PDA

View Full Version : Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill


Light Ranger
06-26-2009, 09:39 PM
Sorry in advance to those who are not American, but it might be worth looking into anyways.

...a.k.a. H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill was passed almost as soon as bill hit the floor yesterday. The bill is 1200 pages long with about 300 pages of amendments to the bill along with it. However, they had yesterday and today to read it all...this bill is longer than Les Mesirables --- and they had two days to read it. Try and ready Les Mesirables in two days and then tell me if you like it or not...unfortunately the bill was pass before a thorough reading of it could be made by anyone. A few links:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/26/house-passes-milestone-energy-climate-change/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm

i don't know how to actually make links, so until someone comes around and fixes it...you'll have to use the old copy and paste. :)

Davian93
06-26-2009, 09:48 PM
The links worked...if you want links with a different title than the generic URL then you can click the link button (the one with the glbove and the infinity looking symbol) and cut and paste the link into it with a title (its pretty self-explanatory).

Light Ranger
06-26-2009, 09:53 PM
Another link that actually links to a whole set of links for subject:

secondary link (http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0034.cfm)

Sei'taer
06-26-2009, 10:20 PM
I notified my congressman to tell him to vote against it...I have my doubts about how much good it will do.

Davian93
06-26-2009, 10:25 PM
Can we ban all Fauxnews links please...And the Heritage Foundation is hardly a unbiased group. They are a conservative think tank last I checked.

Sei'taer
06-26-2009, 10:33 PM
meh...news or not news it passed. New higher costs and basically more taxes based on a lie. I am so proud.

Light Ranger
06-26-2009, 10:34 PM
well it was passed 219-212, if the liberal media had actually "pressed" into this thing, a whole lot more people would have called and emailed their representatives.

Wait, ban conservatism from the web? Isn't that equivalent of saying, "Take away the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press?"

Davian93
06-26-2009, 10:34 PM
meh...news or not news it passed. New higher costs and basically more taxes based on a lie. I am so proud.

But it might actually curb emissions, which environmentally is a good thing. That's worth a small increase in my utility bill.

Davian93
06-26-2009, 10:35 PM
well it was passed 219-212, if the liberal media had actually "pressed" into this thing, a whole lot more people would have called and emailed their representatives.

Wait, ban conservatism from the web? Isn't that equivalent of saying, "Take away the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press?"

Foxnews is a joke...they don't even attempt to hide how pathetic they are.

Light Ranger
06-26-2009, 10:46 PM
[QUOTE=Davian93]But it might actually curb emissions, which environmentally is a good thing.QUOTE]


Hmm, let's see...the greenhouse gases comprise of 2% of the atmosphere.

Of the greenhouse gases, 95% is made up of water vapor and 3.64% is CO2.

Then, to "cap" it all off, of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, only 3.4% is produced by human activity.

How much CO2 would we be reducing? Not much.

EDIT: and the EPA is a liberal think tank in its own right which is one of two research sources by Representative Markey.

Davian93
06-26-2009, 10:56 PM
Or the EPA is a government agency...The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that lobbies to gain its goals. The EPA is a public agency under the Executive Branch...slight difference. I take it you don't believe any type of climate change exists and that humans have not effected their environment in the slightest?

Light Ranger
06-26-2009, 11:10 PM
No, we humans don't affect the environment at all, especially since, if you look into the 13th and 14th centuries, a large portion of England was growing grapes and Norway was growing wheat, both of which can't produce because it's just too darn cold. By the way a few centuries before that, they weren't growing them anyways because, the earth hadn't quite warmed up. So what caused the global warming then? factories? Emissions? Pig farts??

Oh, while we have "global warming" on earth, guess what? Mars is having "global warming" as well, what do you think is causing that? Factories? Emissions? Alien farts?? NASA Rover Emissions???

No, it's neither of the above, it's really the elliptical orbit around the sun and that the orbit is not set in stone, and the mass of the sun expands and contracts, depending on its cycle growth and decay.

Davian93
06-26-2009, 11:13 PM
No, we humans don't affect the environment at all, especially since, if you look into the 13th and 14th centuries, a large portion of England was growing grapes and Norway was growing wheat, both of which can't produce because it's just too darn cold. By the way a few centuries before that, they weren't growing them anyways because, the earth hadn't quite warmed up. So what caused the global warming then? factories? Emissions? Pig farts??

Oh, while we have "global warming" on earth, guess what? Mars is having "global warming" as well, what do you think is causing that? Factories? Emissions? Alien farts?? NASA Rover Emissions???

No, it's neither of the above, it's really the elliptical orbit around the sun and that the orbit is not set in stone, and the mass of the sun expands and contracts, depending on its cycle growth and decay.


I seriously can't even argue with such an asinine statement. I suppose the rainforests have cut themselves down too...and the dodo killed itself into extinction.

Yeah, natural warming/cooling patterns come into play but if you seriously believe the rest of that tripe, then you are beyond help.

Sei'taer
06-26-2009, 11:31 PM
Obviously it's for different reasons than I oppose it, but enemy of my enemy and all that. I'll take what I can get, y'know. (yes, I know, laugh all you want about my greenpeace membership. It's free dammit!)



Greenpeace opposes Waxman-Markey (http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2009/06/25/greenpeace_opposes_waxman_markey)

President Obama vowed to “restore science to its rightful place” in his inagural address. And then earlier today he said, "Now is the time for us to lead…. We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past."

The Waxman-Markey climate legislation, however, will not do what the science says is necessary to avert the worst effects of climate change. In fact, House Democrats have worked extensively with the coal industry to edit the bill, which has translated into weakened emissions targets and massive offsets, in addition to several other critical shortcomings. Instead of leaving coal in the past – as the dirtiest of fossil fuels, it certainly has no place in a sustainable future – the coal industry now stands to reap significant rewards from the American Climate and Energy Security Act as it’s currently written.

That is why Greenpeace opposes the bill in its current form. Read our statement here.

The President must deliver on his campaign pledge to set climate policy based on science, not politics. Without President Obama’s leadership, corporate polluters will continue to highjack this process and ensure that we continue business as usual rather than implement policies to combat climate change.

Here are some of the key shortcomings of the bill:

The Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that to avoid the worst climate impacts, the United States and other industrialized countries must cut their emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The short-term target in this bill is only a 4% reduction by 2020.
The already weak targets set by the bill are further undermined by 2 billion tons per year of allowable offsets. That number is so large that the amount of available offsets will exceed the actual pollution reductions required under the cap until at least 2026—meaning it will be more than a decade before polluters would have to make real cuts in their emissions.
Coal -fired power plants are the single largest source of global warming pollution in the US. In order to tackle climate change, we need to begin phasing out coal immediately. Far from phasing-out coal plants, however, Waxman-Markey will spur the growth of a new generation of coal-fired plants, locking in this dirty energy source for decades to come and sinking tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into the myth of carbon capture and sequestration – an untested, and unproven technology that is decades away from full-scale deployment even by the most optimistic estimates.
Worst of all, the Waxman-Markey bill will actually remove the President’s existing authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act—authority recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. At a time when we need should be pursuing every available means to stop global warming, Congress should not be throwing one of the most powerful tools at the President’s disposal.
We are calling on President Obama to move beyond rhetoric and deliver on his commitments to “restore science to its rightful place” and to lead the world in addressing climate change.

Bryan Blaire
06-27-2009, 12:37 AM
Ranger, sadly, you are mistaken that the human race has not had an affect on weather patterns, etc. Of course we have an affect, EVERYTHING we do has an affect.

What is sad is that people think that reducing CO2 emissions will do anything beneficial. Did lessening air pollution have any effects on the planet? Yes it did! Check it out, Nature released a journal article this year (in March or April) detailing research that showed that air POLLUTION 'fights global warming' by enhancing plant productivity by as much as 25%, thus allowing an extra 10% or possibly more CO2 to be stored in the soil and utilized by plants to recycle into more gaseous oxygen (so that we can utilize it in our own electron transport chains during cellular respiration so that we can LIVE). Even the BBC (which I challenge someone to call that organization biased in a 'conservative' fashion and prove it) reported on the topic.

Here are a few concepts that it would be nice for people to wrap their minds around regarding discussions on GLOBAL WARMING (oh, wait, since it doesn't look like that may actually be happening, we have to call it climate change):

-Humans alter the Earth by virtue of being here. It's what we do. Unlike other species, we do not kowtow to standard evolutionary processes: we force adaptations upon ourselves and our environment. That's what technology is. If you walk around on the surface of the planet, you change it. We have no ability to have no impact.

-Humans have this nasty habit of thinking that we can and NEED to fix everything, especially Western Europeans and their cultural descendants. We also ignore the fact that many of our 'fixes' are very often detrimental in other ways, law of unintended consequences and all that.

-There are other very important changes we've made to the Earth than just the release of CO2. People are obsessed with CO2 in a very unhealthy manner and have been since the discovery of the composition of the atmosphere on Venus and the surface of that planet. It literally scared some scientists into assuming the worst and 'seek and you shall find'. One very important change that has been made in the US that I can think of right off the top of my head: Massive liquid water distribution adjustments throughout the entire portion of the country west of the Mississippi River. There are places in the US where bodies of water exist in quantities that those locations have not had in over our 200+ year history of being a country. If people think that having pools and man-made lakes and reservoirs in locations that dried out into almost deserts over 150 years or more ago won't affect the weather patterns in throughout a country and from there likely the world, they are fools. Almost no research is being done on a global level like there is with regards to CO2 into the affects of adjusting water flow in this manner (and it isn't just happening in the US folks), but it is a virtual guarantee that it IS affecting the climate (but let's just ignore that, because Al Gore is convinced it is CO2, wait, that's just silly, I mean ManBearPig).

If so many politicians are so concerned with CO2 production, I mean, pollution, since that's what it has been reclassified as (Damn, if we are going that route, better say that H2O and O3 - that's ozone for non-chemistry folks - are pollutants too! Both can kill you if you manage to walk into a high enough concentration of either with your mouth open and take a couple of good breaths), then why the hell do almost all of them jump into their limos (notoriously wasteful gas-wise - which means more combustion [CO2 production] for less distance - more so than a lot of trucks) when their are in Washington and then fly around in jets? Because it is easier to pay lip service to something and force US (citizens) to pay for it than it is for them to actually put deed to their words.

Davian, are you still going to be willing to support this legislative direction if you are required by legislation concerning CO2 emissions by vehicles to put a new engine in your care in a couple of years because it doesn't meet emissions requirements, or pay a $500 dollar a year tax because of the same? Yes, it is extreme, but we both work for the gov't, and extreme is often the middle name there. It is definitely possible that either of those could happen.

That anyone thinks this legislation is a solution or even a step in the right direction is sad and makes me wonder about what is coming.

Frenzy
06-27-2009, 02:00 AM
is Light Ranger assuming the atmosphere is homogeneous? or that 3.4% of a substance concentrated in the right place can't shift the dynamic equilibrium of a system?

Light Ranger
06-27-2009, 09:00 AM
Hmm, let's see...the greenhouse gases comprise of 2% of the atmosphere.

Of the greenhouse gases, 95% is made up of water vapor and 3.64% is CO2.



Ok, let me rephrase this in mathematical terms.

Greenhouse gases represent the earth's atmosphere by 2% or .02

now since CO2 only makes up 3.64% of the greenhouse gases you multiply .02 by .0364 and you get:

.000728 ---> convert that to a percent and it's:

.0728% --- that's not even one-tenth of a percent of the atmosphere, if anything i could almost make the claim that we're choking the plants out of their natural photosynthesis, almost.

So even if CO2 is "concentrated in the right place," it would have largely no effect on the so-called dynamic equilibrium of this planet.

EDIT: Though I do have one question, how much CO2 does a volcano spit out due to fissures and blowing off steam per year and how does it compare to all humanity's production...err...pollution of CO2, and then how much does give off during an eruption? I wouldn't mind if someone uses Mt. St. Helena as an example, but I doubt that's an "average" volcano.

Zanguini
06-27-2009, 12:12 PM
somebody has read michael chritons State of Fear...

I dislike speaking on global warming issues I will say you are both right.

Global warming does exist and Humans do play a role, However that role is has much less of an impact than the Earths natural heating and cooling processes, that being said, pollution is bad, carbon emissions are bad, Humans can opperate in a very limited oxygen atmosphere between 19 and 24 percent and less than 19 percent we start to pass out and die. It wouldnt take much for our 21 percent oxygen to fall that 2 points and bad things start happening. Global warming happens, it has happened, it will stop the earth is not as fragile as we all think it will go on... we wont

Sinistrum
06-27-2009, 01:34 PM
The gays and their sham marriages did it.

-end thread.

Frenzy
06-28-2009, 01:28 AM
The gays and their sham marriages did it.

-end thread.
i suppose that Global Warming killed Asmo too. :p

oh, alright Sinistrum. i won't tear LR a third arsehole.

Infidel
06-28-2009, 07:58 AM
i suppose that Global Warming killed Asmo too. :p
Isn't it intuitively obvious?;)

Neilbert
06-28-2009, 09:09 AM
I dislike speaking on global warming issues I will say you are both right.

If we dick around with the oxygen mix we have the potential for very bad things to happen. Like giant insects.

Ever see a video of a centipede eating a mouse? That could be you.

Sei'taer
06-28-2009, 05:31 PM
Meh. Like I've said before, and I've explained it FB. I have done a lot of looking and reading on Global/warming/climate change/whatever the name is today. I don't believe and I'm going to hell. I think L. Ron Hubbard is the one who said that if you want to be rich and powerful invent a religion...but make it believable.

Anyway, I figure if you want to read it you can look on FB. Otherwise I've had this argument before so I'll grab a beer and cheer on the JW's.

hippie-joe
06-28-2009, 10:54 PM
and the dodo killed itself into extinction.


well the dodo were pretty dumb, haven't you seen that ice age movie? :p lol

Zaela Sedai
06-29-2009, 09:09 AM
Very nice Bry, very nice. The bill is I think a waste of time and money and I don't even want to know what else is riding in on it.

Ozymandias
06-29-2009, 06:08 PM
Ok, let me rephrase this in mathematical terms.

Greenhouse gases represent the earth's atmosphere by 2% or .02

now since CO2 only makes up 3.64% of the greenhouse gases you multiply .02 by .0364 and you get:

.000728 ---> convert that to a percent and it's:

.0728% --- that's not even one-tenth of a percent of the atmosphere, if anything i could almost make the claim that we're choking the plants out of their natural photosynthesis, almost.

So even if CO2 is "concentrated in the right place," it would have largely no effect on the so-called dynamic equilibrium of this planet.

EDIT: Though I do have one question, how much CO2 does a volcano spit out due to fissures and blowing off steam per year and how does it compare to all humanity's production...err...pollution of CO2, and then how much does give off during an eruption? I wouldn't mind if someone uses Mt. St. Helena as an example, but I doubt that's an "average" volcano.

There are two options here. Either you actually believe what you just wrote, which makes you the worst kind of gullible idiot, or your preying on other gullible idiots with misleading facts.

I don't want to fact check, so I'll go on the presumption that everything you said is true. But do you know what the the danger levels are for CO2 in the atmosphere are? Just because its only a tiny percent of the atmosphere doesn't mean it can't be deadly and destructive. In trying to trick people by quoting tiny numbers and assuming they'll think "tiny numbers = tiny effect" your committing both intellectual fraud and basically telling idiots that they're idiots and hoping they're too stupid to realize it.

Botulism is one of the most deadly poisons on the planet. A thimbleful could kill every living creature on Earth. We're talking like 15 ppm (parts per million) to kill a human. If I were to say we could drop that thimble in the ocean, and that it would only be <.000000000000000000000000001% of the liquid in the oceans, that wouldn't change the fact that it could still kill everything that swam within its diffusion radius.

Ozymandias
06-29-2009, 06:09 PM
Actually, the dodo isn't extinct, they found one!

And on a more related note, I don't think this bill is gonna do anything. I was discussing this with someone who is in a position to know about the economic effects of the cap-and-trade stuff, and what he was basically saying is that in the end, the bill doesn't disincentive coal-burning at all, so certain regions may even see an increase in fossil fuel use because of the bill.

Crispin's Crispian
06-29-2009, 07:09 PM
What is sad is that people think that reducing CO2 emissions will do anything beneficial. Did lessening air pollution have any effects on the planet? Yes it did! Check it out, Nature released a journal article this year (in March or April) detailing research that showed that air POLLUTION 'fights global warming' by enhancing plant productivity by as much as 25%, thus allowing an extra 10% or possibly more CO2 to be stored in the soil and utilized by plants to recycle into more gaseous oxygen (so that we can utilize it in our own electron transport chains during cellular respiration so that we can LIVE). Even the BBC (which I challenge someone to call that organization biased in a 'conservative' fashion and prove it) reported on the topic.

The article itself is protected on Nature's site, but here (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43094/title/A_little_air_pollution_boosts_vegetation%E2%80%99s _carbon__uptake)'s a summary.

Interesting stuff. When I was searching for that one, I also found this (http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/05/nature-arctic-thaw-could-prompt-huge.html)one, which suggests that the thawing artic permafrost could release a billion tons of CO2 per year. (Of course, that's "tonnes," which is metric.)


Here are a few concepts that it would be nice for people to wrap their minds around regarding discussions on GLOBAL WARMING (oh, wait, since it doesn't look like that may actually be happening, we have to call it climate change):

Oh please, do educate the masses.

-Humans alter the Earth by virtue of being here. It's what we do. Unlike other species, we do not kowtow to standard evolutionary processes: we force adaptations upon ourselves and our environment. That's what technology is. If you walk around on the surface of the planet, you change it. We have no ability to have no impact.

Yes, I agree. Nothing has no impact, though humans are the only species on the planet (as far as we know) with enough intelligence and resources to even attempt to ameliorate their impact.

-Humans have this nasty habit of thinking that we can and NEED to fix everything, especially Western Europeans and their cultural descendants. We also ignore the fact that many of our 'fixes' are very often detrimental in other ways, law of unintended consequences and all that.
Indeed, we should do as much research as we can before we try to "fix" anything. There's anything inherently wrong, however, with trying to improve your environment. At the very least, it is as morally acceptable as destroying it to meet your ends.

-There are other very important changes we've made to the Earth than just the release of CO2. People are obsessed with CO2 in a very unhealthy manner and have been since the discovery of the composition of the atmosphere on Venus and the surface of that planet. It literally scared some scientists into assuming the worst and 'seek and you shall find'. One very important change that has been made in the US that I can think of right off the top of my head: Massive liquid water distribution adjustments throughout the entire portion of the country west of the Mississippi River. There are places in the US where bodies of water exist in quantities that those locations have not had in over our 200+ year history of being a country. If people think that having pools and man-made lakes and reservoirs in locations that dried out into almost deserts over 150 years or more ago won't affect the weather patterns in throughout a country and from there likely the world, they are fools. Almost no research is being done on a global level like there is with regards to CO2 into the affects of adjusting water flow in this manner (and it isn't just happening in the US folks), but it is a virtual guarantee that it IS affecting the climate (but let's just ignore that, because Al Gore is convinced it is CO2, wait, that's just silly, I mean ManBearPig).

I'm sure someone did some research on it, though I don't know if they've looked at the impact on global climate. Regardless, are you arguing that CO2 is not something we should worry about?

If so many politicians are so concerned with CO2 production, I mean, pollution, since that's what it has been reclassified as (Damn, if we are going that route, better say that H2O and O3 - that's ozone for non-chemistry folks - are pollutants too! Both can kill you if you manage to walk into a high enough concentration of either with your mouth open and take a couple of good breaths), then why the hell do almost all of them jump into their limos (notoriously wasteful gas-wise - which means more combustion [CO2 production] for less distance - more so than a lot of trucks) when their are in Washington and then fly around in jets? Because it is easier to pay lip service to something and force US (citizens) to pay for it than it is for them to actually put deed to their words.

Well I just don't know why they do that. It may have something to do with hypocrisy, I'm not sure. If we ignored every problem about which politicians were hypocrites, blacks would still be slaves, women couldn't vote, and more than likely the U.S. wouldn't exist.

hippie-joe
06-29-2009, 11:21 PM
Actually, the dodo isn't extinct, they found one!

And on a more related note, I don't think this bill is gonna do anything. I was discussing this with someone who is in a position to know about the economic effects of the cap-and-trade stuff, and what he was basically saying is that in the end, the bill doesn't disincentive coal-burning at all, so certain regions may even see an increase in fossil fuel use because of the bill.

i agree. i don't see this bill doing much of anything but paving the way for other bills like it, you know like a carbon footprint tax or something against the average person.

i'm all for keeping mother earth clean but i want to do it my own way, that is to say picking up trash everyso often and not littering, i don't wanna get taxed cause i can't afford a nice new hybrid and i'm driving an old gas guzzling scout. i'd rather have a biodiesel any ways, i could put it in my scout, that would be the coolest!!!

btw i <3 my scout:cool:

EDIT: wait you say they found a dodo, one? how do they know it's a dodo? i would think noone really knows what they look like. and how does just one come about? i bet the little guy is lonely, how's he/she gonna procreate? lol

Ozymandias
06-30-2009, 08:50 AM
i agree. i don't see this bill doing much of anything but paving the way for other bills like it, you know like a carbon footprint tax or something against the average person.

i'm all for keeping mother earth clean but i want to do it my own way, that is to say picking up trash everyso often and not littering, i don't wanna get taxed cause i can't afford a nice new hybrid and i'm driving an old gas guzzling scout. i'd rather have a biodiesel any ways, i could put it in my scout, that would be the coolest!!!

btw i <3 my scout:cool:

EDIT: wait you say they found a dodo, one? how do they know it's a dodo? i would think noone really knows what they look like. and how does just one come about? i bet the little guy is lonely, how's he/she gonna procreate? lol

Well, they have plenty of depictions of dodo's, they existed in the 19th century and maybe into the 20th century.

And hippie, the problem with your approach to being green and global warming is that we, as individuals and consumers, create relatively little pollution. The worst environmental degradation is done by factories emitting smoke and toxic runoff. So if we all recycle and drive Prius's, fantastic, but we're not gonna make significant headway in reversing global warming until we regulate our industrial facilities.

EDIT: Having checked, 2 corrections. One is that the Dodo hasn't been found, I was confusing it with another species they thought was extinct that they found. And 2 is that all the Dodo's were gone in the mid 17th century, not 19th.

GonzoTheGreat
06-30-2009, 09:12 AM
Some further nitpicks on the dodo story:
They could check through DNA analysis, if necessary. Very recently a whole bunch of dodo remains were found, and it should be fairly easy nowadays to compare DNA from those with that of a living bird. Assuming the bird consents to the procedure, of course. If it refuses to sign the consent form, then there is a real problem, and I do not know what the ethical way of solving that would be.

Frenzy
06-30-2009, 09:56 AM
And hippie, the problem with your approach to being green and global warming is that we, as individuals and consumers, create relatively little pollution. The worst environmental degradation is done by factories emitting smoke and toxic runoff. So if we all recycle and drive Prius's, fantastic, but we're not gonna make significant headway in reversing global warming until we regulate our industrial facilities.
Ozy, i've spent the last 13 years in the environmental field, and i can tell you for a fact that the cumulative effects of residential activities create far more pollution than factories and industrial sources*. Sure, one industrial spill will create a giant localized problem, but it's localized and therefor easier to contain and control than millions of diffuse sources. It's estimated in the US that 180 million gallons of used oil is spilled each year onto the ground and into the water, and that's a hell of a lot more than one Exxon Valdez spill. i live in the SF Bay Area, and there are dozens of creeks here listed as impaired by pesticides. There is no significant agriculture here (not when a quarter-acre-lot house goes for over $400k even in crappy economic times); the pesticides are coming from people working in their yards & gardens.

The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act have been clamping down on the big point source industrial sources of pollution since the 1960's. They were the largest sources, but not anymore. You don't see rivers in Ohio spontaneously combusting anymore, and believe it or not you can actually breathe in LA & Houston more days than not. That wasn't the case before these laws kicked in. They're still in effect, but now the largest source of pollution is consumers and consumer products. Hundreds of millions of polluters with billions of products used everyday, spread across the entire US.

And guess who gets to foot the clean-up bill because your neighbors over-fertilize their lawn, wash their car in the driveway, buy disposable everything, litter, etc. etc. ad nauseum?

(*In the US, anyway, i won't even begin to tackle China & the developing world.)

Frenzy
06-30-2009, 10:15 AM
also, screw hybrids. i want one of these. (http://www.teslamotors.com/)

Ozymandias
06-30-2009, 10:16 AM
Ozy, i've spent the last 13 years in the environmental field, and i can tell you for a fact that the cumulative effects of residential activities create far more pollution than factories and industrial sources*. Sure, one industrial spill will create a giant localized problem, but it's localized and therefor easier to contain and control than millions of diffuse sources. It's estimated in the US that 180 million gallons of used oil is spilled each year onto the ground and into the water, and that's a hell of a lot more than one Exxon Valdez spill. i live in the SF Bay Area, and there are dozens of creeks here listed as impaired by pesticides. There is no significant agriculture here (not when a quarter-acre-lot house goes for over $400k even in crappy economic times); the pesticides are coming from people working in their yards & gardens.

The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act have been clamping down on the big point source industrial sources of pollution since the 1960's. They were the largest sources, but not anymore. You don't see rivers in Ohio spontaneously combusting anymore, and believe it or not you can actually breathe in LA & Houston more days than not. That wasn't the case before these laws kicked in. They're still in effect, but now the largest source of pollution is consumers and consumer products. Hundreds of millions of polluters with billions of products used everyday, spread across the entire US.

And guess who gets to foot the clean-up bill because your neighbors over-fertilize their lawn, wash their car in the driveway, buy disposable everything, litter, etc. etc. ad nauseum?

(*In the US, anyway, i won't even begin to tackle China & the developing world.)

Then I shall bow to your superior knowledge.

We are all terrible polluters.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-30-2009, 02:42 PM
I'm sure someone did some research on it, though I don't know if they've looked at the impact on global climate. Regardless, are you arguing that CO2 is not something we should worry about?

SDog, I'll remind Bryan to visit to tonight to elucidate, but from our discussions that I remember (which happen pretty often), Bryan's been looking at some of the studies and he's not found that they've taken vapor into account. And no, we shouldn't NOT worry about CO2, just not rank it as the ONLY cause of our issues.

Crispin's Crispian
06-30-2009, 04:01 PM
SDog, I'll remind Bryan to visit to tonight to elucidate, but from our discussions that I remember (which happen pretty often), Bryan's been looking at some of the studies and he's not found that they've taken vapor into account. And no, we shouldn't NOT worry about CO2, just not rank it as the ONLY cause of our issues.
Uh....OK?

Bryan Blaire
06-30-2009, 06:57 PM
SDog, CO2 not necessarily being something we should be worried about first, yes, that is what I'm proposing. Am I saying that it should be ruled out for attempts at adjustment? No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that every time we change something without knowing the long-term consequences, instead of just the immediate ones (and no, we don't know that the consequences of not adjusting CO2 RIGHT NOW are that we will end up going down a path toward Venus-like conditions on Earth, which IS what a lot of proponents of Global Warming/Climate Change do try to indicate), we cause other things to occur. I'm suggesting that maybe instead of chasing after this dog's tail, maybe we could come up with exactly which dog is really leading the pack, so that if we can turn that dog in the right direction, the rest will likely follow (which is what happens in a feedback system many times if you can actually follow the linkages).

As far as water vapor patterns vs. weather patterns, those are often taken into account in small amounts by local weather stations in predicting the weather, but there has not been a lot of research into how the wide-spread adjustments to water locations may have actually adjusted the weather patterns throughout the world (and weather patterns throughout the world would count as climate change, so far as I know). Has the increase in the water utilized by Arizona or the adjustment of waters from rivers in China and India for use as irrigation caused some weather pattern changes in other areas? Has it increased the power of El Nino or La Nina effects throughout the southwestern US? Considering the larger influence in the greenhouse cycle (even on a small scale in a personal home greenhouse) of water vapor, you would think that it would have been the first thing researched, not one that is slowly being looked into. For all we know, the amount of water vapor poured into the atmosphere by France's nuclear plants may be a large issue with regards to adjustments of weather patterns, which would mean that the US gov't's refusal to look into more nuclear power plants might actually be a good thing without meaning to be. Until more research on "global warming" is actually done without dependence on climate modeling, we can not definitively say that water vapor and water cycles aren't as important as or less important than CO2.

Now, I've pointed out numerous times, I'm not against conservation, I'm very much for it and try to take part in quite a bit of it myself. However, the cap-and-trade bill is NOT a "conservation" bill, nor does it truly lower levels of CO2 much (certainly not to the levels “required” by the IPCC by 2020 – which is when this bill aims at), it just allows companies to trade them around a bit, with some sequestering of CO2 thrown in to make it look good (which, BTW, I would not personally want to be anyone that has to deal with that sequestered CO2 with regards to trying to get it back out of the sequestering mechanism, but I'm not up on exactly what the science or lifespan of the stack CO2 sequestering tech really is). So, it allows some companies (and therefore stockholders in those companies) that are not necessarily any "greener" in their processes, but by the nature of their company don't actually produce a lot of CO2 emissions, to trade (sell, in case that isn't readily apparent) some of their CO2 emissions output credits to other companies (such as power companies, gasoline refiners, cement makers, etc), and it doesn't lower the CO2 output of the country over all by much more than 5% or so (from my understanding, but I didn't do an exhaustive perusal of the bill either, I likely read as much of it as the "author" of the bill did, but that's an argument for a different thread).

So, this particular bill isn't good for those that don't believe in Man Made Global Warming, this bill isn't good for those that want to reduce man made CO2 emissions (because it really doesn't do that), but it is good for making some money for certain folks and for making sure that companies that will have to buy CO2 emissions "stock" from others can pass along that cost to their consumers, because let's face it, companies are NOT just going to eat that cost.

With regards to your snide comment about my educating the masses, yes, I've actually met a lot of those masses lately who, because I work for the gov't, have been asking me questions on some of those topics or saying things about how we shouldn't be "leaving our footprints", etc. I'm sorry it seems to have offended you, but yes, I do think the "masses" should actually be educated on some of these topics. Unfortunately, they aren't. If you don’t need this “education”, or don’t believe/agree with me, then seek your own answers elsewhere, as too many seem to just be listening to talking heads without actually understanding the science behind what they are voting on.

As far as "ignoring problems because politicians are hypocrites", I don't think I said we should ignore anything. Are there obvious differences in what people think re the most important, sure, but I don't think I specified ignoring things, and the fact that you think I am saying that needing more research before trying to get the American public to think that "debate on global warming is over" (which hell, that statement isn't even true because now it is called "climate change" instead of global warming) equates to allowing slavery and keeping a group of people from voting seems to indicate that you have some problems with mental hyperbole while reading. Or you are just trying to belittle a point that you don't like. Either way, you are mistaken.

Crispin's Crispian
07-01-2009, 11:55 AM
SDog, CO2 not necessarily being something we should be worried about first, yes, that is what I'm proposing. Am I saying that it should be ruled out for attempts at adjustment? No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that every time we change something without knowing the long-term consequences, instead of just the immediate ones (and no, we don't know that the consequences of not adjusting CO2 RIGHT NOW are that we will end up going down a path toward Venus-like conditions on Earth, which IS what a lot of proponents of Global Warming/Climate Change do try to indicate), we cause other things to occur. I'm suggesting that maybe instead of chasing after this dog's tail, maybe we could come up with exactly which dog is really leading the pack, so that if we can turn that dog in the right direction, the rest will likely follow (which is what happens in a feedback system many times if you can actually follow the linkages).


That's a great idea, and I certainly don't disagree with finding the correct priorities and trying really hard to predict the consequences. However, we can have only so much predictive power, and this might be a crisis where waiting on information is a bad idea.

I know many people think global warming opponents are alarmist, but what if they're not. At what point does the economic harm outweigh the potential for averting the worst of the consequences?

As far as water vapor patterns vs. weather patterns, those are often taken into account in small amounts by local weather stations in predicting the weather, but there has not been a lot of research into how the wide-spread adjustments to water locations may have actually adjusted the weather patterns throughout the world (and weather patterns throughout the world would count as climate change, so far as I know).
...
Considering the larger influence in the greenhouse cycle (even on a small scale in a personal home greenhouse) of water vapor, you would think that it would have been the first thing researched, not one that is slowly being looked into.
...
Until more research on "global warming" is actually done without dependence on climate modeling, we can not definitively say that water vapor and water cycles aren't as important as or less important than CO2.

I can't speak with any authority whatsoever on the prevelance of water vapor research nor on how water vapor might affect climate change.*

I can ask how it's possible to study global warming without climate modeling. I don't see how it's possible to separate the two, since global warming is a climatic issue. If you're trying to study the degree to which something contributes to climate change, you need to plug it into a model.


However, the cap-and-trade bill is NOT a "conservation" bill, nor does it truly lower levels of CO2 much (certainly not to the levels “required” by the IPCC by 2020 – which is when this bill aims at), it just allows companies to trade them around a bit, with some sequestering of CO2 thrown in to make it look good (which, BTW, I would not personally want to be anyone that has to deal with that sequestered CO2 with regards to trying to get it back out of the sequestering mechanism, but I'm not up on exactly what the science or lifespan of the stack CO2 sequestering tech really is). So, it allows some companies
...
and it doesn't lower the CO2 output of the country over all by much more than 5% or so (from my understanding, but I didn't do an exhaustive perusal of the bill either, I likely read as much of it as the "author" of the bill did, but that's an argument for a different thread).


I'm not sure what I think of cap-and-trade. In its form in the bill in question, it certainly doesn't seem that it would be effective. The bill does have some important facets that I agree with, though, such as mandating energy efficiency and setting emissions reduction goals. It may also be just the first step, and the first step will never please everyone.

With regards to your snide comment about my educating the masses, yes, I've actually met a lot of those masses lately who, because I work for the gov't, have been asking me questions on some of those topics or saying things about how we shouldn't be "leaving our footprints", etc. I'm sorry it seems to have offended you, but yes, I do think the "masses" should actually be educated on some of these topics.

If you think you've offended me, you clearly need to come to Theoryland more often. I made a snide comment because of your arrogant and condescending attitude. I'm happy that you've had the opportunity to educate the masses you've met, but you come off sounding like a blowhard when you tell the people here that you're going to teach them. Hope that doesn't offend you, but it's true.

I will agree that more people need to learn the science, or at least how to read media reports critically.

As far as "ignoring problems because politicians are hypocrites", I don't think I said we should ignore anything. Are there obvious differences in what people think re the most important, sure, but I don't think I specified ignoring things, and the fact that you think I am saying that needing more research before trying to get the American public to think that "debate on global warming is over" (which hell, that statement isn't even true because now it is called "climate change" instead of global warming) equates to allowing slavery and keeping a group of people from voting seems to indicate that you have some problems with mental hyperbole while reading. Or you are just trying to belittle a point that you don't like. Either way, you are mistaken.
I think I understand what you're saying, but that paragraph was a bit hard to digest.

You used the hypocrites in Congress as some sort of argument--whether it was direct or not. The implication was that, if politicians want to stop global warming, but politicians are hypocrites, global warming must not be a big deal. Hopefully you can see the logical fallacy and will admit that you were being rhetorical.

So no, you didn't specifically say that we should ignore anything. So what was your point then?


*I have much greater concerns about the availability of the water in the SW (and elsewhere) that has been diverted to supply population centers. We've completely redrawn the map of water distribution, and taken water out of its natural course. Moreover, huge population centers have grown up to be completely dependent on water piped in from hundreds of miles away. The current situation is unsustainable, whether or not it has any impact on global climate change.

Bryan Blaire
07-01-2009, 06:53 PM
If you think you've offended me, you clearly need to come to Theoryland more often. I made a snide comment because of your arrogant and condescending attitude. I'm happy that you've had the opportunity to educate the masses you've met, but you come off sounding like a blowhard when you tell the people here that you're going to teach them. Hope that doesn't offend you, but it's true.

I will agree that more people need to learn the science, or at least how to read media reports critically.

I wasn't necessarily trying to "teach" anyone here something. I said that they are things "people", meaning in general, need to know. I figure that most here probably understand those things (though from one or more posts in this thread, that isn't necessarily the case).

I think I understand what you're saying, but that paragraph was a bit hard to digest.

You used the hypocrites in Congress as some sort of argument--whether it was direct or not. The implication was that, if politicians want to stop global warming, but politicians are hypocrites, global warming must not be a big deal. Hopefully you can see the logical fallacy and will admit that you were being rhetorical.

So no, you didn't specifically say that we should ignore anything. So what was your point then?

That wasn't what I was intending to imply. What I intended to say (and think that I actually wrote about paying lip service to but not actually practicing) is that the politicians that are supposedly the most concerned about the environment are some of the biggest offenders of the "lead by example and deed, not by running your mouth and doing something else" standard I learned from the military. That probably has a lot to do with most of them being lawyers though. Would be nice if we could outlaw lawyer politicians.

My point was that I think a lot more needs to be done (hell, I would be completely for the gov't pouring billions of dollars into researching all the different areas of climate change so that maybe we could get a better overall picture of what's really going on, rather than them pouring billions into banks that may actually have not needed it) in the way of scientific research before we start taking steps to mitigate something that may be an issue, especially if that mitigation may mask other issues or cause people to think other problems are mitigated that we would then have to fix down the road. It is similar, IMO, to owning a car: if you notice that it begins to slip a little bit to the right while driving and so you take a look at the tires, notice that there is a wear marker on the right side of all the tires, go out and spend your money to get new tires and meanwhile make your budget tight for some food for the month. Since you didn't do all your research and may have disregarded other warning signs because you were focused on the tires, you don't actually fix a burgeoning transmission issue that later costs you thousands to fix in the end anyway or forces you to get a completely new car.

I have much greater concerns about the availability of the water in the SW (and elsewhere) that has been diverted to supply population centers. We've completely redrawn the map of water distribution, and taken water out of its natural course. Moreover, huge population centers have grown up to be completely dependent on water piped in from hundreds of miles away. The current situation is unsustainable, whether or not it has any impact on global climate change.

I think you highlighted my point actually, whether or not it is unsustainable. ;)

Ozymandias
07-01-2009, 07:04 PM
So, this particular bill isn't good for those that don't believe in Man Made Global Warming, this bill isn't good for those that want to reduce man made CO2 emissions (because it really doesn't do that), but it is good for making some money for certain folks and for making sure that companies that will have to buy CO2 emissions "stock" from others can pass along that cost to their consumers, because let's face it, companies are NOT just going to eat that cost.


We saw last summer that when fuel prices rise too high, people don't use them as much.

Companies won't increase their profit margin by jacking up prices to compensate, they'll probably break even. But, less fossil fuel will be used.

Gilshalos Sedai
07-02-2009, 09:42 AM
Companies won't increase their profit margin by jacking up prices to compensate, they'll probably break even. But, less fossil fuel will be used.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Crispin's Crispian
07-02-2009, 12:25 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah. Hmm... Ozy, did you notice that last year the oil companies had their highest profits ever? Of course they're going to profit off of it. People were using less gas, but not enough to offset the increase cost/profit.

Although, one thing I can't remember. Did fuel prices drop because of the economy (people were spending/shipping less), or was there some other factor in the price of oil?

Gilshalos Sedai
07-02-2009, 12:35 PM
Fuel prices dropped because OPEC released production and because people started to cut back severely in their driving and shopping habits.


I just want Natural Gas to go back up. It's unreasonably low right and not making MY company very happy.

Davian93
07-02-2009, 12:47 PM
Fuel prices dropped because OPEC released production and because people started to cut back severely in their driving and shopping habits.


I just want Natural Gas to go back up. It's unreasonably low right and not making MY company very happy.

well it's easier to drive less when you don't have a job to drive too or a house to go back too...when one is living out of their car, it tends to go on less daily commutes I would think.

Ozymandias
07-02-2009, 01:41 PM
Yeah. Hmm... Ozy, did you notice that last year the oil companies had their highest profits ever? Of course they're going to profit off of it. People were using less gas, but not enough to offset the increase cost/profit.

Although, one thing I can't remember. Did fuel prices drop because of the economy (people were spending/shipping less), or was there some other factor in the price of oil?

Well, it hardly matters. The whole point of this kind of regulation is to keep fossil fuel use down. If it does drive down fossil fuel use... then it worked, regardless of corporate profits, no?

hippie-joe
07-02-2009, 11:28 PM
EDIT: Having checked, 2 corrections. One is that the Dodo hasn't been found, I was confusing it with another species they thought was extinct that they found. And 2 is that all the Dodo's were gone in the mid 17th century, not 19th.

well thank you for clearing that up:p

also, screw hybrids. i want one of these.

those are pretty sweet, i'd go for the coupe.

but i still want a biodeisel in my 76' scout II. but first i need to find the time to swap out the transfer case with the one in the shop so i can get it in 4wd, and change the hubs too, and the throttle cable, and... damn this is turning into quite a list