Find a typical article on a typical denialist site, and spot the biggest error! (There's pretty much always at least one, you know, because they are pretty much always wrong.)
Assuming that the program actually leads to a reduction of 45,000 tons (a dubious assumption, as the goal is most likely "reductions" against a counterfactual baseline), and that the costs will be between the $17.7 and $35 million suggested by proponents and opponents, respectively, of the program then the costs per ton work out to be between about $400 and $800 per ton.OK, but these costs are going into home improvements. Supposing such improvements have an average lifetime of twenty years, and presuming that the goal is reduction by 45,000 tons per year, there is a little matter of a factor of twenty to account for. Which would mean $20 to $40 per ton. This is pretty much in line with the usual estimates for CO2 abatement costs.
Of course. Why wouldn't it be? The city says here's a menu of things you can do to upgrade your rental property, and we'll give you a few years to do it. Absolutely nothing out of the ordinary there; just a new zoning standard. The point is, that since you get to choose how to meet the standard, presumably the way you would go about it would not cost, um, twenty times more than it costs.
One interesting thing about real-world arithmetic (as opposed to politicians' arithmetic) is that it is consistent.
Update: This was meant as a throwaway posting to reassure everybody that I'm still around, not as a provocation. I did not notice the byline on the linked article if, in fact, it was there at the time I read it.
Apparently "Climate Fraud" republishes articles without obtaining permission.
The original, with updates, is here.
I have held it against Tom Fuller that he was on the "Climate Fraud" site, and against Roy Spencer as well. In both cases I was a bit surprised. In this case I inadvertently tarred RP Jr. I was relying on the expectation that republication of articles is usually preceded by permission to do so. This apparently was an error for which I apologize.
It is worth knowing that publication on CF does not constitute approval of that site on the part of the authors. Whether this constitutes a violation of any rights of the authors is between that site and the authors.
As usual when I do mention Roger, he asks for an update. In this case it is to the following effect:
"Maybe an update is called for here noting my engagement with Will Toor, Boulder County Commissioner, in order to actively seek out a different perspective than that reported in the Daily Camera?"