Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
phoolish
Boulder climber
Athens, Ga.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007 - 10:06pm PT
|
Chaz:
You're being disingenuous and an idiot. Stop it, and you might have a real discussion.
LEB:
A revision in the system doesn't render all prior uses of said system null and void. The good for the year has been, and carbon cap revisions are announced ahead of time. Raising the amount of credits available is akin to the process of inflation, and brokers are understandably leery of doing this.
|
|
chollapete
Trad climber
tucson, az
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007 - 10:11pm PT
|
I don't see all the hubbub over burning oil and coal. After all, all the carbon in all the oil and coal was once in the atmosphere in the first place. So, it's not like we're changing the earth or anything. Just going back to the way things used to be, back when all the carbon was in the air instead of being locked away in oil and coal, underground.
FREE THE CARBON!!!!11
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007 - 10:13pm PT
|
That's because inflation is caused by printing more money that becomes available to the general public
This bunch of manipulating charlitains is interested in printing money only for themselves.
A few years back some of us had lunch with a co-worker that had gone to work for a little company called Enron. In an hour lunch he couldn't explain how weather derivitives etc. actualy produced any wealth.
Same scam
Different name
And I suspect if you did a little investigation you would find,
The same players.
|
|
phoolish
Boulder climber
Athens, Ga.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007 - 10:54pm PT
|
LEB:
Now you're misunderstanding the way exchanges work. The price is set by volume and demand, precisely like the stock market.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007 - 11:12pm PT
|
Industry carbon credits are an aspect of a carbon "cap and trade" system. The price is set by the market price, which is also in part essentially set by the gov't because the gov't would set the cap. You CAN hold out for a higher price if you want to, but just like the stock market if the price you are holding out for is higher than the market will bear then you're never going to get it. Just because I wanted to wait for MSFT to hit 300 before I sold isn't going to stop other factors from sending the price to 20 and leaving me out a ton of money.
Those carbon credits are different than what Al Gore is primarily talking about, which is a system where one can pay a cost that represents what it would cost to offset the carbon produced by your energy consumption. Its no different than say, buying a regular shirt instead of an organic one and then paying the cost difference to have someone clean up or somehow offset the damage done by not buying an organic shirt. In many ways its actually MORE efficient in the short term than say, requiring that all shirts be organic.
And yes, the price in most cases WILL be passed to the consumer. In a consumer based economy EVERYTHING is. But the damage of pollution and whatnot is passed along to the taxpayer and/or the person who has to deal with the consequences of the damage. If we required companies to clean up all the messes they made, the cost of goods would increase significantly, but the costs that we pay in taxes, helath care, etc would drop as a result.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007 - 11:19pm PT
|
"The problem is that we live in a culture where "conservation" is a pretty dirty word, and nobody loves to tear it apart as much as the Republican party and the conservative media." HDDJ
That's nonsense. People, in general, don't want to make sacrifices when it comes to convenience or comfort.
And the Free the Carbon idea may be something to watch! So what if sea level rises 20 feet. Aren't most people evil and need to be punished or obliterated? It would be a great thing if all the coastal areas were flooded and returned to Nature. No net loss of wetlands! This would help with coastal restoration except for all the concrete. Forget about anyone digging up the concrete if things get that bad.
And no, nature (sushi master), I didn't mean you.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007 - 11:35pm PT
|
Yes, LEB, it has merit. I could see it being employed using the farms and alcohol fuels. But it would likely take an emergency to result in that. If the government is going to subsidize energy, then they would probably use this means of funding. Otherwise, I think they're hoping the private sector will fund it with some government assistance. As long as the barrel stays high, investment in alternatives will happen.
|
|
Wheatus
Social climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 23, 2007 - 11:47pm PT
|
All this discussion appears irrelevant when you consider the future. Progress and population growth will make CO2 levels today look like "the good old days". Below is a glimpse into the reality of the situation. The current congressional investigation is just a "dog and pony show" for politicians....just doing what they do best....baffle the public with more BS.
From The Christian Science Monitor:
(Link to Full Article and Graphs)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html
Some key excerpts:
"The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn't gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce."
"China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants - nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213 such plants; the US, 72."
"By 2012, the plants in three key countries - China, India, and the United States - are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons."
If the "global warming" climatic experts are correct were all toast.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2007 - 11:52pm PT
|
I hope it's a good rye toast.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007 - 12:06am PT
|
YES!
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007 - 12:13am PT
|
I think the garden's success is probably more due to the manure, not the CO2 in the air from the nearby stack.
From a purist habitat restoration standpoint, you should cut down the fruit trees and any exotics and plant only native shrubs and trees.
LEB edit: Don't get weather and climate confused. Just because it's global warming doesn't mean it's going to be non-blizzard winter condtions. Let's see what the weather is like in the French Alps over the next several years, not just lately. From a climbing standpoint, the rock routes in the Alps are great. And when the summers are hot, they're in shape. But watch out when crossing the couloirs; they can become shooting galleries.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007 - 12:33am PT
|
Are chestnut seedlings expensive? What is their survival rate?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007 - 12:49am PT
|
"So why is this not a good thing. Better veggies, better fruits and berries, better trees, more flowers, etc. Is this not what I (and others want?) On top of that, if everything is getting warmer, will I not have a longer growing season? How is this bad. I could certainly use the CO2 for my veggies and fruit trees and I could most certainly use an extended growing season. And it seems to me that it also means, less snow to shovel, less freezy-ass cold weather to deal with, less ice storms and breaking my neck falling on it AND more sunshine and summer. Sounds good to me. Where am I going wrong? "
More malaria, more storms, wider spread tropical diseases, all kinds of other new forms of bacteria, changed growing seasons, droughts, floods, bigger storms, etc.
That's the whole point is that we don't know. Humans have been able to thrive with the current global climate for a reason and you'd be a fool to blindly beg for a rapid change of it.
Aren't you a fairly educated nurse or something LEB? Or are you just trolling?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007 - 12:54pm PT
|
You sound like a Nurse Practitioner, which is what I'm prepping to go into at the moment.
The education part is pretty simple, LEB, and myself and others have been urging you to use "the Google" at the very least to do some basic research on most of this stuff. The very basic questions you ask can be easily answered by doing a quick search, or by simply listening to something like NPR in the car an hour or two a day.
You say I could do less pontificating and more educating, yet all of my posts on this thread have basically said the same thing.."calm down and look at what it is for what it is" instead of looking at it through the lense of "Al Gore sucks ergo this idea sucks."
My question about your education had more to do with what I would presume are the critical thinking skills one would need to attain a master's degree in anything, much less a troubleshooting field like nursing. You are so locked into this one view on this thread that you just come across as trolling much in the same way that Chaz does...you just seem more earnest about it.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007 - 02:14pm PT
|
Lois, You make the classic assumption. That global warming means that the weather at your house would simply be a few degrees warmer and what could be bad about that.
The problem is that no one can predict exactly what a few degree shift in the global tempture will do to your local weather. There are plenty of models which show that a few degree shift in global temps would shift ocean currents. Whether you know it or not, ocean currents play a major part in our weather. So what happens if a warm current that currently moderates the weather near you is exchanged for a cold current or vice versa. You could end of in a flood plain or a drought area. Besides oceans rising, the shifting of weather patterns is in my opinion one of the more dangerous things that could happen. Think about our water systems and how long they took to build, in a few short years they could be made obsolete. Farmers wouldn't know when to plant. Entire locals could be made into a drought zone in a very short time.
Why the short time? Because many models show that ocean currents wouldn't shift slowly. Once a trigger point is reached, and we don't know what those trigger points are, then a current could stop in a relatively short time and then shift to somewhere else. Ocean currents shifting is one of the theories scientist have come up with to explain the ice ages. This would have dramatic affects on our weather patterns making it difficult if not impossible for farmers to know where and when to plant things. Think of this happening on a global scale and you start to see a picture of potential worldwide starvation. You see huge economic upheaval as whole groups of people have to move. The weather that you enjoy could be shifted to another region and you could end up in a flood zone or a drought zone. It is just too hard to tell.
Out here in California, much of our water sytem depends on winter snowpack in the Sierra. What happens if in a short period of time there is no more snowpack. Say from the Oregon border south. All of the dams could be rendered useless. Sure, maybe there would be enough rainfall and maybe not. It is the large scale change that is daunting.
This is not about it getting on average a few degrees warmer where you live. It is about the global weather pattern shifting causing a huge die off and a huge shift in population. A global disaster. Sure, some think the planet can't sustain our growing population and they wouldn't mind seeing a disaster, but I wonder if they have really thought out how much hardships they might have to endure. With a huge shift it could be decades before weather patterns settle down enough for people to figure out where to live. And if there is a huge upheaval in population and a large die off, then climbers ain't going to have a lot of free time to spend climbing, they are going to be spending their time figuring out how to survive.
The last 5 thousand years or so have been relatively stable weatherwise. That could change and humans could be the reason. The burning of cheap fuel which allowed a huge growth in population also gave way to an easier lifestyle. When it is boiled down to just day to day survival, we have a lot more free time today then we did even just 200 years ago. Daunting to think about.
Moosie
P.S. I am not a scientist, this is just the way I understand what the scientist are saying about the potentials. If I screwed this up, then please help me understand. Thank you. And yes, China is going to figure into this bigtime. That is one of the reasons we need to learn to work together. Peace.....
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007 - 04:22pm PT
|
LEB you always start with your opinion. In this thread that carbon credits are crap.
People say to you that you dont have a clue about the topic.
You state your opinion a couple of more times.
People try to explain.
After a while you admitt that you dont have a clue and ask for information about the topic.
Do you see something strange with this order of things?
Is it strange that people might get tired of explaining stuff to you over and over again when you dont even try to do some research about the topic yourself?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007 - 04:26pm PT
|
LEB lots of people here would be happy to help you find more resources, but the majority of your posts regarding this issue in the past weeks were huge rants railing against Al Gore and even yesterday hollering that this was 'no big deal.' Had you simply said "I don't quite understand what the fuss is about, warmer weather seems just fine to me, am I missing something?" it would be one thing, but that's not what you presented. You have been all to eager to denounce and belittle.
Moose's post above is excellent and worth reading.
As for your previous posts regarding Gore being a "bad salesman," please point me to these statements of his that are so damning and judgemental? I have not seen them, nor heard them. I have heard him make urgent pleas for change based on the worst case scenarios that he presents.
As I've stated before I strongly get the impression that you have not actually seen Gore's movie, nor have heard much of what Gore has actually said but have instead replied on others to TELL you what Gore has been saying, much as you rely on us here to TELL you what the aspects of these issues are. More often than not your "friends" here on this forum have encouraged you to actually look at the material and make up your own mind.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!