There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

  Quote

Does anyone think the United States should take on (costly) anti-pollution measures to combat global warming if China and India don't do the same

Yes. For the same reasons that we shouldn't torture, even though other countries are. For the same reasons that we should provide free schooling, even though other countries don't.

Because whenever possible, it's best to do the right thing, as we see it now. And the long-term right thing seems to be to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible. Maybe not for our economic prosperity, but for the overall long-term comfort of earthlings.

If we start now, when our backs aren't up to the wall, we have more control over how we do it, and maybe we can serve as a shining example, and make it easier for other countries to do the right thing.

Wendy W.

More and more (and more thourgh) research is coming to light indicating that man has very little (if any effect) on climate change. IF this turns out to be the case would you still advocate changes that have major impacts on a way of life?

The PC side of this debate seeks to quite the disenters by calling them poluters and profiteers. This only strengthns my opinion that there is a politcal side to this issue, but that is not the side I am on.

We should concentrate on power plant emisions and the like. We should spend money on things that really do make a difference.

I believe the GW alarmists are working toward a global tax (of sorts) with a group (like the one that ran the oil for food program) running the show. Now wouldn't that be a winner
My 2 cents worth......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Nice sentiment, even if it is entirely impractical.

Your comparisons to torture and education are bad analogies. Torture is a moral issue. Education is a domestic one. Global warming is a physical, international issue.

I look forward to Kallend or Bill chiming in, that you made an excellent anolgy... that combating global warming (domestically) is exactly the same as banning torture.

[wmw999 2,555]

It's not exactly the same thing. No way. But it's parallel, because there is a "right" thing (obviously some folks feel differently) that limits us (torture), and a "wrong" thing that removes those limits. Or a "right" thing that costs us more money (free schooling), and a "wrong" thing that costs us less.

There are plenty of libertarians who think that education shouldn't be free. And there are no perfect analogies. The only perfect one is the same one, and then it's no longer an analogy, is it?

And rushmc -- what I've seen, from individuals who I know personally (not on dz.com or the media), with charts, and 8X10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows (), convinces me that the prudent thing to do is to limit our carbon emissions until we are sure, rather than running right up to the edge, and THEN discovering that the carbon emissions were hurting us all along.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

It's not exactly the same thing. No way. But it's parallel, because there is a "right" thing (obviously some folks feel differently) that limits us (torture), and a "wrong" thing that removes those limits. Or a "right" thing that costs us more money (free schooling), and a "wrong" thing that costs us less.

Money spent on public education is a simple investment in our long term health. From a cost/benefit perspective, it's money well spent.

That's not the case with our fighting global warming while China and India do not.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

It's not exactly the same thing. No way. But it's parallel, because there is a "right" thing (obviously some folks feel differently) that limits us (torture), and a "wrong" thing that removes those limits. Or a "right" thing that costs us more money (free schooling), and a "wrong" thing that costs us less.

There are plenty of libertarians who think that education shouldn't be free. And there are no perfect analogies. The only perfect one is the same one, and then it's no longer an analogy, is it?

And rushmc -- what I've seen, from individuals who I know personally (not on dz.com or the media), with charts, and 8X10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows (), convinces me that the prudent thing to do is to limit our carbon emissions until we are sure, rather than running right up to the edge, and THEN discovering that the carbon emissions were hurting us all along.

Wendy W.

Your point is well taken and to some extent I agree with your thought process. But I am getting more and more convinced that man made CO has very little if anything to do with the current climate changes we are seeing.

Google Dr Bob Carter from James Cook University. He sums it up very well.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,113]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Since "the right" has had such great success predicting events in Iraq and the cost of the war, did such a great job predicting that the deficit would be small and short lived, and made those wonderfully accurate predictions of the cost of the Medicare drug benefit, why wouldn't you trust a rightist prediction on climate?

Lush Rimjob and David Savage do not believe its happening so....... it cant be happening..period.. end of story

You left out "And who cares if Clinton got a blowjob?"

And we know how hot things got after that!

  Quote

Does anyone think the United States should take on (costly) anti-pollution measures to combat global warming if China and India don't do the same?

Why?

yes. Same reason as Wendy gave, it's the right thing to do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Does anyone think the United States should take on (costly) anti-pollution measures to combat global warming if China and India don't do the same?

Why?

yes. Same reason as Wendy gave, it's the right thing to do.

At what cost? $10 Billion/year? 100 Billion/year? 1Trillion/year?

And how about jobs? Is 3 million jobs lost, too much?

If the costs are high and the benefits are negligible, should we still do it because "it's the right thing"?

[wmw999 2,555]

  Quote

If the costs are high and the benefits are negligible, should we still do it because "it's the right thing"?

We haven't quantified either the costs or the benefits.

That said, much of the cost comes in conversion, not in long-term operation. Going from a carbon-based high-waste economy to a less-carbon-based low-waste economy will means costs of development, retooling, and hassle for people. But the longterm result can do nothing but benefit us, because then, as a people, our overall cost of existence (and impact on the planet) will be lower.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[speedy 0]

  Quote

(costly) anti-pollution measures

Sigh.... Looks like the brain washing that CO2 is a pollutant is begining to work.

Can't get people worked up about CO2 so lets name it a pollutant. Everyone hates pollutants.

What about the logarithmic effect of changing levels of atmospheric CO2 on downwelling radiation (given in Watts per meter squared [Wm-2]). For the tropics the change in forcing from 0-360 ppmv is ~0.4 Wm-2 and from 360-560 ppmv (roughly current to double pre-Industrial Revolution levels) the change is <0.1 Wm2. Summer values for the subarctic (60° Latitude) are 0-360: ~2.9 and 360-560: ~0.5 and winter values ~14.4 and ~1.1Wm2 respectively, with cold dry winter air displaying the greatest sensitivity.

So, assuming the whole world responded with the vigor displayed by the subarctic in winter (not possible but never mind) then we are looking at an average of ~1.1Wm2 and further assuming the world responds with the ridiculous climate sensitivity used in climate models, that would equate to a potential warming of ~1 °C with the doubling of pre-IR atmospheric carbon dioxide. Using the Earth's measured climate sensitivity the realistic figure is approximately 0.1 °C.

Do you still want to do the right thing?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

  Quote

If the costs are high and the benefits are negligible, should we still do it because "it's the right thing"?

We haven't quantified either the costs or the benefits.

That said, much of the cost comes in conversion, not in long-term operation. Going from a carbon-based high-waste economy to a less-carbon-based low-waste economy will means costs of development, retooling, and hassle for people. But the longterm result can do nothing but benefit us, because then, as a people, our overall cost of existence (and impact on the planet) will be lower.

Wendy W.

Sounds like the benefits you claim are based on (purely hypothetical) assumptions.

[wmw999 2,555]

Benefits include:
less waste material to find a place to stash.
higher quality of air to breathe.
less traffic congestion.
less money spent on fuel.
more trees.

Those seem kind of nice to me.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

Benefits include:
less waste material to find a place to stash.
higher quality of air to breathe.
less traffic congestion.
less money spent on fuel.
more trees.

Those seem kind of nice to me.

THERE!! that's IT!!

Those are really good reasons to practice conservation. They are intuitive and the right thing.

I hate the whole chicken little "we have to save the dying planet crap" which at best is just a bunch of idiotic hyperbole.

But I love this list. It shows that you don't have to be a nutjob just to do the right thing. "real" environmentalists can get aboard this.

Maybe Nightengale will make you Sec of the Interior.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chrismgtis 0]

Personally I think "global warming" is mostly a bunch of crap. The climate shifts and probably does so very significantly. In other words, I think it's more than likely a natural occurence, not something created by man. Who are we to make up some theory on anything that the Earth does. We have only been here a few thousand years compared to billions (according to scientists - which I don't put much faith in). You can't theorize on data that young. Theres nothing factual to compare it to.

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[speedy 0]

Don't crank the heating up, darling - we need the carbon for our holiday

Picture the scene: you've been so good about sticking to your carbon budget, but little Johnny has gashed his head open, and you can't take him by bus to A&E. You pile the kids into the car and, since you're running on empty, stop at a petrol station for fuel. You hand over two pieces of plastic: a credit card and a carbon card. When the attendant swipes the latter, he sees that you don't have enough carbon units to cover the petrol. The computerised till multiplies the missing units by the prevailing carbon price, and a charge is added to your Visa bill.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

the computerised till multiplies the missing units by the prevailing carbon price, and a charge is added to your Visa bill.

That article now let's me understand some of the posters here......

but don't just stop at gas, they want to add charges for everything. Here's the great lefty utopia:

you have an id card that has information on your gas usage, mileage, and what kind of car you use - to allow you pay MORE per gallon if you drive a guzzler (aka, SUV thread).

But, what if you are poor and can only find an old Explorer in your neighborhood? You shouldn't be penalized for that compared to Joe rich guy who CHOSE to drive the same make and model. So the card should also track your income and adjust the tax.

But, some posters also think inherited or saved wealth should be penalized too. SO the card should also track all your net holdings and adjust the tax.

But some of this is culture based, so the card should also track your race, religion, and political affiliation and make sure taxes also are adjusted on those factors.

Now, you are ready to buy gas based on all these items. You can also bring the card into the grocery store, clothing outlet, when buying all sorts of stuff.

And on the plus side, the government can track your every movement and transaction and use that to also see if you are getting out of line in your travel and buying patterns. If you are, they can also jack up the taxes and prices for all those activities as well.

Of course, the privacy advocates might have issues with it, but it's for the environment and needed so everyone pays their "fair share" as defined by random people wanting to keep their votes.

And think how fun it is to never actually know what you are paying for something until you swipe that card.

In fact, while Bill Gates is paying $1834.12 per gallon of gas, some people may actually be able to fill up and walk away with money in their pockets (as long as all the criteria aligns up perfectly).

I bet about 2% of the population would think this is perfectly 'fair'

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[speedy 0]

You see, its not about the trees or the CO2, it's about taxes.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

You see, its not about the trees or the CO2, it's about taxes.

you know, it would be a lot easier if the government just decided which cars we drive, how far they get to drive, and remotely operated our thermostats for us...........

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,555]

  Quote

carbon budget stuff...

In the US at least we've grown to expect an extremely energy-intensive lifestyle. We live miles from school, our kids drive their own cars, and after-school activities are all far apart and after hours, requiring individual transportation.

We set play dates with kids who are miles away, and then drive the kids there, rather than have them play with the kids close by (who are the wrong something, even if it's just that they don't play the same games).

The stuff we buy comes bubble-packed to avoid theft, which is costing stores a significant amount. It's also highly processed, to make it easier to use, because we have so much less time than we used to (due in fair part to the cost in time of transportation to all these activities).

We also buy a lot of stuff to fix what's wrong because we don't maintain it (like our bodies), again because who has time to cook, and no one likes vegetables anyway, and no one has the right equipment to exercise.

Anyway, this is rapidly descending from diatribe to rant. But if we live our lives as though we are a part of a greater whole, rather than our own little self-justified universe, it might be that rather than limiting our lives, it simply gives us different challenges to surmount, and different ways to grow.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[NCclimber 0]

Oooo Cultural standards for the benefit of society, as a whole.

Who has been tearing down these standards for the last 50 years???

[rushmc 23]

Sounds like the benefits you claim are based on (purely hypothetical) assumptions.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

Benefits include:
less waste material to find a place to stash.
higher quality of air to breathe.
less traffic congestion.
less money spent on fuel.
more trees.

Those seem kind of nice to me.

Wendy W.

One of your points above really struck me. That one being "less trafic congestion"

You think this would happen because of why?

IF your answer is what I think it is going to be (and I may be very wrong) you are making my point in a big way about this whole issue and WHY it is being pushed the way it is.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Oh, and by the way, there are WAY more tree in this country than when Columbus came here to begin with

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

Oh, and by the way, there are WAY more tree in this country than when Columbus came here to begin with

You CANT really believe that....

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

You see, its not about the trees or the CO2, it's about taxes.

YES YES YES!! finally, somebody else saying the same. And then add to this that an organization such as the UN would be incontrol of the tax dollars!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

According to the UN:

  Quote

Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Moooooo