Doing nothing about climate change will save us huge amounts, right? Wrong.

[sandorski]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34160921/ns/us_news-environment


Global warming problem has been solved. Well maybe not solved, but certainly the data set must be changed now, which would give us a whole different picture, wouldn't it?

This vow on emmisions, along with the vow Obama made on behalf of the usa should make it a 1000 year climate change instead of a 100 year one, wouldn't it?

I'm sure that we can just plug the new numbers into our working climate change model to see how it effects THE ECONOMIC COST of everything, right?

Why would it?

 

[CrackRabbit]

No. All that $$ is going to be used by the Private Sector to find solutions.

That is something I doubt would happen. The costs associated with cap and trade will simply be passed on to the consumers and the status quo will be maintained.

For the time being if you want cleaner power invest in solar, wind and nuclear. Maybe in 15-20 years we might have working commercial fusion reactors, then we can get away from using fossil fuels for everything.

 

[sandorski]

That is something I doubt would happen. The costs associated with cap and trade will simply be passed on to the consumers and the status quo will be maintained.

For the time being if you want cleaner power invest in solar, wind and nuclear. Maybe in 15-20 years we might have working commercial fusion reactors, then we can get away from using fossil fuels for everything.

It will, just watch as the Market pursues ways to avoid the Cost of Carbon through Reduction of Emissions.

 

[Double Trouble]

The whole cap and trade thing is yet another eco-cook agenda item. It's a win / win for them: it destroys the economy, slowing down sources of energy use, and at the same time sucks yet more money into the government for the idiot politicians to waste. Yay for us

 

[sandorski]

The whole cap and trade thing is yet another eco-cook agenda item. It's a win / win for them: it destroys the economy, slowing down sources of energy use, and at the same time sucks yet more money into the government for the idiot politicians to waste. Yay for us

Last time someone said that, they were 100% Wrong.

 

[Ozoned]

Why would it?

Meaning that the cost of doing nothing - of just paying to adapt to climate changes and suffering the losses in economic output that a warmer planet will cause, rather than paying to mitigate/prevent the changes - will be between $2 and $6 trillion a year in reduced GDP growth.

The premise of the op is based upon doing nothing.

 

[sandorski]

The premise of the op is based upon doing nothing.

...and?

 

[Ozoned]

...and?

I've answered all of your questions, you have not answered any of mine.

 

[sandorski]

I've answered all of your questions, you have not answered any of mine.

Your "answers" lack credence.

 

[wwswimming]

IT'S TOO LATE. we are consuming oil at the rate of 75 million barrels a day, 85 mbpd if you include all liquids (to run cars & trucks & buses on). that's one cubic mile a year. remember that old chemistry formula, PV = NRT, where
P = pressure
V = volume
n = number of molecules, possibly with a coefficient related to Avagadro's # thrown in
R = a coefficient, i think
T = temperature.

ANYWAY, you burn 1 cubic mile of hydrocarbons a year, most of it ends up as CO2 in gaseous form. 1 cubic mile becomes what - 200 cubic miles of CO2?

(AT Chemistry experts, could you please help me with this math ?)

no WONDER the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is going up. it's now approx. 389 parts per million - and climbing.

Cap & Trade involves the assumption that IF we do something, it will "help". sorry. the permafrost in Siberia already melting, scientists are writing papers about watching methane bubble out of the permafrost mud. + world atmospheres have MOMENTUM, we could all live like monks and atmospheric trends currently in motion would continue for 20 years or forever; we will see.

Finally - do you really think that the BRIC countries that have just started developing a middle class are going to give up their BMW's and core i7's and iPods ? do you think Canadians are going to stop burning natural gas, given how cold their winters are ? etc. the rest of the world AIN'T GOING ALONG, not in reality. the politicians can say whatever they want.

Therefore - what is the purpose of Cap & Trade ? first of all, note who it makes rich - Goldman Sachs and Al Gore. like it or not, Al Gore is now a Business Tycoon.

the Cap & Trade bill creates a $trillion industry overnight. all of a sudden, the act of carbon sequestration becomes a PRODUCT, and the sale of carbon sequestration contributes to GNP. it's not a twinkie - you can't eat it; it's not a cell-phone - you can't text with it.

it (Cap & trade) has no use.

Except - when Cap & Trade is added to GNP - it makes it look like the economy is GROWING.

that is the purpose of Cap & Trade.

 

[sandorski]

IT'S TOO LATE. we are consuming oil at the rate of 75 million barrels a day, 85 mbpd if you include all liquids (to run cars & trucks & buses on). that's one cubic mile a year. remember that old chemistry formula, PV = NRT, where
P = pressure
V = volume
n = number of molecules, possibly with a coefficient related to Avagadro's # thrown in
R = a coefficient, i think
T = temperature.

ANYWAY, you burn 1 cubic mile of hydrocarbons a year, most of it ends up as CO2 in gaseous form. 1 cubic mile becomes what - 200 cubic miles of CO2?

(AT Chemistry experts, could you please help me with this math ?)

no WONDER the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is going up. it's now approx. 389 parts per million - and climbing.

Cap & Trade involves the assumption that IF we do something, it will "help". sorry. the permafrost in Siberia already melting, scientists are writing papers about watching methane bubble out of the permafrost mud. + world atmospheres have MOMENTUM, we could all live like monks and atmospheric trends currently in motion would continue for 20 years or forever; we will see.

Finally - do you really think that the BRIC countries that have just started developing a middle class are going to give up their BMW's and core i7's and iPods ? do you think Canadians are going to stop burning natural gas, given how cold their winters are ? etc. the rest of the world AIN'T GOING ALONG, not in reality. the politicians can say whatever they want.

Therefore - what is the purpose of Cap & Trade ? first of all, note who it makes rich - Goldman Sachs and Al Gore. like it or not, Al Gore is now a Business Tycoon.

the Cap & Trade bill creates a $trillion industry overnight. all of a sudden, the act of carbon sequestration becomes a PRODUCT, and the sale of carbon sequestration contributes to GNP. it's not a twinkie - you can't eat it; it's not a cell-phone - you can't text with it.

it (Cap & trade) has no use.

Except - when Cap & Trade is added to GNP - it makes it look like the economy is GROWING.

that is the purpose of Cap & Trade.

Ya, do Nothing!!

10/10 Rantometer, 0/10 SensoMeter

 

[shira]

I guess you don't read much news.

The simply fact that the 'green' movement doesn't promote nuclear power shows that saving the planet isn't their true agenda....at least for the leaders of the 'green' movement.

Then again, go 'green' and make Al Gore the first 'green' billionaire so he can buy an even larger GulfStream....oh wait, he has the largest one right now....

There are many believers in ACC - and I'm one of them - that also believe a balanced approach - including the latest-technology nuclear powerplants - must be a part of the solution.

 

[Darwin333]

So... who pays the tab? Really, we are broke as hell and can't afford what we already have. Its not like we could realistically raise the few hundred billion a year because we are already in the hole for far more. So again, who pays for it?

Bottom line: Taxes need to go up already to cover what we are currently providing but that will never happen. Politically, they can't raise taxes that much. Top it off with the fact that we want more "stuff". Now you are arguing we need to be forking over another $200B that we don't have?

The bank account is dry, the credit cards are just about maxed and the cost of our "needs" are rising rather quickly. It really doesn't matter how right you may or may not be because we simply can't afford it.

 

[Darwin333]

Ah, yes, climate-denial at its best. Don't address the science. Don't address the economics. Just insist over and over that's it's all fraud; it's all alarmism; we're all safe and snug in our beds.

Let's use this approach to all science: Computers don't exist. Modern medicine doesn't exist. Flat-panel televisions don't exit. Moon-landings don't exist. Mankind arose in the garden of Eden.

La la la la la la la (stop talking science to me) la la la la la la . . . . .

I agree with your statement but while you argue the science you are forgetting the math.

 

[soccerballtux]

Global warming is a proven farce. Perhaps you haven't heard about CRU's leaked data.
Nice to see everyone redefining Global Warming as Climate change.

Nothing to see here, move along please.

 

[sandorski]

Global warming is a proven farce. Perhaps you haven't heard about CRU's leaked data.
Nice to see everyone redefining Global Warming as Climate change.

Nothing to see here, move along please.

Perhaps you're clueless?

 

[Cogman]

There are many believers in ACC - and I'm one of them - that also believe a balanced approach - including the latest-technology nuclear powerplants - must be a part of the solution.

Sadly, not enough Eco-friendly people support nuclear.

Nuclear is BY FAR the best power generation option. Almost zero CO2 emission, tons of power, and almost zero waste production. Yes, the waste is highly toxic, so is the waste from solar cells and coal plants.

I completely support the development of more power efficient technologies. I also support development of electric vehicles. What I don't support is trying to scare people into doing it. I despise dooms day scare tatics.

Technology development will cause the world to produce less CO2, Cap and trade will cause the US to produce less CO2. (Leaving the gap to be filled by countries like china who don't care about CO2 emissions).

Most americans are going to ignore fear mongering, and for good reason. We've had fear mogerers tell us that "The world supply of oil will run out in 1999", and "Global cooling is going to kill us all", and "We are having too many kids, we are heading towards world starvation", and "Radiation from nuclear plants is going to destroy all life as we know it!", and "The hole in the Ozone layer is getting huge, it is going to kill all life as we know it!" ect.

Almost all these claims coming from the same group of "green" individuals. And almost all of them, flat out wrong. Each had tons of data and scientific evidence to support their claims, and each has faded in the background to the next big apocalyptical dooms day message.

I'm not saying that global climate change doesn't exist, or that we shouldn't work to become a society that has a low environmental impact. I am saying that this message and the way it is being delivered is one that americans have heard before. To many it is like Y2K, only this time they are saying "Ha ha, fool me once, shame on you." Is it any wonder people don't take climatologist seriously?

 

[soccerballtux]

Perhaps you're clueless?

You sir, win 1 logic.

 

[sandorski]

Sadly, not enough Eco-friendly people support nuclear.

Nuclear is BY FAR the best power generation option. Almost zero CO2 emission, tons of power, and almost zero waste production. Yes, the waste is highly toxic, so is the waste from solar cells and coal plants.

I completely support the development of more power efficient technologies. I also support development of electric vehicles. What I don't support is trying to scare people into doing it. I despise dooms day scare tatics.

Technology development will cause the world to produce less CO2, Cap and trade will cause the US to produce less CO2. (Leaving the gap to be filled by countries like china who don't care about CO2 emissions).

Most americans are going to ignore fear mongering, and for good reason. We've had fear mogerers tell us that "The world supply of oil will run out in 1999", and "Global cooling is going to kill us all", and "We are having too many kids, we are heading towards world starvation", and "Radiation from nuclear plants is going to destroy all life as we know it!", and "The hole in the Ozone layer is getting huge, it is going to kill all life as we know it!" ect.

Almost all these claims coming from the same group of "green" individuals. And almost all of them, flat out wrong. Each had tons of data and scientific evidence to support their claims, and each has faded in the background to the next big apocalyptical dooms day message.

I'm not saying that global climate change doesn't exist, or that we shouldn't work to become a society that has a low environmental impact. I am saying that this message and the way it is being delivered is one that americans have heard before. To many it is like Y2K, only this time they are saying "Ha ha, fool me once, shame on you." Is it any wonder people don't take climatologist seriously?

Hmm, you sure about that?

I understand the whole "Doom" angst, but really people need to get beyond the Emo and just think about the Issues more.

 

[sandorski]

You sir, win 1 logic.

Keep it, I have plenty already.

 

[Darwin333]

Keep it, I have plenty already.

So... considering our current financial status and projected budgets.... who pays the tab? Like I said earlier, your science can be dead on but you still can't cheat the math.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It will, just watch as the Market pursues ways to avoid the Cost of Carbon through Reduction of Emissions.

We've had this already. The cost of energy skyrocketed when the Oil Embargo hit. It never came down. Businesses failed. We were hit economically. There was an enormous incentive to move off of fossil fuels.

Nada.

The people who control energy production dealt with it. They will still be in control, and they will still make huge profits selling oil. Like GM they will stay with the current model no matter what. If they do make an alternative it will be more expensive than China pays for coal.

If the US went completely independent from fossil fuels, we would merely be postponing you concerns.

It's all or nothing.

 

[IGBT]

One side says a problem doesn't exist and the other believes taxing a problem is the best solution.

Egad, we haven't a chance.

the otherside is willing to kludge and falsify evidence under the guise of research to support a science fiction fantasy.

 

[brblx]

but science fiction fantasy is my favorite movie genre.

 

[soccerballtux]

So... considering our current financial status and projected budgets.... who pays the tab? Like I said earlier, your science can be dead on but you still can't cheat the math.

SHHH!!! You're clueless!!!