Steady load power plants like nuclear have a similar problem where they can't change to meet peak demand and this is easily solved with on-demand natural gas generators.
Actually, that isn't always true either...
Nuclear plants can spin resistors to burn off excess power and turn it into heat. It doesn't make sense to turn a nuclear power plant up or down, if they need to take it off line, or reduce its power output, they can turn on spinning resistors that just burn away energy to heat. This is of course wasteful, but it is an option.
A much better option would be to use that excess energy with a pumped water storage system. These can't be located everywhere, but it is another way to balance excess energy.
Also, if we can develop new wind turbines that you describe, then we can develop new nuclear reactors that also spin up and down faster.:)
Also, if your roof is only worth 1/3rd your electrical use, that may be something that you want to examine, because you could save considerable money for cheaper than installing solar panels fixing whatever is taking so much.
For some people, that would be true... in our case, we just use a lot of power...
I have upgraded our insulation, replaced our bulbs with LED, replaced our HVAC with a 16 SEER dual stage, dual speed unit, and replaced our weather stripping on our doors...
We have a fairly big house at 3,800 sqft, but it is two story so it isn't that wide or long. It also has a roof that doesn't hold solar well, we have 6 different sections of roof that face south, so it can't be covered very well.
We've had the solar companies out to price it, we just can't put enough panels up on the space that exists to cover more than about 1/3 of our power use annually.
I can't say much about your specific situation, but in general if you're far enough from the equator for snow, the ideal solar panel will have a fair bit of tilt to it.
I'm in Texas, and yes, we get snow 2 months out of the year here.:) Nothing like what you get, but enough to cover the panels.
I see people saying this a lot but I've never seen any solid evidence that it's still true. In 2014 and so far in 2015 China has actually reduced its coal use by a significant amount. China coal use continues to fall precipitously. Maybe they're replacing older inefficient plants with newer ones or maybe they're not using so much for home heating, etc. but any drop in coal use by them is a good thing.
Rowing from Oregon where I live to Australia is not something that feels totally out of the realm of possibility to me but at 63 years old it would not be something my doctor and family would be happy about.
It might not seem it, but I think it would be... You couldn't carry enough food, you can't outrow the currents, you would not survive the weather you'd encounter.
It is hard enough to do in a proper large sailboat with wind power, trying it with arm power is just suicide.
I don't think your 747 analogy works. It's like saying if we can't figure out how to do it in one step it's not worth starting. But the challenge of reducing and eventually eliminating CO2 emissions has a lot of different parts that will require different solutions and there is no need to wait for all of them to be available to get started.
Try this one then... Hiking to the top of Mt. Everest... It can be done, clearly people do it... Lots of people die in the attempt... Would you start that "journey of a thousand steps" without a plan for the last hundred? Every climbing expert in the world would call you a fool if you did.
All I'm saying is that if we don't have a plan to cut CO2 by enough to stop the climb of CO2 in the air, then perhaps we should look at other options, such as adapting to the new world we're making.
Does it really matter if we move the date we pass 500 PPM from August 2065 to October 2065? Yes, it is a change. Is it enough of one to matter? At what cost? If it takes the next 22 years and tens of billions of dollars just to do that, so what?
What would it take to double the time to 500 PPM? What would it take to push that date off into the far future? I submit that it would take actions that we just aren't going to take. We aren't going to turn off all the AC units, we aren't going to change our whole lifestyle. And we can't control what the whole world does anyway, so even if we wanted to, it doesn't really matter.
I have enough roof space for probably 40,000W of panels.
You have a big roof! Wish I had that much room!
The thing causing me to hold back is the electric utility. I want grid-tie with intentional islanding and battery storage if the grid loses power, and I don't want to get hammered with utility company fees like they're trying to get out of us if we go that route. I'd also like to get reimbursed a fair rate for the power I'd supply back to the grid during peak usage, but they're not interested in doing that either.
In fairness, the electric utility isn't completely wrong in wanting a fair shake.
For example, are you asking for net-metering where they pay you retail for your power, or are you asking for wholesale rates when you sell them back your power? The former is not reasonable, the latter is totally reasonable.
Generally grid-tie systems need to shut down automatically when the power goes out, this is for the safety of the linemen working on the downed lines.
I can tell you are not from the Pacific NorthWest. One or two days in winter won't keep the battery charged. Seattle has an average of 152 non rainy days per year. They claim 58 sunny days a year. Pacific Northwest is not a great place for solar.
A whole lot of people on this site aren't from the north in any respect... they clearly have a world view that doesn't know what 5 feet of snow looks like. Shame, because Boston and the North East got all that coverage recently for the massive snow storms, what good would solar have done in all that? Wind wouldn't work there either in those conditions.
This is why, at the end of the day, nuclear is what we really need.
But, sadly, the environmentalists are against that too.
What will happen when you run out of coal or oil? It the same problem. You ration and prioritise.
First, we aren't going to run out of either in our lifetimes. There is so much oil and coal in the world, we're swimming on top of it. Trillions and trillions and trillions of barrels of it.
Second, that is what nuclear is for. Yea, yea, "oh my god the nuclears!", but either we get over that or we keep burning oil and coal. That is reality and it is a shame that so-called environmentalists keep holding us back.
As a whitewater rafter I know how to row so I'll amend that to say "The longer journey starts with the first step or first oar stroke.":)
Yes, but while that is a cute reply, you know the reality is that you are not going to row a raft to Australia.
Let me give you a simpler example... Take off in a 747 with 80% of the fuel to fly there, and say "well, it is a start, we'll figure it out when we're on the way."
Sounds really stupid, doesn't it? It is, as is doing half-assed measures that don't change the outcome of AGW.
If it is indeed a problem, then we need to take drastic steps. But even drastic steps become a problem because you'll get pushback from a lot of people around the world.
China is building a new coal fired power plant every month, they have 50 under construction right now.
In the past 5 years, China has added as much CO2 output as the entire USA.
The problem is much bigger than what Obama is proposing.
As our tech gets better and better, we'll be able to find new ways to reduce CO2 emissions, and if it's increasing slowly enough we can use other means (such as trees) to reduce CO2 in the air. Therefore, the rate at which things get worse matters.
Sure it does, if the assumptions you've just made are true.
They aren't.
We're adding way too much CO2 per year for any slow reduction to help.
Do you seriously believe that switching to LED bulbs and driving a car that gets only 29mpg (which is terrible gas mileage in reality, only relative to your other gas guzzler does it seem reasonable) will achieve anything?
No, the change to LED bulbs saves me money, the car gives me something else to drive and almost kinda sorta saves me money. There are other reasons to have an extra vehicle and the few hundred dollars a month it ends up costing me is not a big deal.
BTW, you say 29 MPG is bad... you clearly have a different view of vehicles than I do, and that's ok. Find me a 4,000lb full size car with a real back seat and a decently powered V6 engine and all the bells and whistles that does much better... Oh, and have it cost $21K while you're at it... (bought it used, 1 year old, 22k miles)
The real waste is at the front end, where power is generated, and the only fix for that is "top down" legislation to force the providers to do something about the emissions and inefficiency. And that pretty much has to be dictated because industry has shown time and time and time again that it won't regulate itself if left to its own devices.
You can't change it by enough to matter. I suspect Obama knows this, or at least I hope the people advising him have told him that...
If the goal is to stop the rise in CO2 levels in the air, then we're toast, because that isn't going to happen.
Wouldn't it just make more sense not to pollute in the first place?
Of course, that is the point. Make it more expensive to pollute, but allow it if someone wants to pay enough for it.
For example, I love my big truck, if anyone tries to tell me "I shouldn't drive such a thing", screw em, I can drive what I want.
However, I don't agree that light trucks and SUVs should be exempt from the fuel rules of cars, given what light trucks and SUVs are really used for.
So slap the gas guzzler tax on them and use that tax to provide rebates for fuel efficient cars. If the current $7,500 tax credit for EVs was paid for by a tax on big gas burning SUVs, I'd have FAR less of a problem with it, except that it shouldn't be JUST FOR EVs, it should be for any vehicle that gets, say, over 50 MPG.
You could also do a sliding scale, maybe set the middle to 30MPG average. Every MPG over that gets a small credit, growing with size as it burns less fuel. Every MPG less than that has a tax. Buy whatever you want, drive whatever you want, pay for it.
Can you adequately compensate someone for death or serious and unfixable health problems?
As sad as this is, yes you can... The court system clearly has placed a value on lives which is why large companies, too many times, have made decisions based on "what will it cost us if this product kills 10 people? what about 25 people?"
For what it is worth, I don't agree with such thinking, I'm just pointing out that our current system does allow for this.
When there is justification, i.e. no other reason, that's fine. "I just prefer polluting" is not acceptable, sorry. We have to share this environment.
We allow people to smoke cigarettes, and those have no good qualities whatsoever. What we have done is tax the crap out of them, but banning stuff usually has bad side effects.
You did the ROI on the LED. What's the ROI on the Taurus?
There isn't one, not from a money point of view...
It'll save me, give or take, about $120 a month in fuel... I'm paying $357 a month to own it, I figure if I keep it a few years and sell it, my net ownership cost will be in the $200 a month range.
Which sounds cheap, but that doesn't include insurance, tires, oil changes, etc. Depends on how long I keep it of course.
There is a small benefit in not putting so many miles on my truck, it holds a bit of value a bit longer, but that is just searching for reasons.
No one expects this to fix the problem by itself or to be the final answer. As they say "The longest journey starts with the first step."
That is true, but if the goal is to walk from America to Australia, you might want to rethink the whole plan.
Ultimately CO2 emissions need to go to a net zero. That's the only answer.
I agree, believe it or not... But from what I've read on NASA's page, about 50% of the CO2 we emit doesn't get absorbed into the water or the plants...
If we have to cut our total CO2 output by 50%... well, that just isn't going to happen. If anything, it will keep growing, abit more slowly...
Most residences are just on a single tariff which is fixed and average around the 25c/kWh.... Yet that is my power price.
Yes, because you have a socialist government that taxes the crap out of everything.
Not a crime, if that is what you want, but way too many people never make the connection between the cost of goods and services and the social benefits they enjoy.
Note: My wife is from Brisbane, born and raised in Nambour, I've been there several times, lovely place...
Everything is stupid expensive there and it isn't all because of distance. After all, tons of stuff Americans buy is made in China and it is cheap as chips.
Really, you probably want both. Some small extra taxes or limits on coal, so that you discourage it without causing major economic harm
The problem with that idea in general is that it doesn't move the needle by a noticeable amount.
If the AGW projections are correct, then we need to cut worldwide CO2 output, give or take, by 40%. Not 40% from some level like 2000 or 2005, but outright, down to zero. And it has to happen worldwide.
That would require massive pain from everyone and a change to the way we live.
This simply is not going to happen.
If AGW is correct, we're already long past the point of no return, we just need to prepare for the future that is coming.
What's sad is that both sides miss the point. The current plan outlined by Obama is weak and pathetic and sad. It's mostly 'changes' that would have happened due to economics anyway (the USA is already moving away from coal) and, even if the plan is implemented fully (which it won't be, and you know why) it is only going to achieve a fraction of what's necessary to combat climate change in the near future.
I keep making that point and the pro-AGW people keep ignoring it.
It is only of those "Inconvenient Truths"! (See what I did there?)
The sad reality is that if the AGW people are right, then we're already on a sinking ship and nothing we do is going to stop it. I've looked at the numbers, the pages on NASA about the CO2 levels, the rate of growth. I've also looked at the CO2 output by India, China, Russia, the US, etc.
Nothing we do is going to change it by enough to matter, it will keep right on growing. The changes that WOULD be required to stop it, we aren't going to make.
Give or take, we'd need to cut worldwide CO2 output by about 40%. Not to some 2000 or 2005 level, but outright, between the current level and ZERO. That isn't going to happen.
Obama's proposal is to cut to 32% below 2005 levels. That isn't remotely enough, and it is just the US. The whole planet has to do it, and we have maybe 30ish years to do it in.
So if AGW is correct and if 2 degrees is the limit, then we're already done. We might as well just prepare for what is coming, because Obama's proposal won't change the date at which 2 degrees happens by enough to matter. It is, once again, just using a bucket brigade to try to bail water out of the Titanic. Sure, you're "doing something", but the outcome will largely be the same if everyone just sat around drinking tea and singing songs.
Joking aside the one benefit of wall to wall Cecil coverage is that it has temporarily stopped the wall to wall Trump coverage.
Yep, and do you think that was an accident?
The media really, really doesn't want to talk about Trump... Which makes me like him all the more, since the media is biased and has their own agenda...
Slashdot Mirror
Steady load power plants like nuclear have a similar problem where they can't change to meet peak demand and this is easily solved with on-demand natural gas generators.
Actually, that isn't always true either...
Nuclear plants can spin resistors to burn off excess power and turn it into heat. It doesn't make sense to turn a nuclear power plant up or down, if they need to take it off line, or reduce its power output, they can turn on spinning resistors that just burn away energy to heat. This is of course wasteful, but it is an option.
A much better option would be to use that excess energy with a pumped water storage system. These can't be located everywhere, but it is another way to balance excess energy.
Also, if we can develop new wind turbines that you describe, then we can develop new nuclear reactors that also spin up and down faster. :)
have you thought of mounting your solar panels in a vertical orientation. this will minimize the accumulation of snow.
Sure, but then they'd put out maybe 1/3 of their rated output, give or take...
Making them even more expensive and pointless...
I hate to say it, but solar might make sense for some people, and that's fine, but for many of us, it makes zero sense.
If it it works for you, great!
I don't believe this.
http://energybible.com/wind_en...
Any reason why we can't work on both at the same time?
No reason at all... but I don't think that conversation is even being had at the moment and I think that is the mistake...
Also, sometimes if you try and do two things, you end up doing neither well...
Except for the first one those articles are all from the beginning of 2014. The picture has apparently changed a bit since then.
Fair enough...
If they do indeed make a major change, then that is wonderful... :)
Now on to Russia and India!!!
Then the windmills will be turning like hell. Because when the sun is not shining the wind is blowing.
Not always... and windmills have a limit to what conditions they can work in, when the wind is too strong they have to shut down...
Also, if your roof is only worth 1/3rd your electrical use, that may be something that you want to examine, because you could save considerable money for cheaper than installing solar panels fixing whatever is taking so much.
For some people, that would be true... in our case, we just use a lot of power...
I have upgraded our insulation, replaced our bulbs with LED, replaced our HVAC with a 16 SEER dual stage, dual speed unit, and replaced our weather stripping on our doors...
We have a fairly big house at 3,800 sqft, but it is two story so it isn't that wide or long. It also has a roof that doesn't hold solar well, we have 6 different sections of roof that face south, so it can't be covered very well.
We've had the solar companies out to price it, we just can't put enough panels up on the space that exists to cover more than about 1/3 of our power use annually.
I can't say much about your specific situation, but in general if you're far enough from the equator for snow, the ideal solar panel will have a fair bit of tilt to it.
I'm in Texas, and yes, we get snow 2 months out of the year here. :) Nothing like what you get, but enough to cover the panels.
I see people saying this a lot but I've never seen any solid evidence that it's still true. In 2014 and so far in 2015 China has actually reduced its coal use by a significant amount. China coal use continues to fall precipitously. Maybe they're replacing older inefficient plants with newer ones or maybe they're not using so much for home heating, etc. but any drop in coal use by them is a good thing.
http://instituteforenergyresea...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
Rowing from Oregon where I live to Australia is not something that feels totally out of the realm of possibility to me but at 63 years old it would not be something my doctor and family would be happy about.
It might not seem it, but I think it would be... You couldn't carry enough food, you can't outrow the currents, you would not survive the weather you'd encounter.
It is hard enough to do in a proper large sailboat with wind power, trying it with arm power is just suicide.
I don't think your 747 analogy works. It's like saying if we can't figure out how to do it in one step it's not worth starting. But the challenge of reducing and eventually eliminating CO2 emissions has a lot of different parts that will require different solutions and there is no need to wait for all of them to be available to get started.
Try this one then... Hiking to the top of Mt. Everest... It can be done, clearly people do it... Lots of people die in the attempt... Would you start that "journey of a thousand steps" without a plan for the last hundred? Every climbing expert in the world would call you a fool if you did.
All I'm saying is that if we don't have a plan to cut CO2 by enough to stop the climb of CO2 in the air, then perhaps we should look at other options, such as adapting to the new world we're making.
Does it really matter if we move the date we pass 500 PPM from August 2065 to October 2065? Yes, it is a change. Is it enough of one to matter? At what cost? If it takes the next 22 years and tens of billions of dollars just to do that, so what?
What would it take to double the time to 500 PPM? What would it take to push that date off into the far future? I submit that it would take actions that we just aren't going to take. We aren't going to turn off all the AC units, we aren't going to change our whole lifestyle. And we can't control what the whole world does anyway, so even if we wanted to, it doesn't really matter.
I have enough roof space for probably 40,000W of panels.
You have a big roof! Wish I had that much room!
The thing causing me to hold back is the electric utility. I want grid-tie with intentional islanding and battery storage if the grid loses power, and I don't want to get hammered with utility company fees like they're trying to get out of us if we go that route. I'd also like to get reimbursed a fair rate for the power I'd supply back to the grid during peak usage, but they're not interested in doing that either.
In fairness, the electric utility isn't completely wrong in wanting a fair shake.
For example, are you asking for net-metering where they pay you retail for your power, or are you asking for wholesale rates when you sell them back your power? The former is not reasonable, the latter is totally reasonable.
Generally grid-tie systems need to shut down automatically when the power goes out, this is for the safety of the linemen working on the downed lines.
I can tell you are not from the Pacific NorthWest. One or two days in winter won't keep the battery charged.
Seattle has an average of 152 non rainy days per year. They claim 58 sunny days a year. Pacific Northwest is not a great place for solar.
A whole lot of people on this site aren't from the north in any respect... they clearly have a world view that doesn't know what 5 feet of snow looks like. Shame, because Boston and the North East got all that coverage recently for the massive snow storms, what good would solar have done in all that? Wind wouldn't work there either in those conditions.
This is why, at the end of the day, nuclear is what we really need.
But, sadly, the environmentalists are against that too.
What will happen when you run out of coal or oil? It the same problem. You ration and prioritise.
First, we aren't going to run out of either in our lifetimes. There is so much oil and coal in the world, we're swimming on top of it. Trillions and trillions and trillions of barrels of it.
Second, that is what nuclear is for. Yea, yea, "oh my god the nuclears!", but either we get over that or we keep burning oil and coal. That is reality and it is a shame that so-called environmentalists keep holding us back.
As a whitewater rafter I know how to row so I'll amend that to say "The longer journey starts with the first step or first oar stroke." :)
Yes, but while that is a cute reply, you know the reality is that you are not going to row a raft to Australia.
Let me give you a simpler example... Take off in a 747 with 80% of the fuel to fly there, and say "well, it is a start, we'll figure it out when we're on the way."
Sounds really stupid, doesn't it? It is, as is doing half-assed measures that don't change the outcome of AGW.
If it is indeed a problem, then we need to take drastic steps. But even drastic steps become a problem because you'll get pushback from a lot of people around the world.
China is building a new coal fired power plant every month, they have 50 under construction right now.
In the past 5 years, China has added as much CO2 output as the entire USA.
The problem is much bigger than what Obama is proposing.
As our tech gets better and better, we'll be able to find new ways to reduce CO2 emissions, and if it's increasing slowly enough we can use other means (such as trees) to reduce CO2 in the air. Therefore, the rate at which things get worse matters.
Sure it does, if the assumptions you've just made are true.
They aren't.
We're adding way too much CO2 per year for any slow reduction to help.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
We're adding a pretty steady 2 PPM CO2 to the air every year.
We recently passed 400 PPM CO2. The various sites estimate that anything between 450 and 500 is the tipping point.
So we have between 25 and 50 years, at our current production rate of CO2, before we're beyond the point of no return.
To stop the rise, we'd have to cut nearly 50% of the worldwide CO2 production. This just isn't going to happen.
If it takes 25 years, 50 years, or 100 years, we're still in trouble.
The changes proposed don't make enough of a difference to change the outcome.
When you consider that my roof is only large enough to provide about 1/3 of my total power needs, that becomes a problem.
Plus, you've just doubled the cost of the system. Worse, when it snows in the winter, I now need a way to get snow off the panels.
I'm pretty sure that's called a battery.
And when the sun doesn't shine for a month?
Twice in the past 6 years, we've had a month of cloudy skies and rain. In 2007, we had 45 straight days of rain, set a record.
Do you seriously believe that switching to LED bulbs and driving a car that gets only 29mpg (which is terrible gas mileage in reality, only relative to your other gas guzzler does it seem reasonable) will achieve anything?
No, the change to LED bulbs saves me money, the car gives me something else to drive and almost kinda sorta saves me money. There are other reasons to have an extra vehicle and the few hundred dollars a month it ends up costing me is not a big deal.
BTW, you say 29 MPG is bad... you clearly have a different view of vehicles than I do, and that's ok. Find me a 4,000lb full size car with a real back seat and a decently powered V6 engine and all the bells and whistles that does much better... Oh, and have it cost $21K while you're at it... (bought it used, 1 year old, 22k miles)
The real waste is at the front end, where power is generated, and the only fix for that is "top down" legislation to force the providers to do something about the emissions and inefficiency. And that pretty much has to be dictated because industry has shown time and time and time again that it won't regulate itself if left to its own devices.
You can't change it by enough to matter. I suspect Obama knows this, or at least I hope the people advising him have told him that...
If the goal is to stop the rise in CO2 levels in the air, then we're toast, because that isn't going to happen.
World carbon emissions...the US is approximately 15%.
If that doesn't make a difference, then those other countries will be committing ecological suicide.
It wouldn't... I get it, that is hard for you to understand, but it really wouldn't...
First, about 50% of all CO2 must be cut to stop the increase of CO2 in the air.
Second, other nations are continuing to output more CO2, if we removed our 15%, the rest of the world would replace it within 10 years.
Wouldn't it just make more sense not to pollute in the first place?
Of course, that is the point. Make it more expensive to pollute, but allow it if someone wants to pay enough for it.
For example, I love my big truck, if anyone tries to tell me "I shouldn't drive such a thing", screw em, I can drive what I want.
However, I don't agree that light trucks and SUVs should be exempt from the fuel rules of cars, given what light trucks and SUVs are really used for.
So slap the gas guzzler tax on them and use that tax to provide rebates for fuel efficient cars. If the current $7,500 tax credit for EVs was paid for by a tax on big gas burning SUVs, I'd have FAR less of a problem with it, except that it shouldn't be JUST FOR EVs, it should be for any vehicle that gets, say, over 50 MPG.
You could also do a sliding scale, maybe set the middle to 30MPG average. Every MPG over that gets a small credit, growing with size as it burns less fuel. Every MPG less than that has a tax. Buy whatever you want, drive whatever you want, pay for it.
Can you adequately compensate someone for death or serious and unfixable health problems?
As sad as this is, yes you can... The court system clearly has placed a value on lives which is why large companies, too many times, have made decisions based on "what will it cost us if this product kills 10 people? what about 25 people?"
For what it is worth, I don't agree with such thinking, I'm just pointing out that our current system does allow for this.
When there is justification, i.e. no other reason, that's fine. "I just prefer polluting" is not acceptable, sorry. We have to share this environment.
We allow people to smoke cigarettes, and those have no good qualities whatsoever. What we have done is tax the crap out of them, but banning stuff usually has bad side effects.
You did the ROI on the LED. What's the ROI on the Taurus?
There isn't one, not from a money point of view...
It'll save me, give or take, about $120 a month in fuel... I'm paying $357 a month to own it, I figure if I keep it a few years and sell it, my net ownership cost will be in the $200 a month range.
Which sounds cheap, but that doesn't include insurance, tires, oil changes, etc. Depends on how long I keep it of course.
There is a small benefit in not putting so many miles on my truck, it holds a bit of value a bit longer, but that is just searching for reasons.
No one expects this to fix the problem by itself or to be the final answer. As they say "The longest journey starts with the first step."
That is true, but if the goal is to walk from America to Australia, you might want to rethink the whole plan.
Ultimately CO2 emissions need to go to a net zero. That's the only answer.
I agree, believe it or not... But from what I've read on NASA's page, about 50% of the CO2 we emit doesn't get absorbed into the water or the plants...
If we have to cut our total CO2 output by 50%... well, that just isn't going to happen. If anything, it will keep growing, abit more slowly...
Most residences are just on a single tariff which is fixed and average around the 25c/kWh. ... Yet that is my power price.
Yes, because you have a socialist government that taxes the crap out of everything.
Not a crime, if that is what you want, but way too many people never make the connection between the cost of goods and services and the social benefits they enjoy.
Note: My wife is from Brisbane, born and raised in Nambour, I've been there several times, lovely place...
Everything is stupid expensive there and it isn't all because of distance. After all, tons of stuff Americans buy is made in China and it is cheap as chips.
Really, you probably want both. Some small extra taxes or limits on coal, so that you discourage it without causing major economic harm
The problem with that idea in general is that it doesn't move the needle by a noticeable amount.
If the AGW projections are correct, then we need to cut worldwide CO2 output, give or take, by 40%. Not 40% from some level like 2000 or 2005, but outright, down to zero. And it has to happen worldwide.
That would require massive pain from everyone and a change to the way we live.
This simply is not going to happen.
If AGW is correct, we're already long past the point of no return, we just need to prepare for the future that is coming.
What's sad is that both sides miss the point. The current plan outlined by Obama is weak and pathetic and sad. It's mostly 'changes' that would have happened due to economics anyway (the USA is already moving away from coal) and, even if the plan is implemented fully (which it won't be, and you know why) it is only going to achieve a fraction of what's necessary to combat climate change in the near future.
I keep making that point and the pro-AGW people keep ignoring it.
It is only of those "Inconvenient Truths"! (See what I did there?)
The sad reality is that if the AGW people are right, then we're already on a sinking ship and nothing we do is going to stop it. I've looked at the numbers, the pages on NASA about the CO2 levels, the rate of growth. I've also looked at the CO2 output by India, China, Russia, the US, etc.
Nothing we do is going to change it by enough to matter, it will keep right on growing. The changes that WOULD be required to stop it, we aren't going to make.
Give or take, we'd need to cut worldwide CO2 output by about 40%. Not to some 2000 or 2005 level, but outright, between the current level and ZERO. That isn't going to happen.
Obama's proposal is to cut to 32% below 2005 levels. That isn't remotely enough, and it is just the US. The whole planet has to do it, and we have maybe 30ish years to do it in.
So if AGW is correct and if 2 degrees is the limit, then we're already done. We might as well just prepare for what is coming, because Obama's proposal won't change the date at which 2 degrees happens by enough to matter. It is, once again, just using a bucket brigade to try to bail water out of the Titanic. Sure, you're "doing something", but the outcome will largely be the same if everyone just sat around drinking tea and singing songs.
Joking aside the one benefit of wall to wall Cecil coverage is that it has temporarily stopped the wall to wall Trump coverage.
Yep, and do you think that was an accident?
The media really, really doesn't want to talk about Trump... Which makes me like him all the more, since the media is biased and has their own agenda...