View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've heard reports that the U.S. is only producing 1/8th of the greenhouse gases now. Has anyone seen smog photos of Bejing or Sigapore lately. It is horrible.
However, radical change in the U.S. would be counter productive to the cause. Why? If our economy slows, we will have no say in the matter. IOW, the richer we are, the easier it is to spend money on cleanup. We are getting poorer each year. The masses won't stand for this very long. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
capetonian
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 1197 Location: Florida
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mac.
I agree with a carbon tax. This would have the most effect rather than try to enforce, FAIRLY, a set of regulations which may, or may not, actually stimulate reduction in carbon.
One of the least mercury producing power plants is located near me. However, it risks shut down for particulate pollution. Absolute measurements of some particulates is pushing it against an arbitrary limit.
A carbon tax requires a cooperative Congress. Not going to happen in this environment. But, setting regulations, to be defined and enforced by the states, is not going to be effective either. The power industry moves slowly. I predict they stall with lawsuits, or delay new projects, waiting for a friendly administration. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Carbon tax definition: Purely political, feel-good, nanny-state fraud intended SOLELY to promote the far left agenda and penalize those dirty Americans at the grave expense of jobs and the economy, disguised as protection from a tiny threat in which man plays only a tiny part and ultimately costing billions FAR better spent mitigating ACTUAL threats from climactic vagaries. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="swchandler"] Stricter limits on emissions will actively promote innovation, and it will create meaningful jobs here in the US. [/erall?quote]
Nice buzz line, I'm amazed that people actually believe that, try that line on the families of coal miners, or even the coal miner's union.
They'd be throwing chunks of coal at you, as you go running out of there. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Duplicate post
Last edited by coboardhead on Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's say you guys are correct. Carbon from burning coal is not contributing to global warming, or we do not care if it is.
We still need to clean up coal. I have posted, in the past, the health costs of burning coal that are currently absorbed by the rest of the economy. If these costs were attached to coal electricity, coal would lose the battle with natural gas regardless of the carbon argument. So, it is sort of a mute point, is it not?
Why is it that the, so called, fiscal conservatives are so damned against the fossil fuel industry paying its own way? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is a mute point one that is hard to hear? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha! Guess so! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17748 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CB--there is a rich literature about how much more efficient pollution fees are than command and control structure. Early in my career I favored them absolutely--they require much less bureaucracy to administer. But command and control has worked very well for basic air and water quality regulation, and has created more jobs than it has eliminated. The bleating from NW has been heard, like chicken little's, since the beginning.
It is ironic that the cap and trade approach, was introduced by fiscal conservatives in, I believe, the first Bush's administration, as an innovation to bring market forces to bear on the acid rain problem. It was very effective. Of course, that was when most Republicans were somewhat moderate, actually read literature and bills, and were interested in solutions.
California is leading the way on responding to global warming, and Obama's programs will help. The oilies and coalies and flat earthers will moan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|