This is in addition to cap and trade for industry. They’re going to ration energy at the same time while raising taxes to use it. (The bill is here.)They’re doing it in the name of global warming, but here’s the rub: CO2 doesn’t CAUSE global warming. If there’s warming, the increased CO2 occurs hundreds of years after that. Put another way, man is responsible for less than 1% of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Of alllll the greenhouse gases only 4% is CO2 (the largest greenhouse gas is water vapor). That means only an infinitesimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made or even close.
They capping and trading (rationing) CO2 AND taxing a naturally occurring substance over which we have little or no control.
Somebody please tell them they’re about ready to blow a hole in a foundation of our economy for a lie that they’re too lazy to check out themselves.
Even the libs are admitting it now as I’ve pointed out in previous posts. Here’s a bit from Huffington post (here):
“…there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore’s graph. You are probably wondering by now — and if you are not, you should be — which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years.
“…the theory that carbon dioxide “drives” climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong …
“If not carbon dioxide, what does “drive” climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles…
“Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that “the science is in.” Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
Now for the bill. Here are a few items you need to know about:
Imposes tax on each fuel supplier and utility based on amount
of carbon in carbon-based fuel that is sold by fuel supplier to
consumers in state or that is used to produce carbon-generated
electricity supplied by utility to consumers in state.
oil or natural gas.Distributes moneys collected from tax to State Highway Fund,
Common School Fund, Energy Crisis Trust Fund and Renewable Energy
Resources Account.Creates Renewable Energy Resources Account to fund development
of renewable energy resources.
Carbon-based fuel’ means coal, natural gas, petroleum products and any other product used for fuel that contains carbon and emits carbon dioxide when combusted. ‘Carbon-based fuel ‘does not include any product used for fuel that is from a resource that is less than 1,000 years old in its natural state.
The State Department of Energy shall calculate the average amount of carbon used in the production of one kilowatt of electricity supplied by the utility by estimating the ratio that each carbon-based fuel group contributes to the generation of the electricity. Each year, the State Department of Energy shall recalculate and report to the Department of Revenue the average amount of carbon used in the production of one kilowatt of electricity supplied by the utility…
“A Lie”
A reduction of CO2 emissions from petroleum sources is a good thing. Regardless of global warming, the polution put into the air, into our waters etc needs to slow down. The developing world along with the developed world makes for a cesspool of airborn polution. If not a reduction now, when? Even people addicted to petroleum dependent machines can’t reject the idea that we need to find something more sustainable. Maybe it is time we shift our dependence on petroleum to something more sustainable. I am all for a tax. It is the least we can do to move it along.
How is that study on cow flatulence coming, David?
How soon before we get cleaner air from cows that pollute less?
We will move away from petroleum in due time, as technology is developed. But, what do we do in the meantime? Walk, freeze, light candles (which may release pollutants too)?
> Put another way, man is responsible
> for less than 1% of carbon emitted
> into the atmosphere.
And guess what? That carbon is responsible for less than 1% of the additional radiative forcing causing AGW. But that’s enough to make a big difference, because other forcings vary little.
additional forcing due to anthropogenic CO2 ~ 2 W/m2.
solar constant ~ 1366 W/m2.
ratio ~ 0.1%
Lew Waters wrote:
> How soon before we get cleaner
> air from cows that pollute less?
By raising and eating far less of them.
(Red meat isn’t very good for your health anyway.)
Victoria wrote:
> …CO2 doesn’t CAUSE global warming.
> If there’s warming, the
> increased CO2 occurs hundreds of
> years after that.
Oh Victoria, you really need to learn a little bit of science.
CO2 certainly causes warming. Our planet would be frigid if it did not, about 35 F colder on average. (See: Stefan-Boltzman equation.)
While past temperature increases have, over long periods of time (>> decades) caused increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the CO2 increases in today’s atmosphere are of different origin: they come not from increasing temperatures but from man’s burning of fossil fuels. (The evidence of this is abundant.)
And guess what: pumping a known greenhouse gas into our atmosphere appears to be leading to warming! To no one’s astonishment, really — it’s simple physics. It would be surprising if it did not.
You’re right to worry that temperature increases can cause CO2 level increases, though. This is an example of “positive feedback,” and could make today’s global warming worse in a vicious feedback cycle.
Funny, we have been living off of red meat for centuries.
Even God gave all the animals of the earth as food to Noah as he came off of the Ark, save certain one with cleft hoofs.
Sorry to tell you, but eating an animal does lower their flatulence. Prepared right, though, it might increase ours 😉
CO2 is neither a polutant nor does it cause global warning. It is necessary for the survival of all plant life on the earth. Help save the old growth forests, drive a Hummer and a realy BIG boat.
Willy is right. The Oregon legislature, as will other state legislatures around the country, is considering taxing CO2 emissions. Are they going to tax everyone who breathes? Every time someone exhales, he is expelling CO2. Are they going to tax beer and soda pop additionally? Because beer and soda pop is aerated with CO2 just before the cans and/or bottles are sealed. And, these brain
-surgeons who are authorities on virtually everything and experts on absolutely nothing (Pope Algore I comes to mind) will be horrified to learn that every time they drink a can of beer or soda pop they are ingesting CO2 into their systems.
These legislators who are pushing for such a tax on CO2 are not at all interested in any danger, real or perceived, from CO2. All they want is to tax the people more and more. CO2 is not the problem here. Legislators are.
Albert Camus wrote, “The welfare of the people is always the alibi of tyrants.”
He was right on spot here.
Scottiebill wrote:
> Are they going to tax everyone who
> breathes? Every time someone exhales, > he is expelling CO2.
Amount of CO2 expelled by one person breathing: 0.9 kg/day
Amount of CO2 expelled to support one American’s lifestyle: about 65 kg/day
That is, what we expel by breathing is very small — and, in any case, that CO2 was already take in by the plants we eat.
Abel: Do the math. .9 kg/day times 6-billion people comes to 5.4-billion kg/per day of CO2 exhaled. That is a fairly significant amount of CO2. But CO2 is still not a pollutant per se. It is still essential to life. The CO2 aerated into beer and soda pop is not necessarily essential to life, but there are many, many millions of people who consume the stuff every day.
But since you are apparently hanging onto every word Pope Algore babbles out, we can’t expect you to understand anyones point other than the Pope’s, and yours of course.
> Do the math. .9 kg/day times
> 6-billion people comes to
> 5.4-billion kg/per day of CO2
> exhaled. That is a fairly
> significant amount of CO2.
No, it’s not.
In the first place, this CO2 was already inhaled by the plants we eat for sustenance (and the animals we eat who eat plants). We’re merely exhaling it back into the atmosphere in what is a closed cycle. So this CO2 adds net nothing.
On the other hand, it’s only 5.4 million metric tons. Humans add about 70 Mmt/day from energy production — 14 times more. And, unlike what we exhale, this CO2 isn’t part of a closed cycle and it accumulates in the atmosphere and oceans.
> The CO2 aerated into beer and soda pop > is not necessarily essential to life, > but there are many, many millions of
> people who consume the stuff every day.
Again, no.
First of all, the CO2 in beverages is a product of other reactions and merely recaptured, not invented anew.
Secondly, it’s only about 4 Kmt/day, according to one estimate I see on the Web. That is far, far less than what we emit for energy production.
> But since you are apparently hanging
> onto every word Pope Algore babbles
> out
I don’t trust Al Gore’s word for anything, but I do trust the word of peer-reviewed, established science. The above conclusions are easy, basic science and hardly controversial. Unfortunately, they appear not to fit your preconceived notions.
Scottiebill wrote:
> But CO2 is still not a pollutant
> per se. It is still essential to
> life.
So is water. But drink it in sufficient quantities and it will kill you.
The word “pollutant” depends on the context, and there is no single context. Yes, CO2 is essential to plant and animal life. It is also essential to making Earth inhabitable for our species. But in larger proportions it changes the planet in ways that are deleterious to our species and most others, and in that sense can be rightly called a “pollutant.”
This is no single answer and no single classification. Things are more complex than that.
Lew Waters wrote:
> Even God gave all the animals of
> the earth as food to Noah as he came
> off of the Ark, save certain one with > cleft hoofs.
Except that there is exactly zero scientific evidence that “Noah” ever existed, let alone “God.” We might as well argue about how purple elephants have influenced the current situation.
Dear David;
Here’s the problem with your ‘peer’ scientific review:
It’s being performed by people who are leftist zealots for the religion of science, and due to the political affiliations of these same ‘peers’, along with how every one of these ‘theories’ always involves the destruction of the U.S. economy to ‘make us safe!’, it always looks like you have an agenda.
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that this particular bit of ‘science’ just happens to walk in lockstep with Communism/Socialism? Or that the scientific ‘experts’ who’s results are touted as ‘fact’ all seem to be coming from rather-psychotically-left-leaning universities? Or that these ‘end of the world!’ predictions never seem to stay the same, from one year to the next? Care to divulge your political leanings, or who you voted for as president, David?
Of course, your reply will be something along the lines of ‘We scientists don’t allow politics to influence our research, blah, blah’, yet, no one seems to notice that the most dire scientific predictions of the last 30 or so years just happened to come from left-leaning ‘scientists’….Anyone remember the R12 Freon ‘scare’, and the ‘ozone hole’ over the Antarctic? You know, that same ozone hole that these same scientists just happened to conveniently forget to tell us that the hole DISAPPEARS for six months out of the year, and was discovered well before the creation of Freon/R12? Couple that with the false information spouted to the public, that stated CFC’s from freon and aerosols immediately shot up to the ozone layer….however, it was discovered that CFC’s are just a wee bit too heavy to actually FLOAT into the atmoshpere, taking at least 30 years to get into the atmosphere….if they actually ever make it? Oh, don’t let us forget that the OCEANS produce 600,000,000 times more CFC’s, through the water evaporation/condensation cycle?
The result?
R12 refridgerant production was outlawed in the United States (but was still used by the US Military), but its ‘scientifically-mandated’ replacement, R134a, in addition to being an incredibly inefficient refridgerant, just happens to be a nerve agent if exposed to open flame. In addition, R134a was banned in France after a R134a plant was incinerated after an explosion there, and subsequent nerve gas cloud that eminated from the fire.
Oh, and by the way? Remember my mentioning that this ‘scientifically-touted’ R134a was rather inefficent? Since it’s such a poor refridgerant, automobiles REQUIRE MORE GASOLINE TO RUN AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS THAT USE R134a. Oh my. All of this time, we were looking at technology to improve gas mileage, and with the scientists falsely predicting the ‘end of the world’ if we all continued to use R12…we are now using more fuel in our cars as a result, if you don’t want to sweat to death, or FREEZE in all of this ‘global warming’. Oh yeah, before I forget, cars equipped with A/C also use that system for the HEATERS AND DEFROSTERS….which means that due to leftist scientific idiots who spend more time trying to generate grant dollars than checking their results, the American people have been subject to at least four decades of financial abuse, in order to line their own pockets…and yours.
Which was more ‘evil’ here, David?
Scientists who try to scare the hell out of people with bogus predictions, destroying the economy in the process, or is that what you have been working on all along? See why I mention the political angle now? Your ‘predictions’ and ‘theories’ always have a economy-destroying taint to them, which is part and parcel to Karl Marx….
Don’t even get me started on the ‘ice age’ doom of the 1970’s…or how nobody can accurately predict the weather for the next two days, but in the same breath, predict what’s going to be happening 100 years from now?
Pirate said…
> Here’s the problem with your ‘peer’ > scientific review:
> It’s being performed by people
> who are leftist zealots for the
> religion of science,
First of all, science isn’t a “religion.” It’s based on facts, not faith.
I would also like to see your evidence that these scientists are “leftists.” Please be specific.
I have interviewed many of them. Not once can I recall any who made any kind of political statement, either in relation to science or as a aside. They are simply people like you and me, with families and children and mortgages, working their asses off to try to get ahead.
So, I want to see the evidence for your conclusion.
> Does anyone else find it a bit
> odd that this particular bit of
> ‘science’ just happens to walk in
> lockstep with Communism/Socialism?
That’s simply your paranoid conclusion. There’s no reason why the scientific finding that “CO2 is a greenhouse gas warming the planet” has anything to do with Communism or socialism. There’s absolutely no reason why a capitalistic economy can’t be built on non-CO2 technologies except that whining ideologues like you are too lazy to do it, and too stupid to overlook the danger that current technologies are doing to your planet.
These are politically neutral statements about gases and energy. Only in your fevered imagination do they imply some post-apocalyptic state. In many other’s minds, they imply a society that is much cleaner than today’s polluting society, full of jobs for the people smart enough to do them.