulatory control.
And itâ(TM)s not like we donâ(TM)t have precedent on stupid people attempting to tax stupid things and evaporating the entire (maritime) industry.
You donâ(TM)t need
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to tax vessels flying a different flag, don't.
Tax the people selling them fuel, when *they* buy it. They're already paying income tax on the income from selling fuel to foreign customers, a carbon tax paid at the point that the carbon is brought into the US economy would be no different.
Though frankly I suspect the foreign sailors already pay sales tax on the latte they buy at the coffee shop on the dock, so I suspect the issue is not so problematic as you portray. You buy a product in
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of subsidizing green fuel, we should tax regular fuel. That will bring in revenue rather than spending it and incentivize alternatives and conservation.
The benefit of subsidizing good behavior instead of taxing poor behavior is that is arguably easier to target wealthier individuals and companies with progressive taxation than it is to target spending with progressive taxation. Taxation on aviation fuel will make flying more expensive for everyone, and it will mostly affect middle class behavior since the wealthy can more easily pay the extra taxes.
Re: Can be paid for (Score:2, Informative)
Flying is a luxury - it *should* be expensive. You don't *need* to cross the country on a regular basis, you really don't. Stay home, or vacation someplace closer to home. Take a bus or a train.
Yes, I eat my own cooking - I haven't been on a plane in over 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can be paid for (Score:5, Informative)
Are you referring to Article 24 of the Chicago Convention? If so, that only says that a country cannot tax fuel that comes in on a plane and stays on that plane -- it is intended to prevent double taxation of that fuel. A country can tax fuel that is put into planes, although that's supposed to be uniform regardless of the plane's origin.
Europe has a separate tax directive (the Energy Taxation Directive (2003/96/EG) of 27 October 2003) that prohibits EU members from doing so. The US taxes aviation fuel at both federal and state [wikipedia.org] levels.
Re: (Score:2)
While fuel and/or energy taxes may be applied to domestic aviation, Article 24(a) of the Chicago Convention states that “(f)uel . . . on board an aircraft of a contracting state . . . shall be exempt from customs duty, inspection fees or similar national duties or charges.”4 This provision was extended by the ICAO Council in a 1999 Resolution, which states: “ fuel taken on board for consumption” by an aircraft from a contracting state in the territory of another contracting State departing for the territory of any other State shall be exempt from all customs or other duties
And about the EU:
in 2000, the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee called on the European Commission to pursue negotiations to amend the Chicago Convention to allow for the taxation of fuel for environmental purposes. No such renegotiation of the Chicago Convention occurred and this historic ban on fuel taxes remains in force today
From an IATA brief [senate.gov]. Though I've no idea about the legal details of all this.
Re: (Score:3)
The ICAO Council doesn't have the authority to create international law or modify treaties. They can recommend things, but their resolutions don't have independent legal effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US, Canada and Japan all tax jet fuel. The EU regulation I mentioned specifically allows taxation of aviation fuel for domestic flights or with bilateral agreements between the countries. The resolution of the ICAO Council is pretty clearly not binding, given that evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do some math: TFA says aviation uses 36 billion gallons annually. Google says an acre of soybeans produces 60 gallons of oil. So we'd need 600 million acres of soybeans just for aviation. Google also says that America has 384M acres of arable land. So 156% of it needs to be used for aviation fuel. So this appears to be a ridiculously unworkable plan.
Sure, if you use the wrong crop, or if you don't improve the fuel efficiency of aircraft. How about not quitting without actually trying first.
Re:Can be paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if you use the wrong crop, or if you don't improve the fuel efficiency of aircraft. How about not quitting without actually trying first.
With enough effort, maybe we can cut the land required from 156% to 120%.
Or maybe, just maybe, trying to fix climate change by burning food is a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a giant desert on the end of Africa that can be planted with a plant that can easily release its sugars.
Like this one. [cleantechnica.com] Again, don't quit before you actually try. And while the article is from 2014, that doesn't mean that it's not relevant today. It just means that that is when the breakthrough happened.
Re: Can be paid for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid is what you call it when:
1. After thousands of years, an informed generation finally arises and throws off its dictatorial, taxing opressors and starts their own nation.
2. This generation does their very best to preserve their newfound freedom by creating a novel "bill of rights", honest money, and prohibiting national taxation.
3. time passes, and each generation becomes less informed, and less aware of what their ancestors understood and fought for.
4. finally, a weak generation allows power-mongers (human parasites) to take control with a debt-based monetary system and national tax.
5. more generations pass and we reach final idiocracy stage with degenerates like you cheering on the very thing that the founders of this country gave their lives to thow off.
just to put things in perspective. not that you'll understand.
A common theme whenever CO2 emissions come up is the suggestion to "just tax" fossil fuels more. In the USA there is no taxation without representation, at least that's the theory. If there is to be a tax then someone has to vote for it. People don't like seeing their fuel taxed. Because people don't like seeing their fuel taxed the taxes aren't shown separately on the sales receipt when buying fuel. If people were reminded on how much they paid in taxes on fuel with every receipt then I expect they'd
Re: Can be paid for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because we all know billionaires would be the only ones paying that tax. Oh wai-
Re: (Score:2)
...by taxing normal air-fuel like any other fuel.
Jo Sixpack pays taxes on his fuel, Jo Billionaire should too.
That won't make the engines any more efficient but it might put a lot of airlines out of business.
Maybe you want flying to go back to being a thing that only rich people can do.
Re: Can be paid for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you want flying to go back to being a thing that only rich people can do.
Isn't that the point though? Using less fossil fuels.
And if flying should be for everyone. Just wait until the billions of poor people in Africa etc want to do it as much as Americans do. Of course it's only a problem when they do it. You're entitled to. You're American *waves flag*
Aviation is responsible for 12% of global CO2 emissions from all transport sources with commercial aviation accounting for about 3%. Compare that to road transport which is responsible for 74% of global CO2 emissions from all transport sources and we should be worrying a lot more about all those people wanting to buy diesel and gasoline motor vehicles.
Time to charge for arrogance. (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of governments taxing the shit out of every citizen to fund "subsidies", how about we consider raising the price of flying so it becomes the deterrent it should be today.
No, in fact I'm NOT talking about punishing the commoner who flies in fucking pajamas for $59. I'm talking about levying a 1,000%+ tax increase on every gallon pumped into every private plane, so that the arrogance inside of it can pay as they fucking should for all this pollution.
Re:Time to charge for arrogance. (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of governments taxing the shit out of every citizen to fund "subsidies"
Joe never saw a subsidy he doesn't like, but he's not paying for them with taxes. The cost is going onto the debt pile.
The debt increased by $1.7 trillion this year.
how about we consider raising the price of flying
Because taxes are politically unpopular and 2024 is an election year. If Joe Biden slaps a significant tax on aviation fuel, Donald Trump will be our next president.
No, in fact I'm NOT talking about punishing the commoner who flies
So you want to ignore 99% of the problem.
I'm talking about levying a 1,000%+ tax increase on every gallon pumped into every private plane
Billionaires in private jets are a negligible part of the problem.
Re:Time to charge for arrogance. (Score:4, Insightful)
Joe never saw a subsidy he doesn't like
Of course not. Why would governments not like it? Governments have two ways of enacting policy: monetary and regulatory. You can either tax/subsidise, or you can enact rules and enforce them.
I don't know why you think a government would not "like" to do this, it's literally their purpose. I don't know why you think this is a "Joe" thing, presumably you are so partisan as to be blinded to the fact that governments work this way.
Re:Time to charge for arrogance. (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of governments taxing the shit out of every citizen to fund "subsidies", how about we consider raising the price of flying
Ironically you could simply start by taxing jet fuel, but I'm not sure why you think this is an "instead" situation. Ultimately citizens pay for their flights.
Re: Time to charge for arrogance. (Score:2)
Somehow (Score:3)
This will end up costing me money.
Re: Somehow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your chart shows emissions going down. If it is too slow for you that is just too bad.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Energy per mile is too high, and costs more per weight. Unless batteries can be made lighter then air, we are stuck with fossil fuels for Air Travel (unless some other miracle energy is found).
We would be better off if the US gov builds real high speed electric train systems instead. Plane travel should be limited to flying across the ocean, where people pay a premium to off set CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Energy per mile is too high, and costs more per weight. Unless batteries can be made lighter then air, we are stuck with fossil fuels for Air Travel (unless some other miracle energy is found).
That doesn't follow. Sure, batteries are too heavy. But aviation biofuel is a non-fossil-fuel alternative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"As of 2022, some 450,000 flights had used sustainable fuels as part of the fuel mix, although such fuels were ~3x more expensive than the traditional fossil jet fuel or kerosene."
Re: (Score:3)
Energy per mile is too high, and costs more per weight. Unless batteries can be made lighter then air, we are stuck with fossil fuels for Air Travel (unless some other miracle energy is found).
It's possible to synthesize fuel with sustainable electricity.
So let's do that part first and come back to aviation later...
Re: (Score:2)
Climate-friendly flying? Sure it's possible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Unless batteries can be made lighter then air,
That is exactly what I would propose. The Airlander 10 will have an electric version, and while the batteries themselves keep a positive weight, the batteries including the airframe will weigh next to nothing.
This would be ideal at least for short-haul flights.
No. (Score:2, Informative)
It can't.
Next question
no prob (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple: if you are worried about climate, don't fly. Problem solved.
Re:no prob (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple: if you are worried about climate, don't fly. Problem solved.
Thanks for explaining that! I'll be sure to bring it up when I jet off to the next climate meeting!
Re: (Score:3)
Simple: if you are worried about climate, don't fly. Problem solved.
Oh that's good. I have an electric car, solar panels, and don't fly. I guess I solved global warming everywhere! Who knew that I alone was the cause of all the problems. Wow. If you'll excuse me I have to go sit and do some introspection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how we love to visit faraway places with interesting architecture and narrow streets and charming little corner cafes that we viciously fight to keep out of our own communities because noise and property values and how will emergency vehicles navigate [strongtowns.org] the street and where will everyone park?
Indeed "nice place to visit but I would not want to live there" is more than just a saying.
Polluter pays (Score:5, Interesting)
The fundamental rule of the environment is that 'the polluter pays'. If you release a problematic chemical into the environment, you should be expected to pay for the consequences of your decision. In the case of jet fuel this means that it should be subject to a 'carbon tax' reflecting the amount of CO2 that its use will emit.
Once that principle in place many of the market failures surrounding pollution in general and this issue in particular rapidly start to be corrected, and strong incentive emerge to correct the pollution that is occurring.
It will help if all the money raised in getting polluters to pay is returned to the general population explicitly - ideally by a basic income payment - to help ensure that ordinary people don't get herded into rejecting this because they will be losing out.
Re: (Score:3)
The income tax is a last-century solution that requires a huge man-hours to comply with and enforce. A consumption tax is far simpler and gets rid of tax forms and April 15. All taxes are collected at checkout.
We could also tax items based on their environmental or health effects. Airplane fuel could be taxed to get more people to fly commercial instead of private jets. Plus we could tax bananas less and junk food more.
Re:Polluter pays (Score:5, Informative)
A major problem with consumption (sales) taxes is that they're inherently regressive (when your income gets near the livable-wage threshold they basically just become a second layer of income tax, and as your income increases they become increasingly negligible and avoidable through travel), and they don't solve the labor-intensity issue so much as they spread it out over everything. Instead of doing taxes once a year, it just adds to the taxes every business has to stay on top of constantly, and that every consumer has to be aware of every time they check out.
Which is where the Basic Income idea comes in (Score:2)
This ensures that the regressiveness is massively reduced as the rich heavy spender spend more and the cash goes back to everybody
But I'm not proposing replacing income tax, merely adding a 'tax' that reflects the real cost to society of the items being purchased.
Re: Which is where the Basic Income idea comes in (Score:2)
Sales taxes mean that you either wind up with worse approximations or special rules, or they are just plain unfair.
Poor people spend a larger percentage of their income on necessities, so they wind up spending a larger percentage of their income on taxes on necessities.
Income taxes work fine if you don't let people get stuff from corporations without being taxed, like expensive vehicles and lodging. If the corporation can be used as a bank and tax dodge then they don't. Also, if you don't give a break on Ca
Re: (Score:2)
Did you reply wrong?
No. The person to whom I replied was suggesting increasing sales taxes. I replied to exactly the person to whom I meant to reply. Did you fail to follow the thread?
Re: (Score:2)
You need to go back and re-read from the beginning.
You need go back and re-read the comment to which I replied. A sentence is meant to be a complete thought. If a comment is not then what are we doing here?
Re: Which is where the Basic Income idea comes in (Score:2)
'Polluter pays' is not a tax (Score:2)
It's an attempt to remove the market failure. If I cause damage, I should pay to clean up that damage. Failing to do so is to give a free pass to damaging the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Polluter pays (Score:5, Informative)
The first income tax levied in the US was a war-time measure during the Civil War. One of the ways it was sold to the public was by pointing out that the minimum income required was high enough that "no man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow" would need to pay it.
Yes. (Score:2)
Yes. Absolutely.
Just probably not in hideously inefficient airplanes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
sustainable (Score:4, Funny)
Sustainable means net zero, even if that's not good enough. If we suck that carbon out of the atmosphere, and reuse it by making jet fuel, it goes back into the atmosphere where we can remove it and reuse it again ... economies of scale make this even better, we can use the carbon for other things too
Question: (Score:2)
Can someone explain why we're pushing sustainable aviation fuels in the same year we sandbagged attempts to get an alternative for *LEADED* avgas?
It *feels* like dealing with LEAD, Chemical Element Pb, the chemical that makes your kids angry and stupid, should be a wee bit more important than CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
They're basically two separate problems at two very different scales. Global warming is a big deal affecting everyone, leaded avgas is a fairly niche problem mostly affecting people who live near small airports. For those who may not know, avgas is what small piston-engined aircraft like Cessnas run on, not the jet fuel that powers almost any plane you can get onto by buying a ticket from an airline.
It's also currently a much bigger problem to run small planes on unleaded avgas (most small plane engines are
According to plan (Score:2)
Green fuel will be more expensive, which will drive up the price of travel with a resultant decrease in the number of people flying...
Hydrogen (Score:2)
I believe jumbo jets could run on hydrogen and that would be "climate friendly", at least the burning of it in the sky. Though I don't know if we are able to store it densely enough yet to be practical.
Also, hydrogen producing wells have been discovered in the past few years, so that's kind of interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
H2 can also be used as feedstock for the synthesis of long chain hydrocarbons.
Another question that needs answering (Score:2)
Re: Another question that needs answering (Score:2)
Yes, it is possible. (Score:3)
CrisPER should be trying to get people to grow wings.
Can't run on batteries? I disagree (Score:3)
Hmm...
The washington Post thinks that "Jumbo Jets can't run on batteries"? I disagree.
Well, they're sort of correct, in that a "jet" is a plane with a specific style of combustion engine, so can't be electric.
But we can absolutely make "jumbo" airplanes that can fly and have useful ranges with batteries today. Though that'd be an engineering possible, not a cost possible. It'd be too expensive. You'd also still need hydrocarbon fueled planes for the longest routes. It's the shorter commuter routes that we could do with batteries.
Still, even if we converted only 50% of flights, that's a lot of CO2 avoided.
We could also possibly do some crazy stuff like build giant catapults, perhaps even ramp type runways. If you provide like 90% of the energy to get up to takeoff speed, that's less battery that you need.
Hmmm...
Takeoff: 160-180 mph
Cruising: 550-600 mph
Altitude: 33-42k feet.
(Because I'm an american, google assumes I'd prefer imperial units over metric)(I'm rounding A LOT)
180 mph = 80 m/s (I'm taking high end because we WANT to dump as much energy in if we're going to do this)
550 mph = 250 m/s (going with lower end because we're looking more at shorter flights, might not get as fast)
33k feet = 9km
Because we're looking at ratios, not total mass, I'm just going to go with "1 kg of plane"
Takeoff energy: 3,200 J
Cruise energy: 31,250 J
Height energy: 90,000 J (Rounded G to 10).
(crunches math): Okay, KE at takeoff ~3% of KE+GE at cruise altitude and speed. Doing crazy things with runways might not be worth it for 3% savings in battery. Might be more worth it if you're not going to get that high or fast because you're descending before you get there. But since that's not all flights...
Anyways, we can do a lot with current batteries and electric propulsion technology, we should be able to do more if any of the crazy proposals work out that are supposed to beat the pants off of LiIon. Hell, the crazy aluminum battery that isn't directly rechargeable, but holds like 10X the energy of LiIon. Just replace the pack each flight.
Maybe as a hybrid? (Score:2)
I don't drive, but if I understand correctly, before Tesla's success there was the Toyota Prius which is a Hybrid. It seems logical large aircraft would start out as a hybrid too.
EVs have excellent torque which probably doesn't matter to an aircraft engine taking off or otherwise. Aircraft might benefit from being electric while cruising. Someone will figure something this out.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this is that turbine engines in planes are very efficient and you don't have lots of opportunities to recover energy in flight. Hybrids make sense because of regenerative braking, which planes don't do in flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You actually recover most of the mgh part, as the plane coasts down to a landing.
The wasted energy is the landing speed around 120 mph.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you effectively recover that energy. It's often called "gliding", though jets normally keep some engine going to provide power to the plane's systems and the extra control - the ability to throttle up quickly.
It isn't regenerative in the sense that you're storing power back into batteries. It's straight up that you're converting height into forward momentum, even traditionally powered planes do it on descent. Matter of fact, that's the primary way you descend - simply throttle back.
Think of it like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but you have to spend the energy anyways. You go that high to get the lower losses from atmospheric friction. But you still need to land, and you still get distance from it.
As distance tends to be the point, it isn't straight up lost.
the real cause (Score:2)
energy required for flight (Score:2)
This is the same stupidity. (Score:2)
The one that previous proponents of ethanol have said were wrong... Throwing money at a particular solution makes us use it, but it ignores if it's a good solution. No, I did not vote to let those talking heads be my armchair scientist for a day.
US Navy has been working on this for a long time. (Score:2)
The US Navy has been working on a jet fuel they can produce at sea using power from nuclear fission and raw material from seawater. The goal is to be able to fuel aircraft, and other things but mostly aircraft, without needing to have fuel brought in by tanker ships. While being carbon neutral wasn't the goal of the program it just happens to be carbon neutral. This is a program that has been begging for funds from the beginning, living off of whatever spare change they can scrape up to keep their experi
Re: US Navy has been working on this for a long ti (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...so suggesting we wait for this is just saying...
Who is suggesting we wait for this technology? I did not. I'm suggesting that the US Navy get funding for their sustainable fuel program if the administration is in the mood to write checks for sustainable fuels. We can do more than one thing at a time, so I suggest we do more than one thing at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Money to be Made (Score:2)
Unintended consequences (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a ballsy denialist tactic to use in an age when the errors in global warming predictions are almost uniformly turning out to be that they were not "alarmist" enough. But clearly you're very comfortable with cherry-picking (to the point of highlighting niche global cooling quackery that occurred amid a strong and building global warming consensus in mainstream science) so you probably just looked the other way from that.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Funding and Bias Concerns: Critics of mainstream climate science often argue that research in this field is influenced by funding sources, suggesting that scientists, institutions, or agencies might be biased towards results that support the narrative of human-in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's important to provide a balanced view
Absolutely not. It's important to present an accurate view. You can probably make a case that *some* predictions were overblown. Some have been on point for 40 years. If one side is straight up lying about facts of the matter though then their view is worthless and deserves no consideration. Balance is an underhanded way to insert legitimacy to bad information by tugging on ideals of fairness.
You posted three paragraphs of vague FUD.
Re:Climate Science or Climate Alarmism? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment contained 5 very positive claims that you seemed very sure about so maybe lead with that instead:
In general, past climate model projections evaluated in this analysis were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST warming in the years after publication. While some models showed too much warming and a few showed too little, most models examined showed warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between projected and observationally informed estimates of forcing were taken int
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All in all, the IPCC models do an impressive job accurately representing and projecting changes in the global climate, contrary to contrarian claims. In fact, the IPCC global surface warming projections have performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians.
https://skepticalscience.com/i... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: Climate Science or Climate Alarmism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Climate Science or Climate Alarmism? (Score:2)
Re: Climate Science or Climate Alarmism? (Score:2)
Re: Climate Science or Climate Alarmism? (Score:2)