OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While?

[DWCAP]

[quote=felix]
CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath[/quote]

This is true, but it doesnt necessary mean that more C02 is better for them than less. Plants ‘respire’ in the oppoist way we do, taking in CO2 and releasing Oxygen, in the process using water. But they are often limited by other factors like water or nitrogen. Constantly increasing levels of CO2 will not corrolate to constantly increasing plant growth, and may actually reduce growth in some areas (50% DECREASE in tree growth in the tropics).

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

[quote=felix]There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now[/quote]

Actually, not true.
“Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1900, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
(not a big fan of quoting wiki, but it is easy)

[quote=felix]Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade[/quote]

Totally misleading. A decade in Geological time is absolutly nothing. Like the housing market, or unemployment, global temps can take temporary dips on the trajectory upwards. Same as your link about global warming not being true because global temp’s fell last year. 1 year. This isnt a sigmoidal function, it isnt smooth. And you are correct about solar activity affecting things, but if your timeframe of reference is only a decade, you will miss alot.

“Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf

[quote=felix]So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?[/quote]

All of the above. Global warming will change the climate as we know it. Some areas will get warmer, and more usable. Some will get wetter, some dryer. Some will submerge under increasing ocean levels. Some may even get COLDER as ocean currents change heat flow. The point is that things will be different, and that will hurt some people, while helping others.

And the fact we dont know exactly what will happen is a terrible argument about why we shouldnt worry about it. Shouldnt we try to find out and limit the potential negative consequences?

[quote=felix] Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.[/quote]

National boundries and immigration restrictions limit the amount of movement from areas where warming hurts to areas where it helps. Canda, US, Russia, Nordic countries helped, everyone else hurt.

[quote=felix]Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.[/quote]

Again misleading, SOME populations are increasing, while others are decreasing.

“Five of the 13 populations in Canada appear to be on the decline. At least one – the Baffin Bay population – is the victim of severe overhunting on the Greenland side of the polar bear’s range. Of the three that are increasing, the Viscount Melville and McClintock Channel populations are on the rebound only because of the Canadian Inuit’s voluntary decision to severely reduce their harvest.”
http://www.thestar.com/arcticinperil/article/279817

Reducing our hunting and then saying the population isnt suffering is just bad science. All the long term studies I have seen say things are not going well for the polar bear, but I would like to read your sources that say that things are looking up for the polar bear in any long term sense.

[quote=felix]So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[/quote]

Those links suck. One is an opnion piece that says the entire reason we paid $4.5/gallon gas was because of AL Gore and his politics. Bull. That was due to a bubble in the price of oil, driven by speculators and an investment furvor.
Then it goes on to abunch of ad home attacks that have no proof what so ever. I especially like part about how 38 parts per million cant raise temps because it cant, cause I said so. I just couldnt read any farther, it was all so much political crap. The high price of gas is not an Al Gore conspiracy.

As for you second link, dont you think that it would be worrysome to see “the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down”? Increasing temperature swings with an overall temperature increase (in centuries) is exactly what a non-political global warming scientist would predict.

[ucodegen]

Lets try:

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

This one is incorrect. In fact the troposphere is much cooler than it should be if we are under a global warming scenario. In addition, satellite observations have shown that the ‘hockey-stick’ shape and recent claimed increases are incorrect. Additional problems are that the data used to justify the hockey-stick are produced under one person’s guidance and not subject to peer review. When there was a request for copies of the original sensor data.. it mysteriously disappeared/got lost. The data being presented is being adjusted for heat-island effect but the methodology being applied is not peer reviewed. The location of most temperature sensing sites are located in heavily urbanized and city environments.

Something from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

NOTE: Remote, non-contact temperature sensing is done by analysis of black body radiation spectra.

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

San Diego is also much cooler this year than it has been for a very long time. The one thing that much of the ‘pro’ camp forgets is that weather always changes. There are periods warmer and periods cooler.

An interesting and inconvenient occurrence for the IPCC..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

At one time, Britain was warm enough to grow grapes.. It hasn’t been that warm there for quite a while.

[ucodegen]

Lets try:

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

This one is incorrect. In fact the troposphere is much cooler than it should be if we are under a global warming scenario. In addition, satellite observations have shown that the ‘hockey-stick’ shape and recent claimed increases are incorrect. Additional problems are that the data used to justify the hockey-stick are produced under one person’s guidance and not subject to peer review. When there was a request for copies of the original sensor data.. it mysteriously disappeared/got lost. The data being presented is being adjusted for heat-island effect but the methodology being applied is not peer reviewed. The location of most temperature sensing sites are located in heavily urbanized and city environments.

Something from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

NOTE: Remote, non-contact temperature sensing is done by analysis of black body radiation spectra.

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

San Diego is also much cooler this year than it has been for a very long time. The one thing that much of the ‘pro’ camp forgets is that weather always changes. There are periods warmer and periods cooler.

An interesting and inconvenient occurrence for the IPCC..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

At one time, Britain was warm enough to grow grapes.. It hasn’t been that warm there for quite a while.

[ucodegen]

Lets try:

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

This one is incorrect. In fact the troposphere is much cooler than it should be if we are under a global warming scenario. In addition, satellite observations have shown that the ‘hockey-stick’ shape and recent claimed increases are incorrect. Additional problems are that the data used to justify the hockey-stick are produced under one person’s guidance and not subject to peer review. When there was a request for copies of the original sensor data.. it mysteriously disappeared/got lost. The data being presented is being adjusted for heat-island effect but the methodology being applied is not peer reviewed. The location of most temperature sensing sites are located in heavily urbanized and city environments.

Something from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

NOTE: Remote, non-contact temperature sensing is done by analysis of black body radiation spectra.

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

San Diego is also much cooler this year than it has been for a very long time. The one thing that much of the ‘pro’ camp forgets is that weather always changes. There are periods warmer and periods cooler.

An interesting and inconvenient occurrence for the IPCC..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

At one time, Britain was warm enough to grow grapes.. It hasn’t been that warm there for quite a while.

[ucodegen]

Lets try:

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

This one is incorrect. In fact the troposphere is much cooler than it should be if we are under a global warming scenario. In addition, satellite observations have shown that the ‘hockey-stick’ shape and recent claimed increases are incorrect. Additional problems are that the data used to justify the hockey-stick are produced under one person’s guidance and not subject to peer review. When there was a request for copies of the original sensor data.. it mysteriously disappeared/got lost. The data being presented is being adjusted for heat-island effect but the methodology being applied is not peer reviewed. The location of most temperature sensing sites are located in heavily urbanized and city environments.

Something from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

NOTE: Remote, non-contact temperature sensing is done by analysis of black body radiation spectra.

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

San Diego is also much cooler this year than it has been for a very long time. The one thing that much of the ‘pro’ camp forgets is that weather always changes. There are periods warmer and periods cooler.

An interesting and inconvenient occurrence for the IPCC..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

At one time, Britain was warm enough to grow grapes.. It hasn’t been that warm there for quite a while.

[ucodegen]

Lets try:

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

This one is incorrect. In fact the troposphere is much cooler than it should be if we are under a global warming scenario. In addition, satellite observations have shown that the ‘hockey-stick’ shape and recent claimed increases are incorrect. Additional problems are that the data used to justify the hockey-stick are produced under one person’s guidance and not subject to peer review. When there was a request for copies of the original sensor data.. it mysteriously disappeared/got lost. The data being presented is being adjusted for heat-island effect but the methodology being applied is not peer reviewed. The location of most temperature sensing sites are located in heavily urbanized and city environments.

Something from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

NOTE: Remote, non-contact temperature sensing is done by analysis of black body radiation spectra.

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

San Diego is also much cooler this year than it has been for a very long time. The one thing that much of the ‘pro’ camp forgets is that weather always changes. There are periods warmer and periods cooler.

An interesting and inconvenient occurrence for the IPCC..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

At one time, Britain was warm enough to grow grapes.. It hasn’t been that warm there for quite a while.

[ucodegen]

re: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.

This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”

This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.

By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.

Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.

BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.

[ucodegen]

re: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.

This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”

This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.

By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.

Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.

BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.

[ucodegen]

re: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.

This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”

This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.

By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.

Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.

BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.

[ucodegen]

re: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.

This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”

This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.

By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.

Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.

BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.

[ucodegen]

re: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.

This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”

This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.

By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.

Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.

BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[Author]

Posts