What if I created a bank for the sole purpose of robbing it? Who's at fault then?Originally Posted by Halsu
Politicians created carbon credits for the sole purpose of robbing the idiots that fell for it, even though it creates ZERO clean energy.
What if I created a bank for the sole purpose of robbing it? Who's at fault then?
Politicians created carbon credits for the sole purpose of robbing the idiots that fell for it, even though it creates ZERO clean energy.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
You don't know much about the carbon cycle, do you?
The CO2 that people breathe out is from recently recycled carbon, counted in years, even months only.
(Fossil fuel CO2 is not, you need to consider hundreds of millions of years.)
Seriously?
Fossil fuels are not going to last hundreds of millions of years. I AM thinking in hundreds of millions of years. I think you are not.
The earth has been MUCH hotter with MUCH more Co2, for example the Jurassic period which had almost 5 times more Co2. I have no problem with a Jurassic climate, although that's not going to happen any time soon.
We're going to burn all the oil and coal, and that's that.
Once it's gone, it's gone and no more Co2 emissions from those fossil fuels. If you're thinking in terms of hundreds of millions of years, this will happen so fast it probably won't even be measurable on the geologic scale of things.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
That would be somewhat funny, if i wasn't worried that you actually believe what you write. But i am.
Anyway, i think you should at least read the wikipedia entry for carbon credits...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit
...because it seems you're totally ignorant of even the most basic principles involved.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
About the timescales:
A) the fossil fuels are a repository of CO2 that took millions of years to make
B) us humans are burning to atmosphere most of that slowly gathered repository in the time span of roughly two hundred years
C) the excess co2, once released, will largely stay in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands of years before the natural balance is restored
No, you wouldn't have a problem with it. You'd likely be dead. Jurassic climate would be lethal for many, many current species, and as us humans depend on those species, it would be potentially lethal to us too.The earth has been MUCH hotter with MUCH more Co2, for example the Jurassic period which had almost 5 times more Co2. I have no problem with a Jurassic climate, although that's not going to happen any time soon.
Nope, not necessarily. And even if we did, the rate at which we burn those is crucial.We're going to burn all the oil and coal, and that's that.
The problem is, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time.Once it's gone, it's gone and no more Co2 emissions from those fossil fuels. If you're thinking in terms of hundreds of millions of years, this will happen so fast it probably won't even be measurable on the geologic scale of things.
Last edited by Halsu; 2012 February 28th at 12:01.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
YOU don't understand at all...
They were generated during hundreds of millions, but used up (i.e. the CO2 put into the atmosphere) in the blink of an eye, geological time, upsetting the carbon balance.
I don't think my point is refutable.
No matter how much you conserve, a Billion more people on the planet will produce more carbon.
Even if they all freeze in the winter, suffer from heat in the summer, use florescent light bulbs, drive mopeds, they will still produce MORE total Co2, not less.
With every conservation measure you can possibly come up with, and even if you tax the crap out of Co2, a Billion more people on the planet will still result in MORE total Co2 output than we have today.
I support lower populations by encouraging liberal democracy and sanctioning Totalitarian regimes. Liberal democracies produce lower population birth rates than corrupt regimes or Totalitarian regimes.
I support building clean energy like Nuclear, solar, and wind.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
.
I do not want Co2 levels "balanced", by you, any government, or any organization that supports wealth redistribution. You have no right to do that.
Governments cannot, IMO, legitimately claim control of the atmosphere, and the Earth's temperature.
If you want to build clean energy plants so that people have abundant energy and not contribute to funding totalitarian regimes in the ME, I will support that.
If we can tax Co2, why not tax oxygen?
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 February 28th at 12:44.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Yes. Like Billions of years.
that's not a problem. Without it plants would die, and so would you.
During the Jurassic period it was 5 times higher.
You've stated that species would die if we had a Jurassic climate.
What species exactly? the polar bear? Ok, the range of tropical birds and plants would be extended. New species would develop to take advantage of the new climate.
So? that sort of evolution has been going on for billions of years. Why do you think it should suddenly come to a halt? You're not going to keep the temperature of the planet stable forever. That's not possible.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
MOST of the current species would be in danger to go extinct. Just like they have before, when there have been abrupt changes in the climate. That's what likely killed the dinosaurs, you know...
The problem is, evolution is a slow progress. Sure, in a few million years, there would be a plethora of new species that fit in the new conditions perfectly. But for a large part of the current species, probably the majority, such an abrupt change would be perilous. There's no time to adapt by evolving, and no real possibility to move to a region where the new climate would be suitable.So? that sort of evolution has been going on for billions of years. Why do you think it should suddenly come to a halt? You're not going to keep the temperature of the planet stable forever. That's not possible.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Wrong. There are now seven billion people. If there were a billion more, we would need to reduce the per capita carbon emissions only by around 12,5% to maintain the same global level. That's not much really.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Well, you're simply wrong. The governments do have the right (and obligation) to stop the Earth's atmosphere from being modified dangerously.
Err, maybe because in the light of current knowledge man's oxygen emissions are not a serious global problem like the Co2 emissions are?If we can tax Co2, why not tax oxygen?
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
It is a problem.
If the carbon sequestered in fossil fuel would be released over a period as long as it took it to form, there would be no problem, adaptation would be easy.
Release it all in a few hundred years, nobody has time to adapt.
These graphs show what is so alarming:
In a few hundred years? Then you don't know anything about evolution, either...
PS: I do support CO2-free energy, too. Finland has some of the world's most effective (least downtime) nuclear plants.
Last edited by Janke; 2012 February 28th at 13:39.
I support creating nuclear plants, and other clean energy. Nuclear might not be classified as "clean" since there is waste, but it does replace oil which has dangerous spikes in price and funds Islamic terrorism.
I do not support corrupt policies like Cap and Tax on Co2 emissions.
I do not believe that creates energy. It does make some people rich, and take money from other people. It is great for wealth redistribution, but horrible for creating clean energy.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
It's of no consequence to me if it takes a billion years.
If you have some proof that using fossil fuels is going to make chickens, pigs, cows, rabbits, and fish extinct, please post it.
If you have proof that using fossil fuel is going to make corn, wheat, rice, tomatoes, apples, etc., extinct, please post that.
I'm not aware of any scientists stating that using fossil fuels is going to make our current food sources extinct.
Are you?
I'm alarmed at the cost to influenza vaccination, HIV drugs, preventing malaria, teaching children to read, providing people with clean water that global warming hysteria is creating.
You're going to waste Trillions of dollars on corruption which is not going to create any clean energy on corrupt cap and tax programs, when that money could be spent on solving real problems, or to build clean energy plants.
What is better?
To take a trillion dollars from Europe and give it to African nations so they can buy guns to stay in power with totalitarian regimes, or to take that same trillion dollars and build nuclear, solar, and wind power with it?
"The best case study is Europe. In essence, companies are able to meet emission targets by investing in clean energy development in other countries. The large problem is a number of these clean energy projects have been in the works for years or are completed already. The result is no cut in emissions."
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/12/...0-part-series/
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 February 28th at 14:33.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Repeating your point does not make it true.
Once more, the target is to reduce CO2 emissions, not to create energy.I do not believe that creates energy. It does make some people rich, and take money from other people. It is great for wealth redistribution, but horrible for creating clean energy.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Do you have kids?
I don't think anyone here has claimed that burning the fossil fuels will do anything like that (at least at consumption levels that are somewhat plausible). Now, if you talk about what an abrupt jump to jurassic climate would do, all those species might very well face extinction. The wild animals would of course be the first to go, but it's not said any of the others would survive, especially if the civilization collapsed.If you have some proof that using fossil fuels is going to make chickens, pigs, cows, rabbits, and fish extinct, please post it.
If you have proof that using fossil fuel is going to make corn, wheat, rice, tomatoes, apples, etc., extinct, please post that.
The problem is, a lot of species are rather specialized for the environment they live in. Quick changes in that environment are dangerous.
Nope. But i'm not aware of any scientists that say burning fossil fuels would cause jurassic climate either. Worst of the worst case scenarios are relatively close though (around +7 degrees celsius, compared to Jurassic's +10).I'm not aware of any scientists stating that using fossil fuels is going to make our current food sources extinct.
Are you?
Last edited by Halsu; 2012 February 28th at 14:51.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
I do not believe the Earth's atmosphere is being modified dangerously. I do believe Co2 emitted by Man may change the earth's temperature perhaps .00000001 degrees or so.
Can you predict the sun flares of the future and what those will do to the Earth's temperature? Can you say with certainty we won't enter another cooling period due to the activity of the sun?
Well, can you? If not, why should you be in charge of tampering with the Earth's thermostat when you have absolutely no idea what you're doing?
And, what gives you the right to charge people Trillions of dollars to change the temp a thousandth of a degree?
If it's not a thousandth of a degree, please tell me EXACTLY how much you will change the Earth's temperature, over what period of them, and what the cost will be for that.
A trillion dollars for 1.3 degrees change in 10 years?
100 Trillion for .5 degree change in 20 years?
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
I agree, so I think we're just fine.
If we can stop people from wasting money on corrupt cap and tax programs which are nothing more than wealth redistribution, and get them to build clean energy instead everyone will be a lot better off.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
I enjoy debating, but do not generally disclose personal facts about me to anonymous posters on the internet.
If I meet you in person for coffee, I'd be glad to discuss those sorts of personal details with you.
We can, however, talk in general about children and their future.
IMO, children will have a much brighter future if money is not wasted on corrupt cap and tax wealth redistribution scams, and is instead spent on real solutions like building clean energy plants.
If someone is born today, and we have cap and tax, they will inherit a future where politicians have more money to stay in power and bribe people for votes, and Carbon Emissions will continue to rise.
If instead we build clean energy plants starting now, we can give them a future that is not dependent on oil, coal, or other fossil fuels.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Reducing Co2 emissions does nothing but redistribute wealth.
It does not create clean energy.
Why wouldn't you have a goal of creating clean energy, instead of a goal for redistributing wealth?
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Amateurs rob banks. Professionals own one. (B. Brecht paraphrased)
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
For anyone that supports Cap and Trade co2 scams, I have a simple question.
Last year Billions of dollars were spent on Carbon Credits.
Can you tell me what the people that received those billions of dollars did with the money?
If not, are you saying it doesn't matter? Like, you dont' care if they bought private jets, Hummers, or spent the money on booze and hookers, or purchased weapons to stay in power in corrupt regimes, you still think Cap and Trade is a great idea for funding those sorts of endeavors?
To answer this you would say, Company A or Government B recieved 100 million dollars for Cap and Tax credits they sold.
This is what they did with that 100 million dollars, and here are the links to prove it.
Or, you can say it makes no difference to me what they did with that 100 million dollars. If they used to it to buy votes, or build a palace with gold leaf on all the walls, that's their business, or purchase another house on the French Riviera I don't care. The important thing is Co2 was taxed.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
It does - it reduces the artificial warming caused by those emissions. And that's the goal, nothing else.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Well, that just shows you are ignorant.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote