CAP AND TRADE - Coming to your state soon?

[Foxfyre]

But who bothers to haul them out to the middle of the ocean? Nuclear waste and all kinds of other toxins stay put when you dump it, too, but the total effect is accumulative. I would like to be able to eat all the fish I want without worrying about mercury poisoning etc. again. And clean up of toxic dumps in the ocean is not easily accomplished either.

I agree that care and conservation should be taken re the rain forests too, but it is not true that rain forests don't regenerate themselves. Studies done show that a cleared tract will usually reforest itself within 65 years if left alone; more quickly if given a bit of help (reseeding etc.) To return to completely virgin condition of course takes a lot longer but that is not a huge problem. Of course we want to retain virgin rain forest, but always there must be consideration for human needs too. There are very few virgin forests left in the USA, for instance, but we have plenty of forest land.

I still say that prosperity along with a good ethical sense of right and wrong is the very best protection for the Earth's environment.

i fish tuna. it wont matter how far offshore toxins are dumped. the ocean is not the place.


call me a patriotic, but one of the biggest nags about the global warming debate, is that it has been fashioned to demonize US environmental policy. I think that it takes more than trusting people's good ethics to protect the environment. we might have westwall dumping his sluice juice offshore under uninformed presumptions of harmlessness.

what we have in the US is this balance between environment and society, which europe, for example, simply does not believe in. onus for environmental care lies more heavily on our businesses. it is the american way. we will mandate that all shopping bags at the grocery are biodegradable. in europe, they'll charge you for bags at the checkout. we'll adopt higher emissions standards, in europe, they'll levy a congestion charge in the name of the environment, then interpret diesels to be less emmissive.

what is certain is that the government has to set and enforce standards for the environment, so that companies can focus on being ethical to their clients, and complicit to laws which inform and direct their environmental policy. companies cant and wont take that upon themselves.

No company should be able to intentionally or carelessly pollute shared land, air, or water with impunity. But you're right that there always has to be an intentional separation between protecting human rights and otherwise allowing human to live their lives as they choose.

And sometimes it is so stupid as to be mind boggling. Such as not allowing home owners to clear the brush around their own property lest they might disturb the habitat of some endangered rat. Not only does that violate every Lockean principle of property ownership, but it only ensures that the property will burn down along with the rat's habitat when a wild fire gets going. It's nuts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why are you obsessed with Al Gore?

Oh I don't know. I actually thought he was your cup of tea. You never know about people though do you?

I actually don't give a shit about al gore, its deniers like you that constantly bring him up as if it matters.

If you had read my posts and honestly represented my position, you would know that I am neither 'obsessed with Al Gore' nor am I a denier. I am an AGW skeptic which is a whole different thing.

I do have a huge problem with scientists who intentionally misrepresent the facts in order to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and/or personal wealth. I also have a problem with those on message boards who intentionally misrepresent the facts and what other members say.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I do have a huge problem with scientists who intentionally misrepresent the facts in order to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and/or personal wealth.

Name 1.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do have a huge problem with scientists who intentionally misrepresent the facts in order to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and/or personal wealth.

Name 1.

If you had read my posts you would know that I already have.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I do have a huge problem with scientists who intentionally misrepresent the facts in order to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and/or personal wealth.

Name 1.

If you had read my posts you would know that I already have.

Didn't think so.

 

[Foxfyre]

Name 1.

If you had read my posts you would know that I already have.

Didn't think so.

That's your problem I think. That you aren't putting a lot of thought into what you type maybe; thus it comes out disconnected and unrelated to what is being said? At least that's the way it comes across a lot of the time.

So how about we just move on and not hijack this thread further and bore everybody silly with this?

 

[westwall]

First of all I am not in favour of dumping anything anywhere. I am a firm believer (and I practice what I preach) in recycling. However folks seem to forget that man didn't create heavy metals. They came from the earth in the first place people!!! When things are dumped in the deep ocean there is nothing on the benthic plain to be bothered by them. They will stay there till they get subducted and returned to the mantle where in a few million years they will pop out again someplace else.

Prosperity and environmentalism go hand in hand as well I agree. Instead of keeping the Third World the Third World like the pseudo environmentalists want to do. The environmental movement needs to realize that the only long term change that can be affected is to elevate the Third World to First World status. When that gets done 90% of all the environmental issues will clear themselves up. Fewer people, far less pollution, recycling, ethical treatment of the planet...it all comes from the First World nations because the Third World can't defend itself and so is a target for the unethical companies that are out there. And there are many of them...in fact the majority are unethical.

But this methodology is false, will not prevent pollution, will not prevent the destruction of the rainforests, will not reduce populations, will not create "green" jobs, will not do anything that they claim it will. What it will do is cast more people into poverty which will increase all of the environmental strains that are currently in operation.

Rainforests will only regenerate so long as the area clear cut is small. Get over a hectare and it will not come back within 5 generations. Go over 10 hectares and it won't come back at all. The ground in a rainforest is sterile. Laterite soils are devoid of nutrients and the rainforest maintains all of the nutrients in the top 10 inches of soil. Remove that over a wide enough area so that the torrential rains can strip it even further and you are left with a moonscape. Nothing will ever grow back in those instances.

But who bothers to haul them out to the middle of the ocean? Nuclear waste and all kinds of other toxins stay put when you dump it, too, but the total effect is accumulative. I would like to be able to eat all the fish I want without worrying about mercury poisoning etc. again. And clean up of toxic dumps in the ocean is not easily accomplished either.

I agree that care and conservation should be taken re the rain forests too, but it is not true that rain forests don't regenerate themselves. Studies done show that a cleared tract will usually reforest itself within 65 years if left alone; more quickly if given a bit of help (reseeding etc.) To return to completely virgin condition of course takes a lot longer but that is not a huge problem. Of course we want to retain virgin rain forest, but always there must be consideration for human needs too. There are very few virgin forests left in the USA, for instance, but we have plenty of forest land.

I still say that prosperity along with a good ethical sense of right and wrong is the very best protection for the Earth's environment.

i fish tuna. it wont matter how far offshore toxins are dumped. the ocean is not the place.


call me a patriotic, but one of the biggest nags about the global warming debate, is that it has been fashioned to demonize US environmental policy. I think that it takes more than trusting people's good ethics to protect the environment. we might have westwall dumping his sluice juice offshore under uninformed presumptions of harmlessness.

what we have in the US is this balance between environment and society, which europe, for example, simply does not believe in. onus for environmental care lies more heavily on our businesses. it is the american way. we will mandate that all shopping bags at the grocery are biodegradable. in europe, they'll charge you for bags at the checkout. we'll adopt higher emissions standards, in europe, they'll levy a congestion charge in the name of the environment, then interpret diesels to be less emmissive.

what is certain is that the government has to set and enforce standards for the environment, so that companies can focus on being ethical to their clients, and complicit to laws which inform and direct their environmental policy. companies cant and wont take that upon themselves.

 

[westwall]

Al Gore, Pachauri, Mann, Jones, Hansen, Kerry, Goldman Sachs, Graham, need I go on?

I do have a huge problem with scientists who intentionally misrepresent the facts in order to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and/or personal wealth.

Name 1.

 

[Foxfyre]

Al Gore, Pachauri, Mann, Jones, Hansen, Kerry, Goldman Sachs, Graham, need I go on?

I do have a huge problem with scientists who intentionally misrepresent the facts in order to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and/or personal wealth.

Name 1.

Well at lot of those aren't scientists. Some just claim to be authorities on the science.

A gentle suggestion Westfall: put your comments BELOW the quoted post you are addressing. Makes your comments much easier to read, especially when included in nested quotes.

 

[Eccgmike]

Cap and Trade is simply wealth re-distribution on a massive scale. The fact that we would even be considering such a massive undertaking based on faulty science, knowing that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket" during economic struggle should tell everybody something in of itself. All you have to do is look at the advocates of C&T and actually read transcripts of what they've said, candidly I might add, to see what's going on. It doesn't take a scientist to figure it out, you just have to pay attention.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Cap and Trade is simply wealth re-distribution on a massive scale.

The entire economy is wealth redistribution. For instance, if you want something, you have to pay for it. If you want to burn carbon into the atmosphere, you will have to pay. If you store that carbon on your own property rather than releasing it into the common owned atmosphere, you're free to burn as much as you like.

The fact that we would even be considering such a massive undertaking based on faulty science, knowing that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket" during economic struggle should tell everybody something in of itself.

With rare exception, the science is only seen as faulty by those who haven't actually studied it. That should tell you something.

 

[Eccgmike]

Cap and Trade is simply wealth re-distribution on a massive scale.

The entire economy is wealth redistribution. For instance, if you want something, you have to pay for it. If you want to burn carbon into the atmosphere, you will have to pay. If you store that carbon on your own property rather than releasing it into the common owned atmosphere, you're free to burn as much as you like.

The fact that we would even be considering such a massive undertaking based on faulty science, knowing that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket" during economic struggle should tell everybody something in of itself.

With rare exception, the science is only seen as faulty by those who haven't actually studied it. That should tell you something.

I'm officially boycotting responding to you as, once again, there is no substance to your response.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cap and Trade is simply wealth re-distribution on a massive scale.

The entire economy is wealth redistribution. For instance, if you want something, you have to pay for it. If you want to burn carbon into the atmosphere, you will have to pay. If you store that carbon on your own property rather than releasing it into the common owned atmosphere, you're free to burn as much as you like.

But CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere. We and all other living things breathe CO2 into the atmosphere constantly. Volcanic acivity is generally preceded by a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere from a wide swath of surrounding countryside. And there is no conclusive evidence that it is causing anybody or anything any problems and many credible scientists believe that it is not.

So why should I or anybody else have to pay you or anybody else for simply living our lives?

The fact that we would even be considering such a massive undertaking based on faulty science, knowing that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket" during economic struggle should tell everybody something in of itself.

With rare exception, the science is only seen as faulty by those who haven't actually studied it. That should tell you something.

What that tells me is that you have not read ANY of the quite credible scientists, including those who have contributed to the research included in the IPCC reports, who are skeptics. Here's comments from something over 400 of them. Dispute their credentials and credibility if you can:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Cap and Trade is simply wealth re-distribution on a massive scale.

The entire economy is wealth redistribution. For instance, if you want something, you have to pay for it. If you want to burn carbon into the atmosphere, you will have to pay. If you store that carbon on your own property rather than releasing it into the common owned atmosphere, you're free to burn as much as you like.

The fact that we would even be considering such a massive undertaking based on faulty science, knowing that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket" during economic struggle should tell everybody something in of itself.

With rare exception, the science is only seen as faulty by those who haven't actually studied it. That should tell you something.

I'm officially boycotting responding to you as, once again, there is no substance to your response.

The reason there is little substance in my post is that it mostly quotes your post.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

But CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere.

Practically everything that is harmful to the environment occurs naturally in some quantities, I fail to see your point.

We and all other living things breathe CO2 into the atmosphere constantly. Volcanic acivity is generally preceded by a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere from a wide swath of surrounding countryside

If volcanic activity were a major contributor to the rise of CO2 levels in the past 50 years, you would see huge jumps in the atmospheric CO2 when large eruptions occurred. Those jumps are not there.

And there is no conclusive evidence that it is causing anybody or anything any problems and many credible scientists believe that it is not.

If you consider self published "scientists" who work for "foundations" they themselves founded or for economic think tanks which receive oil company funding to be credible, then yes, you might say "many". Otherwise, no, not many, few and far between. (And just to cut this off at the pass: Less than 10% of the Inhofe list have any publications on climate at all, and the global "warming petition project" is an even bigger sham)

So why should I or anybody else have to pay you or anybody else for simply living our lives?

Because those of us who refuse to simply ignore the problem will eventually outnumber you, and we're going to make you pay for what you use. So too fucking bad.

What that tells me is that you have not read ANY of the quite credible scientists, including those who have contributed to the research included in the IPCC reports, who are skeptics. Here's comments from something over 400 of them. Dispute their credentials and credibility if you can:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Jesus fucking Christ, how did I know you were going to bring that sham up? See comment above. Bother to do one iota of research on something before you assert it as evidence of anything, especially if its a fucking Senate report - that's a politician with an agenda, not a scientist, you realize this, right? Only THREE of the people on that list are IPCC authors, and only ONE actually denies AGW.

How many on Inhofe's list are IPCC authors? : Deltoid

You will quickly find that the denier movement is nothing but smoke and mirrors if you bother to look at all.http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8vuBN2uqADjopXc7w&sig2=EoVhSzaUdDNZ91mza-S92g

 

[gslack]

But CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere.

Practically everything that is harmful to the environment occurs naturally in some quantities, I fail to see your point.

We and all other living things breathe CO2 into the atmosphere constantly. Volcanic acivity is generally preceded by a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere from a wide swath of surrounding countryside

If volcanic activity were a major contributor to the rise of CO2 levels in the past 50 years, you would see huge jumps in the atmospheric CO2 when large eruptions occurred. Those jumps are not there.


If you consider self published "scientists" who work for "foundations" they themselves founded or for economic think tanks which receive oil company funding to be credible, then yes, you might say "many". Otherwise, no, not many, few and far between. (And just to cut this off at the pass: Less than 10% of the Inhofe list have any publications on climate at all, and the global "warming petition project" is an even bigger sham)

So why should I or anybody else have to pay you or anybody else for simply living our lives?

Because those of us who refuse to simply ignore the problem will eventually outnumber you, and we're going to make you pay for what you use. So too fucking bad.

What that tells me is that you have not read ANY of the quite credible scientists, including those who have contributed to the research included in the IPCC reports, who are skeptics. Here's comments from something over 400 of them. Dispute their credentials and credibility if you can:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Jesus fucking Christ, how did I know you were going to bring that sham up? See comment above. Bother to do one iota of research on something before you assert it as evidence of anything, especially if its a fucking Senate report - that's a politician with an agenda, not a scientist, you realize this, right? Only THREE of the people on that list are IPCC authors, and only ONE actually denies AGW.

How many on Inhofe's list are IPCC authors? : Deltoid

You will quickly find that the denier movement is nothing but smoke and mirrors if you bother to look at all.http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8vuBN2uqADjopXc7w&sig2=EoVhSzaUdDNZ91mza-S92g

There is no DENIER MOVEMENT.... Retard...LOL

The only people found fraudulent have been the pro-AGW people.... hockey sticks, twisted data, misleading and false statements, et, etc.. And so far they are batting .000 on their predictions and claims. Dude they haven't been close on anything yet....

This is not a movement its a natural reaction to people getting tired of the bullshit and the excuses that come with it.... And more importantly, they are tired of reactionary, unrealistic, and emotional people like you being sucked into this nonsense all the time. They prey on you chicken littles and you idiots refuse to wake up. If it was just you well we would ignore your silly asses, but its not going to be just you but all of us who pay for it.

In fact we will pay for your silly and ignorant part too..

 

[antagon]

First of all I am not in favour of dumping anything anywhere. I am a firm believer (and I practice what I preach) in recycling. However folks seem to forget that man didn't create heavy metals. They came from the earth in the first place people!!!

recycling is cute for the homeowner, and might make a ding with respect to the environment. even for businesses there could be some net reduction in environmental impact by virtue of it. it fails in application to heavy metals as by-products to industry and a no disposal policy simply dodges the fact that there needs to be a disposition on safe and environmentally considerate handling of waste. that toxins all come from the earth is a simpleton's conjecture. maybe you could reveal your point if you have one; it escapes me.

When things are dumped in the deep ocean there is nothing on the benthic plain to be bothered by them. They will stay there till they get subducted and returned to the mantle where in a few million years they will pop out again someplace else.

this is bullshit. the repercussions for presuming that we could dump heavy metals at sea are not as rosy as you paint them. now i guess i have to remind that the ecosystems in the ocean are vertically codependent, too. the ocean has a capacity to deal with a great deal of foreign materials introduced to it, and i know that you think that arsenic mercury are natural, no matter their concentration, but you personify the correlation between ignorance and shoulder-shrugging on the gravity environmental concerns.

i'm sure that with respect to your pet concern, the rainforest, that you have seen that folks unaware of what is going on, or what is so bad about the state of things seem more likely to write it off.

Prosperity and environmentalism go hand in hand as well I agree. Instead of keeping the Third World the Third World like the pseudo environmentalists want to do. The environmental movement needs to realize that the only long term change that can be affected is to elevate the Third World to First World status. When that gets done 90% of all the environmental issues will clear themselves up. Fewer people, far less pollution, recycling, ethical treatment of the planet...it all comes from the First World nations because the Third World can't defend itself and so is a target for the unethical companies that are out there. And there are many of them...in fact the majority are unethical.

But this methodology is false, will not prevent pollution, will not prevent the destruction of the rainforests, will not reduce populations, will not create "green" jobs, will not do anything that they claim it will. What it will do is cast more people into poverty which will increase all of the environmental strains that are currently in operation.

i'm not sure if economic agenda will improve ecology. economic activity has the most environmental impact. tenuous, that connection.

as to the merits of a c&t. what are your conjectures based on? i have some converse predictions, some are based on some proven successes from such a system, others are based on market responses proven in other mechanisms and which i have no reason to presume aren't transferable. is this like your presumptions about heavy metals?

 

[Foxfyre]

But CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere.

Practically everything that is harmful to the environment occurs naturally in some quantities, I fail to see your point.

We and all other living things breathe CO2 into the atmosphere constantly. Volcanic acivity is generally preceded by a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere from a wide swath of surrounding countryside

If volcanic activity were a major contributor to the rise of CO2 levels in the past 50 years, you would see huge jumps in the atmospheric CO2 when large eruptions occurred. Those jumps are not there.


If you consider self published "scientists" who work for "foundations" they themselves founded or for economic think tanks which receive oil company funding to be credible, then yes, you might say "many". Otherwise, no, not many, few and far between. (And just to cut this off at the pass: Less than 10% of the Inhofe list have any publications on climate at all, and the global "warming petition project" is an even bigger sham)

So why should I or anybody else have to pay you or anybody else for simply living our lives?

Because those of us who refuse to simply ignore the problem will eventually outnumber you, and we're going to make you pay for what you use. So too fucking bad.

What that tells me is that you have not read ANY of the quite credible scientists, including those who have contributed to the research included in the IPCC reports, who are skeptics. Here's comments from something over 400 of them. Dispute their credentials and credibility if you can:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Jesus fucking Christ, how did I know you were going to bring that sham up? See comment above. Bother to do one iota of research on something before you assert it as evidence of anything, especially if its a fucking Senate report - that's a politician with an agenda, not a scientist, you realize this, right? Only THREE of the people on that list are IPCC authors, and only ONE actually denies AGW.

How many on Inhofe's list are IPCC authors? : Deltoid

You will quickly find that the denier movement is nothing but smoke and mirrors if you bother to look at all.http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8vuBN2uqADjopXc7w&sig2=EoVhSzaUdDNZ91mza-S92g

There is volcanic activity happening somewhere on Earth at any given moment.

How many on the 400+ skeptics list are IPCC authors is irrelevant since only a tiny handful of scientists in the world are IPCC authors. But some have contributed to the research that went into it. You don't read carefully do you? Have you read anything on the process that went into the IPCC report? Or the IPCC Summary for Policymakers? Or the Independent IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Before you go any further, I suggest you do read at least those last two documents. They should give any thinking person food for thought. The operative word here of course is 'thinking'.

And everyone should also know something of the propaganda put out by the Union of Concerned Scientists that you linked, note who its leadership is, its primary sources of funding, and who those sources also fund. Have you looked at that? It is also constructive to one's education to do so.

If you follow the money, you find very few scientists supporting the AGW as a threat theory who are a) not getting rich in the process of promoting that theory and/or b) who do not stand get get much richer if Cap & Trade is implemented and/or c) whose funding does not depend on AGW being perceived as a threat.

Very few scientists who do not fall into the above categories believe that AGW is a significant threat to anything and very few have anything to gain by being AGW skeptics. In fact many have much to lose by being AGW skeptics.

 

[westwall]

Cap and Trade is simply wealth re-distribution on a massive scale.

The entire economy is wealth redistribution. For instance, if you want something, you have to pay for it. If you want to burn carbon into the atmosphere, you will have to pay. If you store that carbon on your own property rather than releasing it into the common owned atmosphere, you're free to burn as much as you like.

The fact that we would even be considering such a massive undertaking based on faulty science, knowing that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket" during economic struggle should tell everybody something in of itself.

With rare exception, the science is only seen as faulty by those who haven't actually studied it. That should tell you something.

Oh toober, toober, toober. Once again you fail basic econ. Wealth Redistribution is where you take money or some other valuable object and give it to someone who didn't work for it. When a person buys something they are receiving a product or service for their work. The exact opposite of wealth redistribution which grants nothing to the person taken from.

Foxfyre, thank you for the suggestion and I will endeavor to do so from now on.

 

[Eccgmike]

Cap and Trade is simply wealth re-distribution on a massive scale.

The entire economy is wealth redistribution. For instance, if you want something, you have to pay for it. If you want to burn carbon into the atmosphere, you will have to pay. If you store that carbon on your own property rather than releasing it into the common owned atmosphere, you're free to burn as much as you like.

The fact that we would even be considering such a massive undertaking based on faulty science, knowing that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket" during economic struggle should tell everybody something in of itself.

With rare exception, the science is only seen as faulty by those who haven't actually studied it. That should tell you something.

Oh toober, toober, toober. Once again you fail basic econ. Wealth Redistribution is where you take money or some other valuable object and give it to someone who didn't work for it. When a person buys something they are receiving a product or service for their work. The exact opposite of wealth redistribution which grants nothing to the person taken from.

Foxfyre, thank you for the suggestion and I will endeavor to do so from now on.

Thank u for clarifying that as I have vowed not the respond to arachnidboy bugler as he never posts a single comment that contains fact.