As I showed earlier, the per capita stuff is worthless as a metric. Only a fool would think that it is a good one. It actual encourages MORE population on a planet that is already overpopulated. What you see is that the overpopulated nations are unable to educate or take care of their own so they allow them to invade other nations (in fact, they encourage it).
Take his another step. China and India are roughly the same land mass as America. China has more CO2 emissions, but most importantly, it is growing in proportion to their economy, not their population. The same is true of India, Brazil, South Africa, Poland, etc. Basically, where you see economic growth is where you see CO2 emissions jumping leaps and bounds. Yet, in the case of China and India, their populations are NOT growing anywhere near the same rates.
What it comes down to, is that the WORST METRIC GOING IS PER CAPITA. It is all about economy and land mass (more economy). We need to create a tax on all goods but tie it to economic output as well as land mass. With that approach, it will cause all nations that want to grow to focus on CLEAN energy, rather than getting energy fast. This is a much better metric What is really needed is to see it spread out over time, rather than single points such as what you used.
The right way is to create a single company with multiple brands in which the core is shared. The brands are then owned by fairly wealthy ppl. Once you have the core tech off the ground and brands solid, then split the company along with the IP. Basically, to get car companies off the ground here, the founders need to learn to work together like we used to do, not trying to kill each other.
China has signed a NUMBER of treaties. Clinton did a FTA agreement that requires them to free their money (minimum of 40% below where it should be), drop their 90 trade barriers (now over 400), drop their subsidies (extensive) and quit dumping (bueller? bueller? anyone?). Even IMF requires that. Yet, they do not do any of that. China will NOT keep their word. Hell, they have a number of treaties with japan and they are breaking all of them
India is in a tight spot. Zero chance that they will do it, UNLESS everybody else does. And there is ZERO chance of that.
By applying a slowly increasing tax on all goods based on the CO2 from which goods/components come from, it will force all nations to participate ESP. if the USA does this (world's largest and most extensive importer).
Why do you have to pay for oil/gas? Because somebody had to pull it out of the ground. Well, nations do not want to put a direct charge on dumping CO2/pollution into the air and water. By putting a tax on all goods, based on the CO2 from where the assembly and say largest 1 or 2 sub-components come from, it levels it. Now, the interesting difference is that companies can get out of paying that tax by simply encouraging the nation where they are producing at, to lower their emissions. If they are below the aloted amount (perhaps we do it based on per sq km), then they get zero taxes. IOW, this is a cost that companies and nations can get out of, by simply doing the right thing and not cheating. OTH, good luck getting oil or other commodites for free. Just remember, TANSTAAFL.
And yeah, I fully expect a bunch of neo-cons to scream bloody murder that they want their favorite oil companies or aircraft, etc to have all sort of exceptions. As to what the gov. choose to spend it on, well, just look at US spending since the 80's. Hopefully, if we implement this, we will not be so stupid as to waste things. Gads. Most of our debt was from good economic times (1982-1992 and 2003-2007 were more than 1/2 of the debt prior to O).
This... An "environment impact tax" would be something that would encourage more economic fairness while achieving goals in-line with what Kyoto intends. Sure it also works like a tariff on the surface and at the beginning, but if outsourced labor can actually be cleaned up - then this type of tax would be fair in that it would then reduce as well.
Keep in mind that this is no more a tariff than any sales tax on goods. I keep saying over and over that it must be applied to ALL GOODS (local and imported). That is no different than a sales tax. In fact, sales taxes are disaster for the west because we do not apply it to Internet based sales. That needs to change and soon. But yes, the idea of it is that as a nation lowers their emission, then the % drops. Assume that China and America have a 100% today. If they drop their emissions quickly, then they can get it to 0%. Otherwise, there is no incentive to clean up our act and more importantly, no reward.
Also needed is some "humanitarian tax" which taxes goods based on the safety standards of production. Things made with child labor or not complying to some standard comparable to OSHA should also face a stiff tax penalty.
If there is one area that America COULD have made a BIG difference for the world, was that when we did all of these FTA's around the world, we should have required true free trade AND ENFORCED IT (china should be blocked at this time from the bulk of the west since they are pretty much at 0% on keep to it), but also have required a slowly improving environmental and labor laws. While America is OK on labor, I wish that NAFTA had adapted Canada's standard of environmental laws and required both America and Mexico to come up to their standard slowly. Likewise, we should have required the same all over. At this point, had EU not been in the economic position that they are, would be ideal for doing FTA correctly with those agreements. If EU pulls out of all this OK, then hopefully they will do that. I do not know. Beyond that, it is likely that once this environmental tax happens (and it will in desperation), then the idea will be used for labor and hopefully other traveling pollution (mercury is one that really needs to happen).
WTO is NOT a problem as long as this is applied to ALL GOODS and it allows for nations to change their behavior. In addition, it should be applied relatively slowly to give nations time to adjust. When it is applied ONLY to imported goods, or rigged in various ways, then WTO would get excited about it ( rightly, by the way). However, it seems like WTO only gets excited when it is a western nation that is cheating and does not care about the rest. Yet, this is not cheating.
The really cool part about this, is that if applied, when a nation suddenly under goes economic spurts, they tend to ignore environmental considerations (china is a great example, but sadly, not the only). This is a negative feedback to stop that. It is the only approach that I know of with that built in.
Ppl here want to push the per capitia garbage. I just used the same metric that I have argued against to show that it is a totally worthless measurement. What I find interesting is that many here will argue that it is the 'FAIREST' of them all. Yet, in terms of ABSOLUTE PER CAPITA, America is absolutely at the top of the western nations to drop. And that does not even include the fact that we do not have a decent handle on our illegals. There is a good chance that our per capita is MUCH lower and falling fast. The reason is that there is a good chance that we have another 5-10% more ppl just in illegals then what we report.
As I pointed out, many of the kyoto nations are not really doing that much. They are at best flatlined, but in many cases still growing. I used Germany because out of ALL of kyoto, they had dropped the most. But they will go upwards, not down. The reason is that they are taking their nukes off-line. That is 12 GW of power that will have to be made up. Well, with more than 2 decades of work, Germany is only up to about 30 GW capacity, but generating only about 6% of their power. AE accounts for about 20% of their energy. With that growth it will take them 10 years or so before they they have intermittent power to replace solid on-demand energy. And that includes zero storage.
What is needed now, is for nations to drop kyoto and to move towards taxation on all goods. Kyoto is an absolute disaster. To add to that, we need to throw out the BS metric of per capita. We really need to move towards per sq km, per $ of GDP, or better yet, a combination of the two (I would do more GDP, but that is me). And no, USA is dropping. Yeah, that is on top of W/neo-cons allowing(encouraging?) growth, however, things continue forward.
china is required per BINDING AGREEMENTS with USA, IMF, WTO, Japan, etc, etc, etc. to free their money, drop their trade barriers, stop subsidies, stop dumping but yet, they do not. Likewise, they have BINDING AGREEMENTS with Japan to put on pollution controls with on all of their new plants, stop dumping, etc. Yet, what China did was put on the pollution control, but then had each and every plant BYPASS IT. In addition, they continue to dump all sorts of toxins. These days, they are going much further out and dumping their pollution (iow, by Japan). They have finally realized that they do not want to pollute their coastal areas as much so are sending it to Japan, etc.
Nope. Kyoto is just a poorly thought out idea. If nations REALLY wanted to make a difference, then they would set up taxes on EVERYBODY's goods based on the CO2 that comes from where the good is made. Basically, use the free market pricing to regulate the free market (and yes, the vast majority of our emissions are caused by the free markets).
Yes, America is NOT part of the Kyoto, and THANK GOD FOR THAT. However, America's output keeps dropping while other nation's continue to climb.
We hit 20 tonnes and have dropped to 17.5 by 2008. Considering that Electricity Generation accounts for more than 41% of all of US emissions and our coal % is dropping, then it is a CERTAINTY that we will continue to drop. I know that just in Colorado, we are killing a number of our coal plants and replacing them with Natural Gas, wind and solar PV.
Hell, it terms of amount that has dropped, we are one of the best out there and better than many other western nations.
Germany went from 12 to 9.6 which makes them LESS than us.
Canada has gone from 17.5 to 16.4 (1.1)
UK went from 10.3 to 8.5, which is less than 2 tonnes per person savings.
Ireland went from 11.3 to 9.8 (yeah, like that is major cut).
France went from a high of 7.1 to 6.5(yeah, with all the nukes there, they are REALLY making major changes).
Japan has stayed right around 9.5-10 (no growth, but no cuts either)
And yes, there is still plenty of growth out there.
South Korea is at 10.6 and continuing to grow (why? To make it possible to dump on the market economically).
Australia has gone from 16.9 to 18.9 (i.e. they beat America)
Norway is at their second highest at 10.5, AND GROWING.
South Africa from a low of 6.6 to 8.8 and growing.
China? They have gone from 2.2 to 5.3 and have said that they have ZERO intentions of slowing. Worse, they are mostly on coal and will continue that. Yes, there is more hydro to come on-line, but not that much. But the REAL issue is that once OCO2 goes up there, we will see that emissions are 3x what we thought they were. The groups that have done 'measuring' announced it when they went over and emissions controls were turned on for it. When one group was allowed to QUIETLY monitor but not allowed to publish, they found out RADICALLY different results. And when it comes out, ppl are going to scream that OCO2 must be wrong, or that the AGW scientists were fool (and neither was true).
Note that nearly every single nation is on a growth curve and only a few are bring it down. And at the top of that is America. That differs from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Norway, etc. Hell, nearly all of EU except for France, is going to have loads of issues going down because they are tearing down their nuke plants.
The problem with kyoto and the fools that back it, is that it actually sends more manufacturing on over to 3rd world nations as well as China (china is NOT 3rd world). That means that production per tonne of CO2 CONTINUES TO INCREASE MASSIVELY, rather than drop.
The blame will NOT be USA. The blame are the idiots that scream that we must all adopt a protocol that has done LITTLE TO NOTHING TO DROP EMISSIONS. In fact, all I have seen is an outsourcing of jobs to 3rd world nations whose emissions then jump faster then the meager savings that were in the developed nations.
So, quit being a fool and look at the facts. Even when you use something as irrational as emission per capitia, America comes up selling of roses in terms of turning things around, while others, esp. those under kyoto and fast growth nations, stink to high heaven.
get real. Kyoto was a joke from day one. Look at how much cheating EU has done. Rather than cleaning up, they have done such things as claiming that they were 'offsetting'. Worse, when it came to TRUE cleaning up, they started cheating.
Seriously, It is a joke. It is actually encouraging manufacturing jobs to leave CLEAN AREAS, and move to places where there is LITTLE TO NO POLLUTION CONTROL.Notice the fact that China and India have 58% of emissions. That is not because of their large economies, but lack of controls.
It is time for nations to put taxes on ALL GOODS based on the CO2 emissions (and ideally, later add in other pollution) from the nations where items come from. This means that they put the tax on their OWN goods as well. By doing this, it will force all nations to participate, esp. those with large economies or quickly growing by cheating. Measurements should be by the soon to be, OCO2 sat, rather than ppl playing games with GUESSING how much emissions is happening. In addition, it should NOT be tied to population, as that is not just error prone, but designed to encourage more growth (last thing we need). Instead, it should be tied to land (a fixed value), economic output (responsible for bulk of the emissions; this is esp. true when good times come, nations cheat even more), or some combination of these two.
Actually, no. There are plenty of time where corps are MUCH MORE WASTEFUL than gov. For starters, look at the shear number of bankruptcies by corps. That alone should tell you that our corps are VERY inefficient and ran by short-term idiots.
Major savings in real estate since the space will be freed. And oddly, much of the paper is kept local, rather than warehoused
Printing will plummet.
Labor will become greatly productive. Even the worst search engine is faster than a human search.
This has an added advantage of allow citizens to search through it.
Now, one thing that most are missing is that this will ALSO allow the feds to search it quickly. TOTAL INFORMATION.
In spite of the last, I would still do it quickly. I am amazed that he did not do this sooner.
And yeah, there will be idiots that will blast him just because he is a dem, without a single care about real costs.
But, I was looking at several canyons in Colorado or Utah. Basically, it is already dug out. Simply cover it and then build inside. It still has the same advantages (much lower HVAC costs), but none of the disadvantages (needing to dig; worried about earthquakes; etc). This also has some interesting concepts. It allows you to build a self contained environment. At first that sounds bad, but it forces the locals to work on lowering their pollution and energy usage. In addition, it fights back against the sprawl that America suffers from. Basically, it would be to create a small town via a small canyon, then latter do another larger place to create a large town, and of course, keep moving up.
There is a reason for that. Basically, we saw what happened in Germany and have back lashed against it. I will say trhat I grew up with jews that had numbers on their forearms. Some told me what happened with great sadness or hate in their voice, while others, when I asked, just gave a look that said that they just died remembering what happened (I was guessing that they only recalled it in their dreams, which I am quite sure, haunt those that are still alive to this day).
Somewhere along the line, we have to figure out a way to provide a decent ID, while at the same time, stopping it from being use d negatively. In light of how easily that that W/neo-cons did so much damage in the USA and in the world, I doubt that we can ever get that to happen.
Thanx, I did not know about that one, however I guessed that there some chemical reactions. I pointed out to another person some of the other uses (O3, forest fires, and finally, urey/miller). The urey/miller suggests that lightning will create a number of useful compounds and here you show just that. I am guessing that there are others useful chemicals that are created and taken up via first level life.
Actually, lightning occurs up in the stratosphere and above and does produce O3 up there as well.
As to the disparaging comments, based on the AC's style, I am pretty certain that it is the guy that I thought it was. I once googled him because he was so nasty and figured out that he had multiple logins here and on other sites (flyinwhitey/IFWM/several others). He was a real loser from IIRC NJ, but living in Florida on a base (either navy or af; I have forgotten which one). In one of his blogs, he was proudly boasting of taking his dog out for a walk and having it shit on a neighbor's yard because he hated the guy and knew that he was not home. Then he went on to rip all of these other ppl that he knew. He was a real winner. Finally, he would login under different ones to comment back to himself with attempted slightly different styles of comments to support himself via comments.
But the guy was such a wicked individual, that he ran around disparaging all sorts of ppl for no reason, other than to put others down. Worse, it appeared that he was doing a number of slurs, which just grated on me. And there was no reason to report him, since he would just go around and create new logins which would mean that I would have to later figure out who he was again. As it was, because he always did AC along with several or more of his logins on the pages, I used the logins to know that he was posting and would then see the AC postings with his style.
So, sorry, but I think that the AC that wrote that was the same guy. Basically, the creep is back.
BTW, your objection appears to be to the tax itself, rather than how to deal with the issue of CO2 (and pollution). I am guessing that you are neither scientist nor economist. Applying a tax that can not be changed does little good. That is what cap/trade does. Basically, it is a bunch of crap that is failing all around. That approach only really works on a small number of emitters (say uranium emissions, which will come only from burning coal). When you have a large diverse set of emitters (alll fossil fuel burnings: wood burning: etc) then certificate and cap/trade are worthless. Absolutely worthless.
However a tax that increases slowly, but one in which you CAN GET OUT OF, will actually encourage changes. For example, China, India, South Africa, brazil, Poland, Slovenia, etc are all increasing massively in emissions. Why? Because they have high growth rates and are cheating at every corner (they ALL make massive use of coal and growing faster). But all nations will stop the new production if they know that taxes are coming. And even here in America, it would hasten our conversion from coal to natural gas. Interestingly, rather than being the death of coal, I think that we will see liquid fuel conversion, such as blue gas from great point energy become the norm for another 20 years.
Actually, you DO need to tax EVERYONE. For starters, putting a tax on a single nation that you import from, or all nations that you import from, is called a tariff and is pretty much illegal with WTO. Besides, we are about to enter into a trade war with China. China's real estate bubble is popping and China will do their damnedest to avoid what is going to come their way.
Secondly, while China is by far the worst emitter (they are not the 22-25% that many claim: it is 3x higher; scary), they are not the only ones. We ALL contribute to this. So, by putting out a fair tax that is applied to all products (save perhaps food, but I think that should also be taxed), it would force 99% to change their habits. And yes, we need at least that to really make a difference.
I guess that you miss the concept that CO2 from wood is no different than CO2 from burning fossil fuel which is no different than CO2 from frozen methane.
Slashdot Mirror
As I showed earlier, the per capita stuff is worthless as a metric. Only a fool would think that it is a good one. It actual encourages MORE population on a planet that is already overpopulated. What you see is that the overpopulated nations are unable to educate or take care of their own so they allow them to invade other nations (in fact, they encourage it).
Take his another step. China and India are roughly the same land mass as America. China has more CO2 emissions, but most importantly, it is growing in proportion to their economy, not their population. The same is true of India, Brazil, South Africa, Poland, etc. Basically, where you see economic growth is where you see CO2 emissions jumping leaps and bounds. Yet, in the case of China and India, their populations are NOT growing anywhere near the same rates.
What it comes down to, is that the WORST METRIC GOING IS PER CAPITA. It is all about economy and land mass (more economy). We need to create a tax on all goods but tie it to economic output as well as land mass. With that approach, it will cause all nations that want to grow to focus on CLEAN energy, rather than getting energy fast. This is a much better metric What is really needed is to see it spread out over time, rather than single points such as what you used.
The right way is to create a single company with multiple brands in which the core is shared. The brands are then owned by fairly wealthy ppl. Once you have the core tech off the ground and brands solid, then split the company along with the IP. Basically, to get car companies off the ground here, the founders need to learn to work together like we used to do, not trying to kill each other.
China has signed a NUMBER of treaties. Clinton did a FTA agreement that requires them to free their money (minimum of 40% below where it should be), drop their 90 trade barriers (now over 400), drop their subsidies (extensive) and quit dumping (bueller? bueller? anyone?). Even IMF requires that. Yet, they do not do any of that. China will NOT keep their word. Hell, they have a number of treaties with japan and they are breaking all of them
India is in a tight spot. Zero chance that they will do it, UNLESS everybody else does. And there is ZERO chance of that.
By applying a slowly increasing tax on all goods based on the CO2 from which goods/components come from, it will force all nations to participate ESP. if the USA does this (world's largest and most extensive importer).
BTW, what you hear about volcanos and what are the facts are 2 VERY different things. VERY DIFFERENT. You need to turn off rush and faux.
Why do you have to pay for oil/gas? Because somebody had to pull it out of the ground. Well, nations do not want to put a direct charge on dumping CO2/pollution into the air and water. By putting a tax on all goods, based on the CO2 from where the assembly and say largest 1 or 2 sub-components come from, it levels it. Now, the interesting difference is that companies can get out of paying that tax by simply encouraging the nation where they are producing at, to lower their emissions. If they are below the aloted amount (perhaps we do it based on per sq km), then they get zero taxes. IOW, this is a cost that companies and nations can get out of, by simply doing the right thing and not cheating.
OTH, good luck getting oil or other commodites for free. Just remember, TANSTAAFL.
And yeah, I fully expect a bunch of neo-cons to scream bloody murder that they want their favorite oil companies or aircraft, etc to have all sort of exceptions. As to what the gov. choose to spend it on, well, just look at US spending since the 80's. Hopefully, if we implement this, we will not be so stupid as to waste things. Gads. Most of our debt was from good economic times (1982-1992 and 2003-2007 were more than 1/2 of the debt prior to O).
This... An "environment impact tax" would be something that would encourage more economic fairness while achieving goals in-line with what Kyoto intends. Sure it also works like a tariff on the surface and at the beginning, but if outsourced labor can actually be cleaned up - then this type of tax would be fair in that it would then reduce as well.
Keep in mind that this is no more a tariff than any sales tax on goods. I keep saying over and over that it must be applied to ALL GOODS (local and imported). That is no different than a sales tax. In fact, sales taxes are disaster for the west because we do not apply it to Internet based sales. That needs to change and soon. But yes, the idea of it is that as a nation lowers their emission, then the % drops. Assume that China and America have a 100% today. If they drop their emissions quickly, then they can get it to 0%. Otherwise, there is no incentive to clean up our act and more importantly, no reward.
Also needed is some "humanitarian tax" which taxes goods based on the safety standards of production. Things made with child labor or not complying to some standard comparable to OSHA should also face a stiff tax penalty.
If there is one area that America COULD have made a BIG difference for the world, was that when we did all of these FTA's around the world, we should have required true free trade AND ENFORCED IT (china should be blocked at this time from the bulk of the west since they are pretty much at 0% on keep to it), but also have required a slowly improving environmental and labor laws. While America is OK on labor, I wish that NAFTA had adapted Canada's standard of environmental laws and required both America and Mexico to come up to their standard slowly. Likewise, we should have required the same all over.
At this point, had EU not been in the economic position that they are, would be ideal for doing FTA correctly with those agreements. If EU pulls out of all this OK, then hopefully they will do that. I do not know. Beyond that, it is likely that once this environmental tax happens (and it will in desperation), then the idea will be used for labor and hopefully other traveling pollution (mercury is one that really needs to happen).
WTO is NOT a problem as long as this is applied to ALL GOODS and it allows for nations to change their behavior. In addition, it should be applied relatively slowly to give nations time to adjust. When it is applied ONLY to imported goods, or rigged in various ways, then WTO would get excited about it ( rightly, by the way). However, it seems like WTO only gets excited when it is a western nation that is cheating and does not care about the rest. Yet, this is not cheating.
The really cool part about this, is that if applied, when a nation suddenly under goes economic spurts, they tend to ignore environmental considerations (china is a great example, but sadly, not the only). This is a negative feedback to stop that. It is the only approach that I know of with that built in.
poppy cock.
Ppl here want to push the per capitia garbage. I just used the same metric that I have argued against to show that it is a totally worthless measurement. What I find interesting is that many here will argue that it is the 'FAIREST' of them all. Yet, in terms of ABSOLUTE PER CAPITA, America is absolutely at the top of the western nations to drop. And that does not even include the fact that we do not have a decent handle on our illegals. There is a good chance that our per capita is MUCH lower and falling fast. The reason is that there is a good chance that we have another 5-10% more ppl just in illegals then what we report.
As I pointed out, many of the kyoto nations are not really doing that much. They are at best flatlined, but in many cases still growing. I used Germany because out of ALL of kyoto, they had dropped the most. But they will go upwards, not down. The reason is that they are taking their nukes off-line. That is 12 GW of power that will have to be made up. Well, with more than 2 decades of work, Germany is only up to about 30 GW capacity, but generating only about 6% of their power. AE accounts for about 20% of their energy. With that growth it will take them 10 years or so before they they have intermittent power to replace solid on-demand energy. And that includes zero storage.
What is needed now, is for nations to drop kyoto and to move towards taxation on all goods. Kyoto is an absolute disaster. To add to that, we need to throw out the BS metric of per capita. We really need to move towards per sq km, per $ of GDP, or better yet, a combination of the two (I would do more GDP, but that is me). And no, USA is dropping. Yeah, that is on top of W/neo-cons allowing(encouraging?) growth, however, things continue forward.
china is required per BINDING AGREEMENTS with USA, IMF, WTO, Japan, etc, etc, etc. to free their money, drop their trade barriers, stop subsidies, stop dumping but yet, they do not. Likewise, they have BINDING AGREEMENTS with Japan to put on pollution controls with on all of their new plants, stop dumping, etc. Yet, what China did was put on the pollution control, but then had each and every plant BYPASS IT. In addition, they continue to dump all sorts of toxins. These days, they are going much further out and dumping their pollution (iow, by Japan). They have finally realized that they do not want to pollute their coastal areas as much so are sending it to Japan, etc.
The real cause of this is the outsourcing of jobs from Kyoto nations and those like America that ARE working on it, to None Kyoto nations that believe that they can take shortcuts to build up their economies. That does not show 2008 where America continued downwards, while China, India, etc accelerated upwards even more. You will note that kyoto nations are pretty flat-lined, but the REAL issue is that 3rd world nations and china are building large numbers of new coal plants in an effort to take manufacturing from nations that have MUCH cleaner output. Basically, the outsourcing is partially caused BY KYOTO, and those that push kyoto ignore it, or the possibility of other ideas. Note, that if a tax is put on all goods, then fast growth nations will avoid building coal plants and chose other means of growing their electricity.
Nope. Kyoto is just a poorly thought out idea. If nations REALLY wanted to make a difference, then they would set up taxes on EVERYBODY's goods based on the CO2 that comes from where the good is made. Basically, use the free market pricing to regulate the free market (and yes, the vast majority of our emissions are caused by the free markets).
Yes, America is NOT part of the Kyoto, and THANK GOD FOR THAT. However, America's output keeps dropping while other nation's continue to climb.
We hit 20 tonnes and have dropped to 17.5 by 2008. Considering that Electricity Generation accounts for more than 41% of all of US emissions and our coal % is dropping, then it is a CERTAINTY that we will continue to drop. I know that just in Colorado, we are killing a number of our coal plants and replacing them with Natural Gas, wind and solar PV.
Hell, it terms of amount that has dropped, we are one of the best out there and better than many other western nations.
Germany went from 12 to 9.6 which makes them LESS than us.
Canada has gone from 17.5 to 16.4 (1.1)
UK went from 10.3 to 8.5, which is less than 2 tonnes per person savings.
Ireland went from 11.3 to 9.8 (yeah, like that is major cut).
France went from a high of 7.1 to 6.5(yeah, with all the nukes there, they are REALLY making major changes).
Japan has stayed right around 9.5-10 (no growth, but no cuts either)
And yes, there is still plenty of growth out there.
South Korea is at 10.6 and continuing to grow (why? To make it possible to dump on the market economically).
Australia has gone from 16.9 to 18.9 (i.e. they beat America)
Norway is at their second highest at 10.5, AND GROWING.
South Africa from a low of 6.6 to 8.8 and growing.
China? They have gone from 2.2 to 5.3 and have said that they have ZERO intentions of slowing. Worse, they are mostly on coal and will continue that. Yes, there is more hydro to come on-line, but not that much. But the REAL issue is that once OCO2 goes up there, we will see that emissions are 3x what we thought they were. The groups that have done 'measuring' announced it when they went over and emissions controls were turned on for it. When one group was allowed to QUIETLY monitor but not allowed to publish, they found out RADICALLY different results. And when it comes out, ppl are going to scream that OCO2 must be wrong, or that the AGW scientists were fool (and neither was true).
Note that nearly every single nation is on a growth curve and only a few are bring it down. And at the top of that is America. That differs from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Norway, etc. Hell, nearly all of EU except for France, is going to have loads of issues going down because they are tearing down their nuke plants.
The problem with kyoto and the fools that back it, is that it actually sends more manufacturing on over to 3rd world nations as well as China (china is NOT 3rd world). That means that production per tonne of CO2 CONTINUES TO INCREASE MASSIVELY, rather than drop.
The blame will NOT be USA. The blame are the idiots that scream that we must all adopt a protocol that has done LITTLE TO NOTHING TO DROP EMISSIONS. In fact, all I have seen is an outsourcing of jobs to 3rd world nations whose emissions then jump faster then the meager savings that were in the developed nations.
So, quit being a fool and look at the facts. Even when you use something as irrational as emission per capitia, America comes up selling of roses in terms of turning things around, while others, esp. those under kyoto and fast growth nations, stink to high heaven.
get real. Kyoto was a joke from day one. Look at how much cheating EU has done. Rather than cleaning up, they have done such things as claiming that they were 'offsetting'. Worse, when it came to TRUE cleaning up, they started cheating.
Seriously, It is a joke. It is actually encouraging manufacturing jobs to leave CLEAN AREAS, and move to places where there is LITTLE TO NO POLLUTION CONTROL.Notice the fact that China and India have 58% of emissions. That is not because of their large economies, but lack of controls.
It is time for nations to put taxes on ALL GOODS based on the CO2 emissions (and ideally, later add in other pollution) from the nations where items come from. This means that they put the tax on their OWN goods as well. By doing this, it will force all nations to participate, esp. those with large economies or quickly growing by cheating. Measurements should be by the soon to be, OCO2 sat, rather than ppl playing games with GUESSING how much emissions is happening. In addition, it should NOT be tied to population, as that is not just error prone, but designed to encourage more growth (last thing we need). Instead, it should be tied to land (a fixed value), economic output (responsible for bulk of the emissions; this is esp. true when good times come, nations cheat even more), or some combination of these two.
Just CDC, NASA, and several TLAs, but otherwise, no.
BTW, I was meaning, that I was surprised that Obama did not do this earlier.
Please quit feeding the troll.
Actually, no. There are plenty of time where corps are MUCH MORE WASTEFUL than gov. For starters, look at the shear number of bankruptcies by corps. That alone should tell you that our corps are VERY inefficient and ran by short-term idiots.
Major savings in real estate since the space will be freed. And oddly, much of the paper is kept local, rather than warehoused
Printing will plummet.
Labor will become greatly productive. Even the worst search engine is faster than a human search.
This has an added advantage of allow citizens to search through it.
Now, one thing that most are missing is that this will ALSO allow the feds to search it quickly. TOTAL INFORMATION.
In spite of the last, I would still do it quickly. I am amazed that he did not do this sooner.
And yeah, there will be idiots that will blast him just because he is a dem, without a single care about real costs.
Oddly, the exact same issues apply to skyscrapers.
But, I was looking at several canyons in Colorado or Utah. Basically, it is already dug out. Simply cover it and then build inside. It still has the same advantages (much lower HVAC costs), but none of the disadvantages (needing to dig; worried about earthquakes; etc). This also has some interesting concepts. It allows you to build a self contained environment. At first that sounds bad, but it forces the locals to work on lowering their pollution and energy usage. In addition, it fights back against the sprawl that America suffers from. Basically, it would be to create a small town via a small canyon, then latter do another larger place to create a large town, and of course, keep moving up.
There is a reason for that. Basically, we saw what happened in Germany and have back lashed against it. I will say trhat I grew up with jews that had numbers on their forearms. Some told me what happened with great sadness or hate in their voice, while others, when I asked, just gave a look that said that they just died remembering what happened (I was guessing that they only recalled it in their dreams, which I am quite sure, haunt those that are still alive to this day).
Somewhere along the line, we have to figure out a way to provide a decent ID, while at the same time, stopping it from being use d negatively. In light of how easily that that W/neo-cons did so much damage in the USA and in the world, I doubt that we can ever get that to happen.
Thanx, I did not know about that one, however I guessed that there some chemical reactions. I pointed out to another person some of the other uses (O3, forest fires, and finally, urey/miller). The urey/miller suggests that lightning will create a number of useful compounds and here you show just that. I am guessing that there are others useful chemicals that are created and taken up via first level life.
Actually, lightning occurs up in the stratosphere and above and does produce O3 up there as well.
As to the disparaging comments, based on the AC's style, I am pretty certain that it is the guy that I thought it was. I once googled him because he was so nasty and figured out that he had multiple logins here and on other sites (flyinwhitey/IFWM/several others). He was a real loser from IIRC NJ, but living in Florida on a base (either navy or af; I have forgotten which one). In one of his blogs, he was proudly boasting of taking his dog out for a walk and having it shit on a neighbor's yard because he hated the guy and knew that he was not home. Then he went on to rip all of these other ppl that he knew. He was a real winner. Finally, he would login under different ones to comment back to himself with attempted slightly different styles of comments to support himself via comments. But the guy was such a wicked individual, that he ran around disparaging all sorts of ppl for no reason, other than to put others down. Worse, it appeared that he was doing a number of slurs, which just grated on me. And there was no reason to report him, since he would just go around and create new logins which would mean that I would have to later figure out who he was again. As it was, because he always did AC along with several or more of his logins on the pages, I used the logins to know that he was posting and would then see the AC postings with his style.
So, sorry, but I think that the AC that wrote that was the same guy. Basically, the creep is back.
BTW, your objection appears to be to the tax itself, rather than how to deal with the issue of CO2 (and pollution). I am guessing that you are neither scientist nor economist. Applying a tax that can not be changed does little good. That is what cap/trade does. Basically, it is a bunch of crap that is failing all around. That approach only really works on a small number of emitters (say uranium emissions, which will come only from burning coal). When you have a large diverse set of emitters (alll fossil fuel burnings: wood burning: etc) then certificate and cap/trade are worthless. Absolutely worthless.
However a tax that increases slowly, but one in which you CAN GET OUT OF, will actually encourage changes. For example, China, India, South Africa, brazil, Poland, Slovenia, etc are all increasing massively in emissions. Why? Because they have high growth rates and are cheating at every corner (they ALL make massive use of coal and growing faster). But all nations will stop the new production if they know that taxes are coming. And even here in America, it would hasten our conversion from coal to natural gas. Interestingly, rather than being the death of coal, I think that we will see liquid fuel conversion, such as blue gas from great point energy become the norm for another 20 years.
Actually, you DO need to tax EVERYONE. For starters, putting a tax on a single nation that you import from, or all nations that you import from, is called a tariff and is pretty much illegal with WTO. Besides, we are about to enter into a trade war with China. China's real estate bubble is popping and China will do their damnedest to avoid what is going to come their way.
Secondly, while China is by far the worst emitter (they are not the 22-25% that many claim: it is 3x higher; scary), they are not the only ones. We ALL contribute to this. So, by putting out a fair tax that is applied to all products (save perhaps food, but I think that should also be taxed), it would force 99% to change their habits. And yes, we need at least that to really make a difference.
I guess that you miss the concept that CO2 from wood is no different than CO2 from burning fossil fuel which is no different than CO2 from frozen methane.