In the 1970s demand for petroleum in the US exceeded available supply in the US. We had to start importing it. I think that may have had something to do with the increase in price especially after OAPEC proclaimed an oil embargo over our support of Israel in the Yom Kippur war.
Experts may be wrong but until someone shows how they are wrong and comes up with something that does a better job of explaining what's going on I'll believe them. I've been following this since the 1980s and have yet to see that happen.
Global warming is a perfectly good term. Too many people especially in the US think their local climate is a good proxy for the globe. If they lived in SE Australia they might think the world is about to burn up after 3 record heat waves in a 2 year period recently.
I know weather stations have become more automated but they still get visited on a regular basis. Any abrupt change in the data coming in is likely to get a visit. In general satellite records correlate with surface based records pretty well. You know satellites don't measure the temperature directly. Instead they infer it based on the level of radiation in specific wavelengths coming out of the atmosphere.
Actually large coal plants are more efficient than liquid fueled vehicles in the amount of CO2 they produce to generate a given amount of energy. But natural gas is 30% more efficient than coal in that regard.
One of my biggest problems with nuclear power is it can't be built without massive government subsidies. No private insurance company is willing to insure them. Several projects around the world have run into problems or been reexamined due to costs.
4.5 billion people by 2012 is a bit hyperbolic. If methane in the atmosphere increased drastically it's maybe possible in several decades. What I've heard from the scientific community on the subject is that methane emissions may increase somewhat from global warming effects but they don't see any mechanism short of a volcanic eruption in a methane clathrate bed that would lead to massive methane releases.
The proposal I've seen that I'm intrigued by is called "Tax and Dividend". In that the tax is returned to citizens as a dividend. It becomes a form of income redistribution but it could reduce welfare costs. The simplest way to apply the tax would be at the wellhead or mine entrance (or the border for imported fossil fuels) and just let the expense filter up the supply chain.
Good one but that wasn't what I was talking about. Overfishing, acidification, pollution, etc. is more along the lines where I was going. The water in the Gulf of Mexico eventually circulates back out into the broader ocean anyway adding it's little bit to the load.
What people need is energy, not fossil fuels. If the tax is only on ff's, not other forms of energy, they become cheaper and more attractive relative to ff's. That said, the most cost effective way to reduce CO2 often is conservation. We're pretty wasteful of energy in a lot of ways since it has been so cheap for us.
Jobs are lost in the fossil fuel industry. What makes you think there won't be new jobs in whatever we do to replace them? The world economy is going to change significantly in the next decade whether we like it or not. Why not embrace the change and be a leading nation into the future? China is investing more in clean/renewable energy than the US. Can we afford to be behind the curve?
I have to agree with you. In an overreaction to 9/11 we got rid of Saddam Hussein who was probably the biggest thorn in Iran's ambitions and weakened ourselves by spending a lot of money and going into debt pursuing the war in Iraq while reducing respect for the US around the world. What a waste.
The Latter Day Saints movement (Mormonism) wasn't founded until around 1830. I'm not sure I would call that early America. The country was pretty well established by then and all the founding fathers were dead.
Slashdot Mirror
China is also investing more in clean/renewable energy than the US. If we don't get on the ball they'll eat our lunch in the field.
Money can be an incentive to come up with solutions though.
In the 1970s demand for petroleum in the US exceeded available supply in the US. We had to start importing it. I think that may have had something to do with the increase in price especially after OAPEC proclaimed an oil embargo over our support of Israel in the Yom Kippur war.
Experts may be wrong but until someone shows how they are wrong and comes up with something that does a better job of explaining what's going on I'll believe them. I've been following this since the 1980s and have yet to see that happen.
Global warming is a perfectly good term. Too many people especially in the US think their local climate is a good proxy for the globe. If they lived in SE Australia they might think the world is about to burn up after 3 record heat waves in a 2 year period recently.
I like your rosy view of the global warming future. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
I know weather stations have become more automated but they still get visited on a regular basis. Any abrupt change in the data coming in is likely to get a visit. In general satellite records correlate with surface based records pretty well. You know satellites don't measure the temperature directly. Instead they infer it based on the level of radiation in specific wavelengths coming out of the atmosphere.
Banks, oil companies, and genocidal dictators will be the big winners.
They probably will be regardless of what we do.
Actually large coal plants are more efficient than liquid fueled vehicles in the amount of CO2 they produce to generate a given amount of energy. But natural gas is 30% more efficient than coal in that regard.
One of my biggest problems with nuclear power is it can't be built without massive government subsidies. No private insurance company is willing to insure them. Several projects around the world have run into problems or been reexamined due to costs.
China is ahead of the US in investment in clean/renewable energy.
It's the market oriented solution.
90% was the marginal rate, it only applied to income over $3 million.
4.5 billion people by 2012 is a bit hyperbolic. If methane in the atmosphere increased drastically it's maybe possible in several decades. What I've heard from the scientific community on the subject is that methane emissions may increase somewhat from global warming effects but they don't see any mechanism short of a volcanic eruption in a methane clathrate bed that would lead to massive methane releases.
The proposal I've seen that I'm intrigued by is called "Tax and Dividend". In that the tax is returned to citizens as a dividend. It becomes a form of income redistribution but it could reduce welfare costs. The simplest way to apply the tax would be at the wellhead or mine entrance (or the border for imported fossil fuels) and just let the expense filter up the supply chain.
Good one but that wasn't what I was talking about. Overfishing, acidification, pollution, etc. is more along the lines where I was going. The water in the Gulf of Mexico eventually circulates back out into the broader ocean anyway adding it's little bit to the load.
What people need is energy, not fossil fuels. If the tax is only on ff's, not other forms of energy, they become cheaper and more attractive relative to ff's. That said, the most cost effective way to reduce CO2 often is conservation. We're pretty wasteful of energy in a lot of ways since it has been so cheap for us.
Other than the fossil fuel used to produce, transport and maintain them solar, wind, hydro and geothermal energy systems do that pretty well.
Jobs are lost in the fossil fuel industry. What makes you think there won't be new jobs in whatever we do to replace them? The world economy is going to change significantly in the next decade whether we like it or not. Why not embrace the change and be a leading nation into the future? China is investing more in clean/renewable energy than the US. Can we afford to be behind the curve?
Your story only covers the USA (and I bet it's only the CONUS which is 1.6% of the Earth's surface). You'll have to do better than that.
I think maybe we already are taxing* the oceans.
*Tax: To strain or push to the point of exhaustion.
I have to agree with you. In an overreaction to 9/11 we got rid of Saddam Hussein who was probably the biggest thorn in Iran's ambitions and weakened ourselves by spending a lot of money and going into debt pursuing the war in Iraq while reducing respect for the US around the world. What a waste.
One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. It all depends on your POV.
If enough of the 'frickin laser' jokes were made you would have a queue of them.
The Latter Day Saints movement (Mormonism) wasn't founded until around 1830. I'm not sure I would call that early America. The country was pretty well established by then and all the founding fathers were dead.
Last week I heard that BP had made enough profit in 4 days to cover their costs so far. Don't know if it's true or not.
--dfw