If the USA absorbs ALL the CO2 plus absorbing 10% more, WHY close utilities???

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,700
Reaction score
4,132
Points
280
I really would like to know why this is happening WHEN
Obama said: "if somebody wants to build coal utility plant it’s just that it will bankrupt them,![/I][/B][/COLOR]"
EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.

Boiler MACT Rule: EPA's Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas.

The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs.

Articles: Obama's EPA Plans for 2013

YET the Federal Govt.'s Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years.
Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Simply put the USA can absorb all the CO2 emitted PLUS could absorb another 10%~

SO idiots!!!
Explain to me the NEED for the EPA to close COAL mines and coal utilities when ALREADY the USA landscape can handle ALL the CO2 emitted PLUS 10% MORE???
 

FJO

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
9,483
Reaction score
1,245
Points
275
Location
Just North of the 49th
"Explain to me the NEED for the EPA to close COAL mines and coal utilities when ALREADY the USA landscape can handle ALL the CO2 emitted PLUS 10% MORE???"

The name explains it all: EPA (Employment Prevention Agency).
 

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,804
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
If we replace with trees the 39 million acres of farm ground currently dedicated to ethanol-bound corn, our "troubles" would be over.

Why does no one recognize agriculture's adverse impact on the environment?

Votes. Farm state votes.

Agriculture is the one true environmental rapist. And the government pays them accordingly.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,700
Reaction score
4,132
Points
280
If we replace with trees the 39 million acres of farm ground currently dedicated to ethanol-bound corn, our "troubles" would be over.

Why does no one recognize agriculture's adverse impact on the environment?

Votes. Farm state votes.

Agriculture is the one true environmental rapist. And the government pays them accordingly.
But WHAT troubles?
If we are already absorbing ALL the CO2 plus capacity for 10% more why do anything else...
Plus I'd like to see your statistics LIKE I've provided for showing the 39 million acres.
 

FJO

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
9,483
Reaction score
1,245
Points
275
Location
Just North of the 49th
If we replace with trees the 39 million acres of farm ground currently dedicated to ethanol-bound corn, our "troubles" would be over.

Why does no one recognize agriculture's adverse impact on the environment?

Votes. Farm state votes.

Agriculture is the one true environmental rapist. And the government pays them accordingly.
Only misguided and misused agriculture.

Growing food to be converted to fuel, using more energy than the fuel so produced has, while America is rich in oil and natural gas, is indeed environmental rape, waste of money, foolish and nothing less than a crime.

If you include all agriculture in your assessment, try to quit eating.
 
Last edited:

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,804
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
If we replace with trees the 39 million acres of farm ground currently dedicated to ethanol-bound corn, our "troubles" would be over.

Why does no one recognize agriculture's adverse impact on the environment?

Votes. Farm state votes.

Agriculture is the one true environmental rapist. And the government pays them accordingly.
But WHAT troubles?
If we are already absorbing ALL the CO2 plus capacity for 10% more why do anything else...
Plus I'd like to see your statistics LIKE I've provided for showing the 39 million acres.
Bitch.
If we replace with trees the 39 million acres of farm ground currently dedicated to ethanol-bound corn, our "troubles" would be over.

Why does no one recognize agriculture's adverse impact on the environment?

Votes. Farm state votes.

Agriculture is the one true environmental rapist. And the government pays them accordingly.
Only misguided and misused agriculture.

Growing food to be converted to fuel, using more energy than the fuel so produced has, while America is rich in oil and natural gas, is indeed environmental rape, waste of money, foolish and nothing less than a crime.

If you include all agriculture in your assessment, try to quit eating.
Whore.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,217
Reaction score
7,367
Points
280
Location
On a hill
If we replace with trees the 39 million acres of farm ground currently dedicated to ethanol-bound corn, our "troubles" would be over.

Why does no one recognize agriculture's adverse impact on the environment?

Votes. Farm state votes.

Agriculture is the one true environmental rapist. And the government pays them accordingly.
Beat me to it.
America's agribusiness has an absolute iron-clad hold on the government like no one else. 100% corrupt. Hell even Al Gore leaves them alone....he knows better.
 

Freemason9

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
280
Points
130
Perhaps you misunderstood this part, knucklehead:

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
That means that 85% of total U.S. emissions from those sectors are NOT offset, and continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,251
Reaction score
3,976
Points
1,130
Please, the natural fauna absorbs the CO2 in the springtime and release it in the fall when the leave drop and decay. About 10% to 15% of the carbon stays in the composted matter and is not released back into the atmosphere.
 

Rshermr

VIP Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
5,804
Reaction score
287
Points
85
Location
LaConner, WA
I really would like to know why this is happening WHEN
Obama said: "if somebody wants to build coal utility plant it’s just that it will bankrupt them,![/I][/B][/COLOR]"
EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.

Boiler MACT Rule: EPA's Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas.

The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs.

Articles: Obama's EPA Plans for 2013

YET the Federal Govt.'s Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years.
Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Simply put the USA can absorb all the CO2 emitted PLUS could absorb another 10%~

SO idiots!!!
Explain to me the NEED for the EPA to close COAL mines and coal utilities when ALREADY the USA landscape can handle ALL the CO2 emitted PLUS 10% MORE???
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits."

Now, if you had a brain, you would realize what the forest service said is that the landscape absorbes more carbon than it emits. Not that THE UNITED STATES ADMITS. Just a little problem there. It does not back up the drivel coming from your primary source.

The rest of your drivel is based on an article from a bat shit crazy con web site. American Thinker. About as suspect a source as a con tool like you could find.

So, just another attempt at misdirection. In no way does the us forestry and agriculture sequester ANYTHING LIKE what you are claiming. Nowhere close.

So, there is your explanation, me lying con tool. Simple enough.
"
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,700
Reaction score
4,132
Points
280
I really would like to know why this is happening WHEN
Obama said: "if somebody wants to build coal utility plant it’s just that it will bankrupt them,![/I][/B][/COLOR]"
EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.

Boiler MACT Rule: EPA's Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas.

The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs.

Articles: Obama's EPA Plans for 2013

YET the Federal Govt.'s Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years.
Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Simply put the USA can absorb all the CO2 emitted PLUS could absorb another 10%~

SO idiots!!!
Explain to me the NEED for the EPA to close COAL mines and coal utilities when ALREADY the USA landscape can handle ALL the CO2 emitted PLUS 10% MORE???
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits."

Now, if you had a brain, you would realize what the forest service said is that the landscape absorbes more carbon than it emits. Not that THE UNITED STATES ADMITS. Just a little problem there. It does not back up the drivel coming from your primary source.

The rest of your drivel is based on an article from a bat shit crazy con web site. American Thinker. About as suspect a source as a con tool like you could find.

So, just another attempt at misdirection. In no way does the us forestry and agriculture sequester ANYTHING LIKE what you are claiming. Nowhere close.

So, there is your explanation, me lying con tool. Simple enough.
"
Do you have the LINKS to support your "claim" us forestry and agriculture sequester "???

AGAIN.. THIS Comes from the http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf
Carbon sequestration in the U.S. forest sector from 1990 to 2010
Peter B. Woodbury*, James E. Smith, Linda S. Heath
USDA Forest Service, 271 Mast Rd, Durham, NH 03824, USA
Received 3 March 2006; received in revised form 12 December 2006; accepted 12 December 2006

About Northern Research Station - USDA Forest Service
Forest Service Research and Development, we seek to understand all of the elements of forests and related landscapes. In the Northern Research Station, we work across a dynamic land with incredible social, biological, and physical diversity.

WHAT THE F...k do you do that qualifies you to spout your total crap?

These are the people that work day in and day out with the elements of forests and landscapes... DOING research..
THESE people obviously many times smarter then you say:
" Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year. " This is 330,000,000 TONS!!!

The USA emits 5,461,014 tons of CO2 per year... List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW YOU IDIOT...
Which number is bigger... 330,000,000 tons that is SEQUESTERED OR
5,461,014 tons of CO2 emitted by the USA per year????





.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top