Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's a "reward tool"?
Yet... "The idea is to incentivize clean technology over fossil fuels by putting a price on carbon..."
Why not target each and every automobile as a point-source of carbon emmissions? Aren't they collectively the largest polluter?
It's a nail in the coffin all right.
ive been saying this for years, but they need to put the $ into the public transportation infrastructure. the reason most people drive in the greater LA area, is because there is no other efficient means of transportation. if they develop either a rail or rail/subway combination that is cheap and efficient, then many people will cease to use their cars.
but.....building such a system in LA would cost billions that the city, county and state doesnt have.
yeah man, then we can all be like friggen cattle riding on a rail car to slaughter.
Calif. set to adopt sweeping cap-and-trade rules - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com
By JASON DEAREN
The Associated Press
Final nail in the coffin
or
Economy/environment saving?
since businesses are already leaving, I'm thinking coffin nail. But the surrounding states should get a boost as they build power plants all around the CA border and sell them energy.
ive been saying this for years, but they need to put the $ into the public transportation infrastructure. the reason most people drive in the greater LA area, is because there is no other efficient means of transportation. if they develop either a rail or rail/subway combination that is cheap and efficient, then many people will cease to use their cars.
but.....building such a system in LA would cost billions that the city, county and state doesnt have.
yeah man, then we can all be like friggen cattle riding on a rail car to slaughter.
just like it is in new york, washington dc, boston and chicago. all terrible reasons to have public transportation.
yeah man, then we can all be like friggen cattle riding on a rail car to slaughter.
just like it is in new york, washington dc, boston and chicago. all terrible reasons to have public transportation.
well, it's THEIR CHOICE TO LIVE THERE, isn't it?
what about all them people who don't live in cramped cities? what do you propose for them. horse and buggy?
yeah man, then we can all be like friggen cattle riding on a rail car to slaughter.
just like it is in new york, washington dc, boston and chicago. all terrible reasons to have public transportation.
well, it's THEIR CHOICE TO LIVE THERE, isn't it?
what about all them people who don't live in cramped cities? what do you propose for them. horse and buggy?
just like it is in new york, washington dc, boston and chicago. all terrible reasons to have public transportation.
well, it's THEIR CHOICE TO LIVE THERE, isn't it?
what about all them people who don't live in cramped cities? what do you propose for them. horse and buggy?
youre really an idoit arent you?
1 - i never said to get rid of car for everyone
2 - a public transportation system in LA is needed, but would be extremely expensive
3 - I LIVE IN LA, if you dont then
4 - people who dont live in major urbans areas arent affected by this conversation. so again
well, it's THEIR CHOICE TO LIVE THERE, isn't it?
what about all them people who don't live in cramped cities? what do you propose for them. horse and buggy?
youre really an idoit arent you?
1 - i never said to get rid of car for everyone
2 - a public transportation system in LA is needed, but would be extremely expensive
3 - I LIVE IN LA, if you dont then
4 - people who dont live in major urbans areas arent affected by this conversation. so again
don't blow a gasket.
I've lived in California so I spose I can "comment" on it.
and I do believe I have a thing called, Freedom of speech.
Lopsided BS
"Coral reefs, natures most lively architecture, could come tumbling down and it could take millions of years for them to return, if carbon dioxide emissions arent cut quickly, scientists warned today." CO2 Pollution Could Erase Coral Reefs | Wired Science | Wired.com
Note the use of the word 'could'. In other words they are guessing at best, but you assumed that they meant 'will'.
The primary air pollutants found in most urban areas are carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter (both solid and liquid). These pollutants are dispersed throughout the world's atmosphere in concentrations high enough to gradually cause serious health problems. Serious health problems can occur quickly when air pollutants are concentrated, such as when massive injections of sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate matter are emitted by a large volcanic eruption."
No mention of CO2
And wikipedia is a shit source.
Just b/c some lefty goons want to make billions off of cap and trade, doesn't mean they won't stretch the truth, right?
is this better:
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the major pollutants in the atmosphere. Major sources of CO2 are fossil fuels burning and deforestation. "The concentrations of CO2 in the air around 1860 before the effects of industrialization were felt, is assumed to have been about 290 parts per million (ppm). In the hundred years and more since then, the concentration has increased by about 30 to 35 ppm that is by 10 percent". (Breuer 67) Industrial countries account for 65% of CO2 emissions with the United States and Soviet Union responsible for 50%. Less developed countries (LDCs), with 80% of the world's people, are responsible for 35% of CO2 emissions but may contribute 50% by 2020. "Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing by 4% a year". (Miller 450)
In 1975, 18 thousand million tons of carbon dioxide (equivalent to 5 thousand million tons of carbon) were released into the atmosphere, but the atmosphere showed an increase of only 8 billion tons (equivalent to 2.2 billion tons of carbon". (Breuer 70) The ocean waters contain about sixty times more CO2 than the atmosphere. If the equilibrium is disturbed by externally increasing the concentration of CO2 in the air, then the oceans would absorb more and more CO2. If the oceans can no longer keep pace, then more CO2 will remain into the atmosphere. As water warms, its ability to absorb CO2 is reduced.
CO2 is a good transmitter of sunlight, but partially restricts infrared radiation going back from the earth into space. This produces the so-called greenhouse effect that prevents a drastic cooling of the Earth during the night. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reinforces this effect and is expected to result in a warming of the Earth's surface. Currently carbon dioxide is responsible for 57% of the global warming trend. Nitrogen oxides contribute most of the atmospheric contaminants.
youre really an idoit arent you?
1 - i never said to get rid of car for everyone
2 - a public transportation system in LA is needed, but would be extremely expensive
3 - I LIVE IN LA, if you dont then
4 - people who dont live in major urbans areas arent affected by this conversation. so again
don't blow a gasket.
I've lived in California so I spose I can "comment" on it.
and I do believe I have a thing called, Freedom of speech.
you may believe in freedom of speech, but your speech is full of bullshit and lies. youre basically an imbecile.
and if you didnt live in LA, you have no standing at all.
It's a "reward tool"?
Yet... "The idea is to incentivize clean technology over fossil fuels by putting a price on carbon..."
Why not target each and every automobile as a point-source of carbon emmissions? Aren't they collectively the largest polluter?
It's a nail in the coffin all right.
ive been saying this for years, but they need to put the $ into the public transportation infrastructure. the reason most people drive in the greater LA area, is because there is no other efficient means of transportation. if they develop either a rail or rail/subway combination that is cheap and efficient, then many people will cease to use their cars.
but.....building such a system in LA would cost billions that the city, county and state doesnt have.
35 ppm is 0.000035 of the air, or .0035% of the air. You truly want to see industry, ALL forms of industry crushed for .0035%?
don't blow a gasket.
I've lived in California so I spose I can "comment" on it.
and I do believe I have a thing called, Freedom of speech.
you may believe in freedom of speech, but your speech is full of bullshit and lies. youre basically an imbecile.
and if you didnt live in LA, you have no standing at all.
LOL, and you call me an idiot and imbecile..
It's a "reward tool"?
Yet... "The idea is to incentivize clean technology over fossil fuels by putting a price on carbon..."
Why not target each and every automobile as a point-source of carbon emmissions? Aren't they collectively the largest polluter?
It's a nail in the coffin all right.
ive been saying this for years, but they need to put the $ into the public transportation infrastructure. the reason most people drive in the greater LA area, is because there is no other efficient means of transportation. if they develop either a rail or rail/subway combination that is cheap and efficient, then many people will cease to use their cars.
but.....building such a system in LA would cost billions that the city, county and state doesnt have.
And now, never will. No industry can thrive in such a harsh system, except for the systems they are rewarding. Which are decades behind being able to fuel a city the size of LA
35 ppm is 0.000035 of the air, or .0035% of the air. You truly want to see industry, ALL forms of industry crushed for .0035%?
i work for an OEM and construction company, and this wont affect us at all. it wont affect a lot of small businesses. it will only affect gross polluters.
not every business is gonna jump ship just because of this new regulation, california is always in the forefront, this is just another case. and the people approved this bill, not just the legislature.
It's a "reward tool"?
Yet... "The idea is to incentivize clean technology over fossil fuels by putting a price on carbon..."
Why not target each and every automobile as a point-source of carbon emmissions? Aren't they collectively the largest polluter?
It's a nail in the coffin all right.
ive been saying this for years, but they need to put the $ into the public transportation infrastructure. the reason most people drive in the greater LA area, is because there is no other efficient means of transportation. if they develop either a rail or rail/subway combination that is cheap and efficient, then many people will cease to use their cars.
but.....building such a system in LA would cost billions that the city, county and state doesnt have.
yeah man, then we can all be like friggen cattle riding on a rail car to slaughter.
What happens to plant life on Earth if we get rid of CO2?
you may believe in freedom of speech, but your speech is full of bullshit and lies. youre basically an imbecile.
and if you didnt live in LA, you have no standing at all.
LOL, and you call me an idiot and imbecile..
Steph, should I remind you of this little gem you posted. I wouldn't be criticizing someone for forgetting an apostrophe when you are FAR from being educated.
Stephanie in all her Glory
LOL, and you call me an idiot and imbecile..
Steph, should I remind you of this little gem you posted. I wouldn't be criticizing someone for forgetting an apostrophe when you are FAR from being educated.
Stephanie in all her Glory
if she actually reads any of my posts, i rarely use capital letters or apostrophes because you can type faster that way. and im not the only one who does it. she just doesnt have anything else to argue about because shes knows that she is simply wrong and keeps digging a deeper hole for her.
