Cap and Trade

[markw]

I just stumbled across this little ditty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html

So, anyone for a little expensive mental masturbation?

 

[annunaki]

lsiberian you seem to be changing tune a bit here

AS for cutting emissions, why not put the focus in removing fossil fuels all together??

How about no taxes for 3-5 years to any automaker that can come up with a full line of vehicles that do not use fossil fuels with at least a 300+ mile range. Or if they use fossil fuel or a combination of the two, they must hit at least 50+ mpg in the city, and have models in the pipeline that will not use fossil fuels within three years of their initial tax break.

Make innovation the incentive rather than the punishment.

Then, begin looking at other industries and offer similar incentives there.

Long term solutions must be pursued to truly make things better. In the mean time the people of the country need not be taxed to death or crippled by sky high energy costs.

The government is like a giant band-aid. It covers a symptom but never tries to solve the problem with real solutions. No one that I have seen in any elected position currently wants to solve problems at their source. Most are too caught up in rhetoric or what makes them look good for the next election cycle.

 

[bandphan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html

So, anyone for a little expensive mental masturbation?

I was just reading that, linked from this website..

http://www.climatedepot.com

 

[markw]

"Massachuttes reflects on the year without a summer"

I was just reading that, linked from this website..

http://www.climatedepot.com

I can relate to that article. I don't think I've used the AC in the bedroom more than 5 -6 times so far this year. It used to be on from late May/early June until September.

We haven't had to turn the central air at all so far.

 

[lsiberian]

lsiberian you seem to be changing tune a bit here

AS for cutting emissions, why not put the focus in removing fossil fuels all together??

How about no taxes for 3-5 years to any automaker that can come up with a full line of vehicles that do not use fossil fuels with at least a 300+ mile range. Or if they use fossil fuel or a combination of the two, they must hit at least 50+ mpg in the city, and have models in the pipeline that will not use fossil fuels within three years of their initial tax break.

Make innovation the incentive rather than the punishment.

Then, begin looking at other industries and offer similar incentives there.

Long term solutions must be pursued to truly make things better. In the mean time the people of the country need not be taxed to death or crippled by sky high energy costs.

The government is like a giant band-aid. It covers a symptom but never tries to solve the problem with real solutions. No one that I have seen in any elected position currently wants to solve problems at their source. Most are too caught up in rhetoric or what makes them look good for the next election cycle.

The problem with that solution is that it's the thin client vs fat client argument. I have no desire to see plug-in electric cars take over until our power plants are much cleaner. Remember we still burn stuff to charge the cars up.

Coal is dirtier than Oil. Mining oil is far less destructive than coal.

Oil we pump out of the ground. Coal we blast out of a mountain.

Coal is just not something I want us to be burning anymore. The problem is we don't have a real solution. Nuclear is very dangerous. Solar is inefficient. Wind is also inefficient. Tidal power might be interesting but seems bad for the coast. Building a dam is destructive.

So what can we do.

I vote for consuming less. In war they used to ration stuff. I think this might not be a bad idea. But economics is the best way to reduced consumption. We really should drive gas and utility prices higher, but it's not something we can really afford at the moment. Our economy collapsed because of the gas hike. That I still see as the trigger of loan defaults. I know I was in the 100s for gas payments. This is why we need to encourage energy efficiency.

For example no more top loading dryers or washers. Front loaders are far more efficient. New codes for water heaters. I know mine is way too powerful for my apartment and I suffer in my electric bill. New codes for AC units. My AC unit uses half the electricity of my fiancee's and is much much more powerful.

These are simple ways to improve our situation.

energy efficiency is the solution of the future. This is what we need to demand in everything.

Car pooling is a great way to help things out.

 

[lsiberian]

I can relate to that article. I don't think I've used the AC in the bedroom more than 5 -6 times so far this year. It used to be on from late May/early June until September.

We haven't had to turn the central air at all so far.

I suspect I could live without AC up there lol.

But not without heat. I would freeze my butt off.

I wear a jacket when it's 60.

 

[markw]

I suspect I could live without AC up there lol.

Obviously, you've never lived through one of the typical humid Jersey summers.

Where are you from?

 

[majorloser]

Coal is dirtier than Oil. Mining oil is far less destructive than coal.

Oil we pump out of the ground. Coal we blast out of a mountain.

But some of the past practices for removing oil and gas from wells,"fracking", isn't the best solution either. It may very likely jeopardize our planet's most valuable resource, drinking water.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104565793

 

[Adam]

..."fracking"...

Reminds me of the original Battlestar Galactica show.

 

[mtrycrafts]

We haven't had to turn the central air at all so far.

So we don't have a warming planet anymore?

 

[Adam]

So we don't have a warming planet anymore?

Try explaining that to my A/C system (106°F at the moment).

 

[mtrycrafts]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090711/sc_mcclatchy/3269899

from the first paragraph...

If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

I'll probably die before all this happens. Not sure about the kids though But, who care about them anyhow.

 

[mtrycrafts]

lsiberian you seem to be changing tune a bit here

AS for cutting emissions, why not put the focus in removing fossil fuels all together??

How about no taxes for 3-5 years to any automaker that can come up with a full line of vehicles that do not use fossil fuels with at least a 300+ mile range. Or if they use fossil fuel or a combination of the two, they must hit at least 50+ mpg in the city, and have models in the pipeline that will not use fossil fuels within three years of their initial tax break.

Make innovation the incentive rather than the punishment.

Then, begin looking at other industries and offer similar incentives there.

Long term solutions must be pursued to truly make things better. In the mean time the people of the country need not be taxed to death or crippled by sky high energy costs.

The government is like a giant band-aid. It covers a symptom but never tries to solve the problem with real solutions. No one that I have seen in any elected position currently wants to solve problems at their source. Most are too caught up in rhetoric or what makes them look good for the next election cycle.

All good suggestions. It will be a while before all those cars would make a dent. And, one country or a small group cannot do it alone. Some major polluters out there need to be forced to come aboard.
While some graphs have shown how little China and India pollute per capita, they do have a huge population and put out an awful lot.

 

[tbewick]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html

So, anyone for a little expensive mental masturbation?

I've looked at Christopher Brooker's article, it's nonsense. Temperatures are rising, see the IPCC report. If you don't believe the IPCC report, visit*:

The NCAR website:
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/
The NASA GISS website:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
The Hadley Centre website:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
American Institute of Physics:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/wissenswertes/faqs.html

RealClimate, a site run by climate scientists, debunks the unpublished report Brooker refers to [1]. It's no surprise that this report wasn't published. The EPA probably does peer-review, so I doubt that paper would have had any legs.

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php

On climate models over-predicting warming, this is nonsense. Climate models can't be expected to exactly track global mean temperature because of internal climate variability. This is why you have a fuzziness to individual model runs.

Additionally, the fact that climate models aren't perfect does not undo the basic laws of physics. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and traps heat radiation. No matter what nonsense is spurted from the likes of Christopher Brooker or anyone else, this fact can't be undone.

[1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

* Of course, if you don't trust the IPCC, you might not want to trust NCAR, the Hadley Centre, NASA GISS, etc. because some of the IPCC authors work at those institutions.

 

[annunaki]

The problem with that solution is that it's the thin client vs fat client argument. I have no desire to see plug-in electric cars take over until our power plants are much cleaner. Remember we still burn stuff to charge the cars up.

Coal is dirtier than Oil. Mining oil is far less destructive than coal.

Oil we pump out of the ground. Coal we blast out of a mountain.

Coal is just not something I want us to be burning anymore. The problem is we don't have a real solution. Nuclear is very dangerous. Solar is inefficient. Wind is also inefficient. Tidal power might be interesting but seems bad for the coast. Building a dam is destructive.

So what can we do.

I vote for consuming less. In war they used to ration stuff. I think this might not be a bad idea. But economics is the best way to reduced consumption. We really should drive gas and utility prices higher, but it's not something we can really afford at the moment. Our economy collapsed because of the gas hike. That I still see as the trigger of loan defaults. I know I was in the 100s for gas payments. This is why we need to encourage energy efficiency.

For example no more top loading dryers or washers. Front loaders are far more efficient. New codes for water heaters. I know mine is way too powerful for my apartment and I suffer in my electric bill. New codes for AC units. My AC unit uses half the electricity of my fiancee's and is much much more powerful.

These are simple ways to improve our situation.

energy efficiency is the solution of the future. This is what we need to demand in everything.

Car pooling is a great way to help things out.

We can consume less by making more efficient devices all around. The problem with the environmental crew is that few of them understand that most anything mechanical/electrical is a set of compromises. Most all engineering is balancing to compromises to fit the application. It is not usually possible to have your cake & eat it to in the engineering world. Your interest in DIY audio should be beginning to tell you that.

Most of those in power pushing this cap & trade bill really don't care about the environment & such, because if they really did, they would not tax the public into oblivion, but rather, look to real solutions.

Nuclear energy offers the most output for the smallest amount of material used. So long as thought out measures are taken to store/utilize spent rods, it is one of the cleanest forms of energy. It can be dangerous only if done irresponsibly. Nearly all of the nuclear facilities in Western Europe & the US are extremely well run and competently designed offering loads of output at very low risk.

Many of those whom are uneducated about nuclear energy get so worried about it because of a few mistakes in the past (which were caused by gross incompetence). Many if not all of those mistakes in the past simply can't/won't happen anymore because there are so many backup systems in place to prevent them.


I am for making the world a more efficient place, but I am only willing to do so when it does not infringe on the constitution or raise taxes even further. Smart solutions are there for the taking if the real motive is actually energy independence and lower usage of resources.

 

[highfigh]

Try explaining that to my A/C system (106°F at the moment).

You're in Tucson. That's in a desert. You can't expect us to believe it won't get hot there. At least you're not in the Canyon.

 

[highfigh]

I'll probably die before all this happens. Not sure about the kids though But, who care about them anyhow.

With any luck, "loss of species" will start with members of Congress.

 

[highfigh]

I've looked at Christopher Brooker's article, it's nonsense. Temperatures are rising, see the IPCC report. If you don't believe the IPCC report, visit*:

The NCAR website:
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/
The NASA GISS website:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
The Hadley Centre website:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
American Institute of Physics:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/wissenswertes/faqs.html

RealClimate, a site run by climate scientists, debunks the unpublished report Brooker refers to [1]. It's no surprise that this report wasn't published. The EPA probably does peer-review, so I doubt that paper would have had any legs.

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php

On climate models over-predicting warming, this is nonsense. Climate models can't be expected to exactly track global mean temperature because of internal climate variability. This is why you have a fuzziness to individual model runs.

Additionally, the fact that climate models aren't perfect does not undo the basic laws of physics. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and traps heat radiation. No matter what nonsense is spurted from the likes of Christopher Brooker or anyone else, this fact can't be undone.

[1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

* Of course, if you don't trust the IPCC, you might not want to trust NCAR, the Hadley Centre, NASA GISS, etc. because some of the IPCC authors work at those institutions.

Given such a short sample of time, it really does look like the temperature is rising uncontrollably but starting at 1900 is really useless. Also, the vertical scale isn't really a good representation of the actual change and makes it look far worse than it is. The trend line shows about a .6°F change but the way they show it, time is compressed, relative to the change. Graphs like that can be made to show whatever the presenter wants and showing a range of less than 2°F for the whole graph is ridiculous. How do they explain the drastic drop in the early 1990s?

 

[nibhaz]

I am all for slowing the release of CO2 as ultimately I think that we should be good stewards of our environment. With that being said, I am not caught up in a hysterical state about the matter, and do not see the imminent need for such a drastic bill that will most definitely negatively impact our economy.

If one takes a step back from the hysteria and apocalyptical predictions and takes a longer view of our geological history one finds that the current climatic changes are nothing new nor special.

Our short sighted view of geological history wants to hold onto the current climate that has allowed for Homo sapiens to flourish, but in the reality we probably have little control over what will happen to the earth’s climate over a long period time.




This figure shows the Antarctic temperature changes during the last several glacial/interglacial cycles of the present ice age and a comparison to changes in global ice volume. The present day is on the left.

Data: Petit, J.R., et al., 2001,
Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center
for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2001-076.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

[/URL][/IMG]

This figure shows the climate record of Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) [1] constructed by combining measurements from 57 globally distributed deep sea sediment cores. The measured quantity is oxygen isotope fractionation (δ18O) in benthic foraminifera, which serves as a proxy for the total global mass of glacial ice sheets.

 

[lsiberian]

We can consume less by making more efficient devices all around. The problem with the environmental crew is that few of them understand that most anything mechanical/electrical is a set of compromises. Most all engineering is balancing to compromises to fit the application. It is not usually possible to have your cake & eat it to in the engineering world. Your interest in DIY audio should be beginning to tell you that.

Most of those in power pushing this cap & trade bill really don't care about the environment & such, because if they really did, they would not tax the public into oblivion, but rather, look to real solutions.

Nuclear energy offers the most output for the smallest amount of material used. So long as thought out measures are taken to store/utilize spent rods, it is one of the cleanest forms of energy. It can be dangerous only if done irresponsibly. Nearly all of the nuclear facilities in Western Europe & the US are extremely well run and competently designed offering loads of output at very low risk.

Many of those whom are uneducated about nuclear energy get so worried about it because of a few mistakes in the past (which were caused by gross incompetence). Many if not all of those mistakes in the past simply can't/won't happen anymore because there are so many backup systems in place to prevent them.


I am for making the world a more efficient place, but I am only willing to do so when it does not infringe on the constitution or raise taxes even further. Smart solutions are there for the taking if the real motive is actually energy independence and lower usage of resources.

The greatest danger of nuclear energy it that it's used as a guise for nuclear weapons development. I'll leave it at that. Since this isn't the place to discuss that. Also remember negligence is a common attribute in our society. The motor vehicle is the perfect picture of this fact. Every year people are still killed by drunk drivers. People even pros in magazines still stop a radial saw after they lifted it from the work piece.

I got a degree from an engineering college and was already well aware of trade-offs. I'm also aware there are many areas where improvement is possible.

I also believe that engineers will and are making more efficient devices. Once we are aware of a need we are pretty good meeting it.