Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
You are right.
Posted by Hates Idiots
12th Oct
Just
In
In
And I would be in favor of that.
Edited by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 21st Oct
Show:
-2
Votes
What CO2 levels...
I'm convinced by now that man is so greedy that we'll end up coughing and choking in asthmatic polluted convulsions in the name of progress (and politicians pockets) ending thus the human chapter on earth. Kaput. Finished. And the world will keep turning as placid as it did after the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Good riddance.
Posted by David Traversa
11th Oct
+1
Vote
Not in the US
In the US, power generation is switching from coal to natural gas. It's hard to get asthma from CO2, the only significant byproduct of burning natural gas.
Your assumption that it can only get worse is completely contrary to US history. Maybe you weren't around in the '60s, but I can tell you that in the LA area by the end of the day you couldn't take a deep breath without coughing from the ozone, and often your eyes were watering. That was ancient history by the '80s. While in the LA area this was due to improvements in cars, other parts of the country also saw air pollution declines because of restrictions on coal burning. While we still have a ways to go, the trend since the '60s has always been in the direction of decreasing pollution.
Your assumption that it can only get worse is completely contrary to US history. Maybe you weren't around in the '60s, but I can tell you that in the LA area by the end of the day you couldn't take a deep breath without coughing from the ozone, and often your eyes were watering. That was ancient history by the '80s. While in the LA area this was due to improvements in cars, other parts of the country also saw air pollution declines because of restrictions on coal burning. While we still have a ways to go, the trend since the '60s has always been in the direction of decreasing pollution.
Posted by zackers
12th Oct
-1
Votes
Fever
"It's hard to get asthma from CO2, the only significant byproduct of burning natural gas."
But CO2 is giving the Earth a fever and that's not going to be good for lots of people.
But CO2 is giving the Earth a fever and that's not going to be good for lots of people.
Posted by riverat1
12th Oct
+2
Votes
You are right.
We will be choking on pollution as long as the eco crowd remains obsessed with controlling CO2 output from western nations and is not at all concerned about the real toxic pollution being pumped out by growing number of coal power plants from India, China and now Germany.
We will all be dead of mercury poisoning because our food supply is being tainted, long before rising temperatures or rising oceans cause us grief.
We will all be dead of mercury poisoning because our food supply is being tainted, long before rising temperatures or rising oceans cause us grief.
Posted by Hates Idiots
12th Oct
-1
Votes
Why not control both?
The simplest solution to the toxic pollution from coal plants is to not burn coal. Rising temperatures are already causing us grief. You're just not perceptive enough to see it.
Posted by riverat1
12th Oct
+1
Vote
Sensible, but how do you propose we do that?
The Chinese communist-capitalists really don't care what we think on the topic, and they are expanding their coal-fired grid by the size of Britain's every single year. What we don't burn, they will be happy to.
And as we continue to spend well beyond our means financed primarily by those same Chinese communist-capitalists, our leverage to do anything meaningful diminishes daily.
And as we continue to spend well beyond our means financed primarily by those same Chinese communist-capitalists, our leverage to do anything meaningful diminishes daily.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 13th Oct
0
Votes
China
In some ways the Chinese are ahead of the US in renewable energy. They're spending more on it than we are.
Posted by riverat1
15th Oct
0
Votes
Only because they think we'll keep going into debt to them...
...to buy it from them.
Either way, all of that renewable energy R&D is being developed by factories powered by dirty coal.
And you didn't answer the question.
Either way, all of that renewable energy R&D is being developed by factories powered by dirty coal.
And you didn't answer the question.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Oct
0
Votes
Debt
The Chinese only own about 8% of the US Federal Debt. We don't owe them that much and they know as well as anyone that if they start messing with us over that they're going to lose more than they gain.
The question? How do we not burn coal? Simple, we get energy from other sources. I'm not proposing that all coal plants be shut down tomorrow, just that a credible plan be developed to phase them out.
The question? How do we not burn coal? Simple, we get energy from other sources. I'm not proposing that all coal plants be shut down tomorrow, just that a credible plan be developed to phase them out.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 15th Oct
0
Votes
Wrong.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
Soon, we will be paying more in interest alone to China than we spend on our own military. How will that shake out in the arena of world affairs?
And you are still evading the question I asked: How do we stop China from burning more coal than we might stop using?
Soon, we will be paying more in interest alone to China than we spend on our own military. How will that shake out in the arena of world affairs?
And you are still evading the question I asked: How do we stop China from burning more coal than we might stop using?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Oct
0
Votes
Not wrong!
John, You need a little more depth to your analysis. Your chart shows debt owned by foreigners and I don't dispute that China owns over 20% of the foreign owned debt. But the grand total of foreign owned debt is about $5.5 trillion out of a total debt (foreign and domestic) slightly over $16 trillion. So China owning around 8% of the total debt is not far off.
We can't simply stop China from burning coal by fiat but as one of their major customers we can create incentives to reduce their coal burning. In many ways China is already ahead of the US in renewable energy.
We can't simply stop China from burning coal by fiat but as one of their major customers we can create incentives to reduce their coal burning. In many ways China is already ahead of the US in renewable energy.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 18th Oct
0
Votes
Again, exactly how?
"We can't simply stop China from burning coal by fiat but as one of their major customers we can create incentives to reduce their coal burning. In many ways China is already ahead of the US in renewable energy.
Sounds like an Obama speech. We can "create incentives" blah blah blah. Sounds feel-good positive, and yet says absolutely nothing of any substance.
Again, exactly how?
The only way I can see is to stop buying stuff and borrowing money from them. Neither is going to happen.
Sounds like an Obama speech. We can "create incentives" blah blah blah. Sounds feel-good positive, and yet says absolutely nothing of any substance.
Again, exactly how?
The only way I can see is to stop buying stuff and borrowing money from them. Neither is going to happen.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 19th Oct
0
Votes
Carbon tax
You probably don't like it but my personal answer to that is a carbon tax including tariffs on the carbon content of imports.
Posted by riverat1
19th Oct
0
Votes
Actually, I wouldn't necessarily be against that.
Conceptually, I'd be for it. Conceptually, 20 years ago I was for "cap and trade", except then it was for honest threats like particulate and other toxic emissions.
The problem is that carbon taxes as they are being proposed and implemented are a complete sham. The measuring metrics are bogus, the revenues are to be directed to be spent on boondoggles for the benefit of politicians and their corporate cronies. They don't prevent an ounce of carbon emissions, and in many cases actually encourage them.
Come up with an honest mechanism and we'll talk.
The problem is that carbon taxes as they are being proposed and implemented are a complete sham. The measuring metrics are bogus, the revenues are to be directed to be spent on boondoggles for the benefit of politicians and their corporate cronies. They don't prevent an ounce of carbon emissions, and in many cases actually encourage them.
Come up with an honest mechanism and we'll talk.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Oct
0
Votes
Carbon tax and dividend
A carbon tax is simple to apply (until you get to the imports I mentioned). You just apply it at the mine entrance or well head or import dock to the fossil fuels and let the costs trickle up through the supply chain. It gets a bit more tricky applying it to imports of other goods but you could just have a standard that covers all of a particular countries imports.
Then the proceeds of the carbon tax should be distributed back as even shares to all citizens with perhaps up to 5% taken out for administration and funding research. Also, the tax should start out low and be gradually increased each year so it's not a big shock right off the bat. The dividend will ease the burden of the tax on low income people and people with high carbon lifestyles will pay more tax than they get back.
Then the proceeds of the carbon tax should be distributed back as even shares to all citizens with perhaps up to 5% taken out for administration and funding research. Also, the tax should start out low and be gradually increased each year so it's not a big shock right off the bat. The dividend will ease the burden of the tax on low income people and people with high carbon lifestyles will pay more tax than they get back.
Posted by riverat1
19th Oct
0
Votes
And I would be in favor of that.
Except we both know that is not what we'd get.
There'd be exceptions for "favored" industries, well represented in Washington, and additional levies on those who are not so popular. The "dividend" would not be for "all" citizens, but denied some based on income since they don't "need" it, and enhanced for others because higher prices will hurt them more proportionately. Only 5% for R&D? Ha! Yeah, like they wouldn't attack that as well. In all of history, ave any politicians ever been able to contain themselves with such a huge grab bag of funds sitting there? There are more phony green companies that need special help.
A great dream, my friend. But just that.
Let's reform the tax code to a level where even Tim Geithner could successfully do his own taxes without being a criminal and then we'll talk more. If we can't even do that, then expecting a fair, rational carbon tax is just more folly.
There'd be exceptions for "favored" industries, well represented in Washington, and additional levies on those who are not so popular. The "dividend" would not be for "all" citizens, but denied some based on income since they don't "need" it, and enhanced for others because higher prices will hurt them more proportionately. Only 5% for R&D? Ha! Yeah, like they wouldn't attack that as well. In all of history, ave any politicians ever been able to contain themselves with such a huge grab bag of funds sitting there? There are more phony green companies that need special help.
A great dream, my friend. But just that.
Let's reform the tax code to a level where even Tim Geithner could successfully do his own taxes without being a criminal and then we'll talk more. If we can't even do that, then expecting a fair, rational carbon tax is just more folly.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 21st Oct
0
Votes
coal burning and co2 output
Firstly I would like to ask the above contributers if they personally drive cars and catch planes. 40% of CO2 emissions come from transport. I can only encourage public transport lobbys. As to burning coal, like nuclear power, it is unsafe and irresponsible. Coal also emits a lot of radiation. Coal is a precious finite resource and will be essential in replacing some tasks over from dwindling oil supplies (brown coal is the only known replacement in making carbon based fertilizers that are currently helping feed the planet). I suggest a responsible look at needs to be met and how best spend or save dwindling fossil resources. Targeting the industries using coal and highlight their negative effects, such as in this article is commendable. i look forward to the time when companies will have to pay for ALL waste they create AND clean it up. (http://igg.me/p/236714?a=1362962)
Posted by carriehampel
14th Oct