Author Topic: Were are my CO2 credits (Read 632 times)

JBA · « **on:** September 27, 2007, 10:05:28 AM »

Were are my CO2 credits

I was born in 1967, I lived in a family of 5 with one car, I walked to school until I was 14, then I had to drive because school became to far to walk. We didn’t have a dishwasher until 1982, and our first microwave was 1984. I didn’t own a computer until 1998, and we had only one TV until 2004. I still today use the commuter train to travel 1.5 hours (45) miles to work. I drive less the 10K a year.

I'm sure I can in time think of more ways that I have saved on my CO2 footprint.

So I want my CO2 credits from anyone born after say 1985. Why because anyone born around that year is sure to have had a computer at home, cable TV, two cars in the family, a microwave oven. And is less likely to use public trasportation to school or work.

AWMac · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:08:54 AM »

Sorry JBA but Gore had to use your credits for his last flight...

I'm sure you'll understand. A man of his stature surely can't take a commuter train... right?

Mac

Global Warming gives me a Warm and Fuzzy.

Chairboy · « **Reply #2 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:10:52 AM »

And what about my flying car? Where is it?

indy007 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:14:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
And what about my flying car? Where is it?

Parked next to my jetpack.

Nilsen · « **Reply #4 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:30:03 AM »

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949

Popular mechanics were correct! so dont stop dreaming about that flying car.

JBA · « **Reply #5 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:34:07 AM »

There's an excellent booklet available from the National Center for Policy Analysis (ncpa.org) titled "A Global Warming Primer." Some of its highlights are:

"Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature."

"Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels" compared to 96.6 percent by nature.

"There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today."

What about public school teachers frightening little children with tales of cute polar bears dying because of global warming? The primer says, "Polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century." The primer gives detailed sources for all of its findings, and it supplies us with information we can use to stop politicians and their environmental extremists from doing a rope-a-dope on us.

Nilsen · « **Reply #6 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:46:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JBA

"Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels" compared to 96.6 percent by nature.

So what you are saying is that nature was in balance until we provided the extra 3,4 percent. I can buy that

Sabre · « **Reply #7 on:** September 27, 2007, 11:02:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
So what you are saying is that nature was in balance until we provided the extra 3,4 percent. I can buy that

I think the point was to put things in perspective; i.e.

Quote

"Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature."

"Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels" compared to 96.6 percent by nature.

"There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today."

In other words, our contribution to total CO2 emmisions is but a fraction of the total, that life has flourished on earth when levels were much higher, because, "Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature."

Granted, I'm not sure what they mean by "no close relationship". The ice core samples do in fact show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures, it's just backwards from what AlGore claims. The data shows that CO2 levels lag temperature changes by some 800 years, not the other way around. So rising CO2 levels can't be driving temperature increases. That is the real inconvenient truth! It has also been noted that effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas declines exponentially as concentration goes up. In other words, the higher the concentration, the less heat it traps, until you (rather quickly) reach a point that no amount of extra CO2 will cause any appreciable "greenhouse" warming.

Nilsen · « **Reply #8 on:** September 27, 2007, 11:29:17 AM »

3,4% is alot so the perspective he tried to put it in sorta backfired i think

JBA · « **Reply #9 on:** September 27, 2007, 12:25:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
3,4% is alot so the perspective he tried to put it in sorta backfired i think

3.4% is not a lot of anything. except my income.

Do you really believe that any animal species including the human race can effect the climate of a planet?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #10 on:** September 27, 2007, 12:53:16 PM »

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/carbon.html

I am a fair-weather Eco-friend.

We recycle everything possible (our trash can is half full on trash day!)

We grow our own vegetables ready for harvest beginning in June and through November.

We eat lots of chicken, turkey and little beef.

I drive less than 15,000 miles a year, and telecommute 50% of the time. My wifes car gets 24 mpg and mine about 19.5 mpg. She takes the train into seattle 4 of 5 days a week.

Wow, who would have thunk...Ripsnort...Eco-friendly.

I have a sudden urge litter.

Nilsen · « **Reply #11 on:** September 27, 2007, 12:56:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JBA
3.4% is not a lot of anything. except my income.

Do you really believe that any animal species including the human race can effect the climate of a planet?

Yes we are.

3,4% is HUGE

JBA · « **Reply #12 on:** September 27, 2007, 01:40:49 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602127_pf.html

Dems begin their assault on the economy to save the environment:

_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

_Phase out of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

IMO:
the 3000 sqf is just for starters, the avg home in US is 2400 sqf, they want to make it look like their going after the "rich" but they will soon come after the smaller homes as well. the avg. home in Europe is 1000 sqf, this will be their target just give them time.

lazs2 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 27, 2007, 02:28:32 PM »

nelson... 3.4% of nothing is... well.... not much.

first you have to buy into the fact that only greenhouse gas causes global temperature change.... then you have to buy into the fact that co2 somehow is an important greenhouse gas even tho it is only about 3% of the total greenhouse gases.

We are left with the fact that mans contribution to total greenhouse effect is about 0.28% If... the sun and other natural factors control about 75 to 90% of all global temperature change as most believe...

Then the amount man contributes to global warming... could not even be measured by todays methods... the margin of error it several times greater than the most we could be causing. If greenhouse gases even have any effect.

I do think it good for democrats to get out their plans... I think a lot of people just might want to get some more facts before they shell out another half a buck or so a gallon at the pump... might see some anger when every single product we use costs say....20% more.

And for what? say that they are even right.. say the worst of em is... a reduction of an economy killing 30% in carbon by us will be eaten up by the emerging poorer nations and.. even at the most dire junk co2 junk science disaster scenarios... a reduction of 30% is..... nothing.

In the end... with co2... all roads lead to.... nothing... all except one...

More co2 means more crop production and more food for the world. Less means less.

lazs

Sabre · « **Reply #14 on:** September 27, 2007, 03:08:20 PM »

That's what I was thinking, Lazs. The thing is, they don't even pretend that the additional revenue will actually go to reducing CO2 emissions. I wouldn't believe it if they had. After all, all that money collected from sueing tabacco companies and additional cigarette tax was supposed to go towards health care and anti-smoking campaigns...and we all know what happened. The money collected went into the general fund to prop up new entitlement programs.

These taxes are purely punitive, and unlike the cigarette tax will in the end reduce total revenues, as all tax increase applied to the general public will. It's redistribution of wealth, plain and simple, and will hit the working man and the poor the hardest.

Really want to reduce CO2 emissions? Simply mandate that by 2020 the United States will switch 80 percent of electricity generation to nuclear power. Won't do diddly for global warming, but it will make enviro's happy AND will make the US energy independent (which is a more important objective in my book).