Not really. It is politically feasible. The reality is that undeveloped nations have LOW emissions. By applying taxes on per sq km, it would hit developed nations and sloppy undeveloped nations much harder. 3rd world nations will likely love it because it allows them to compete better. Think about how much pollution China is dumping. They account for more than 50% of all mercury emissions in the world. IIRC, they should have already accounted for more than 50% of all mercury that has EVER been emitted. Around 2015, China is supposed to hit 50% of all CO2 emissions. Then somewhere around 2020, they will account for 50% of what man has ever emitted. The amonut of CO2 that china emits is large. The continued 10% compounded growth is what will cause this. Yes, in less than 10 years, China will have doubled their emissions, even though they are now over 1/3 of all CO2 emissions.
As to your ideas, well go for it. Go ahead and sell EU on it. I am sure that they will be happy to spend the money to do that. NO PROBLEMO. OTH, if a nation like USA were to start this tax, it WOULD get ALL NATIONS TO CHANGE. Heck, if a nation like UK were to start this, it would force all nations to change.
Actually, electric cars cost a bit more than a gas car for a short time longer. Within 2 years, that will be a none issue. Tesla's batteries are dirt cheap and last longer compared to other cars. That is why a car that takes on $200-250K ferrari and lotus is just around 100K. Likewise, the model S at 50K has performance and styling of cars that cost around 60-70K. ANd it will continue to drop in price, not increase.
Does florida require ALL HOMES to upgrade that way? Nope. Just new ones. That is a different issue. And that is happening. Oddly, if a tax is placed on all goods, then businesses will push local gov. to push conservation quickly so that they are not hit by taxes from other locations. And NO, we should NOT mandate the optimal forms, etc. Instead, we should require all new homes and regular commercial buildings to have 50-100% of their HVAC (and it must include AC as well as heat) from local site AE. In doing that, it will encourage different solutions. For example, some builders will throw on solar panels to do the job. THat will will work in some places like Tennesse. Most will choose to add more insulation, seal things tighter, etc, and then add a smaller amount of solar panels. Finally, others will choose to add the insulation, but also switch to geothermal HVAC so that they they have next to nothing to put on top (and it will probably be the cheapest). With this approach, it allows the market to decide how to deal with things. If we take the approach that you suggest, it will lead to similar situations like we got with drywall and katrina: cheap horrible drywall from china, loaded with lead, mercury and other contaminants.
if a business switches to China and then exports the goods to America, but finds the taxes high because china is the largest polluter all around, then they will not want to be there. Even now, outsourcing is slowing down. Finally.
China gets about 85% of their electricity from Coal and natural gas, of which 75% is from coal. Now, China is building 1-2 NEW COAL PLANTS of.5-1GW EACH WEEK and they have said that they have ZERO intentions of stopping this for the foreseeable future. IOW, their emissions from coal will continue to get worse. In addition, they are buying new gas/diesel cars at breakneck speeds. They will not move to electric cars anytime soon because they do not have enough excess production to support it. Basically, China has not choice but to continue what they are doing, OR, they must pay BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS, out to western nations for technology. That is why they spy on us so heavily. We have the technology that they need to avoid paying us. And since the Chinese gov. sees themselves in a cold war with the west, that is the last thing that they want to do.
Now, America's CO2 profile is interesting. The largest emissions that we have is our electrical production. It accounts for more than 41% of our CO2. Of that, the majority comes from Coal, not natural gas. Unless you inject the CO2 from coal into the ground, then the best burning coal is still worse than natural gas. Yet, our coal usage continue to drop. It used to be over 70% and is now below 45%. It is expected to be below 33% by 2015 (or was it 2020?).
The second largest emitter in America is Transportation (of all sorts) is about 33-36% of total emissions. How easy is it to move off gas/diesel? Well, are slowly moving towards natural gas vehicles as well as electric. We have BOTH in cheap supply (relative to most other nations). A number of natural gas supply states are pushing to buy state fleets and add natural gas fuel stations.
Electric cars are coming in a big way here over the next 3 years. The reason is because of the cheap electricity and the already built up grid that can handle 100% of our vehicles being converted to electricity (except in the northwest; it would need some work; not a big deal). That will drop the second largest amount by a great deal over the next 5-10 years.
Just on a per capitia basis, America will see our CO2 emissions drop by 25-50% over the next 10 years. China's will not only continue to climb, but once OCO2 is on-line, then China will not be able to stop reports from getting out. It will be shown that China's emissions are more than 3x what we think it is. Add the fact that China has ZERO intentions of slowing emissions and you suddenly realize that a business does not want to go elsewhere and suffer the taxes that they would be hit with. Far better to upgrade local.
As to tax vs. conservation, great. I agree. Far better to use conservation. HOWEVER, a tax on the CO2 waste, allows govs. businesses, and consumers to decide how best to lower their emissions. Telling others that they MUST DO SOMETHING, well, that is not working so well. Do note that with taxes increasing, then there is an incentive to lower your CO2 emissions and have the least amount of taxes hitting you all around the world, as well as the local businesses in your neck of the woods. However, the tax approach makes us ALL work towards it. Forced conservation will be ignored by govs. all over.
You have a good point. But the good news about this tax is that it will disappear over time. The reason is that most nations will change rather than have their businesses lose ground due to other nations pouring money into changing, while they do not.
The only ones paying, are those that are buying products from an area. IOW, I live in Colorado. If I buy something from China, then the tax on them is presumably high (they have a large and growing CO2 emissions per sq km). Probably not the highest, but up there. So, I would have to pay 100% of the tax that increases yearly. OTH, if I buy a product from a nation like say France, and assume that EU has decided to allow nations to go individually, I would guessing that they have some lower emissions. Probably in the bottom 1/3. Of course, we could pick Russia, which would obviously be in the bottom due to their monster area (that may change when permafrost really starts melting and methane comes). Either way, it would be say.33 of the tax, or 0 for Russia. Now, if the tax is increased over the next 5-10 years, it gives nations time to adjust, but will tell all nations that they have to chose to either control and lower their emissions (by what ever means they want), OR, the nations that they export to, will simply keep the tax going up.
As long as the tax is applied relatively slowly, but steadily, and is applied to ALL, it will be fair. It gives every nation time to adjust. It also take out the incentives for businesses to move jobs around.
This really is the fairest of them all. We are not concerned with what happened in the past. We need to be concerned with what is happening today and in the future. We need a way to lower it in a steady fashion. Playing the political game will solve NOTHING, except pass the buck. We have seen EU cheating like mad. We see Canada doing the same. Point is, that every poltician will want to make it LOOK like they are doing something, but without huring their local area. The only way, is to apply this to EVERY NATION. And the only way to accomplish that, is by nations taxing ALL GOODS.
So what if it is pulsed? It is ALWAYS happening around the world. ALWAYS. And in large large large quantities per strike. 5 billion joules for a small strike. If it is possible to encourage a strike and to get it to hit a particular area, then this can be used in storage (thermal? Electrical?) or simply converts H2O to 2 H2 and O2. One normal storm can actually power all of USA for 20 minutes. And a storm in the midwest (very wicked strong storms) can power all of the USA for several hours. Keep in mind that just 60 years ago, if you told ppl that they could get direct electricity from the sun, few would believe you. More importantly, most would say that it was not useful. Finally, what is wind and solar, but pulsed energy as well. Just for longer durations. But you have ZERO control over these, where as, it is POSSIBLE to control lightening.
Production of O3 that protects us from UV. I think that is a big one.
Starts forest fires every so often that restarts the growth cycles (which shows that nature has adopted to NEEDING lightening).
Miller/Urey's experiments showing that lightening's impact on various chemicals made a number of base molecules that life needed. I would say that suggests that many more molecules are produced by lightening than we realize, that are likely absorb by bacteria, plant, or some other bottom feeders.
And that was just a few positives from Lightening.
Now, as to hemlock, it has a number of interesting issues. A number of animals are somewhat immune to it, so with multiple feedings on it, they build up a quasi immunity to it. That means that other animals that enter the area and attempt to eat the plant will succumb to it. Interestingly, there is evidence that hemlock alkaloids build up in small quantities in herbivores such that if a predator kills and eats them, they die (think mercury in our ecosystem). Point is, that nature has adopted and used hemlock.
What an idiot and asshole you are. Pretending to be somebody that knows something of science. You remind me of another troll (flyinwhitey, ifwm and a few other logins that that idiot had).
Actually, they do not. They only track it from nations that report it, which is likely just the western nations. In addition, the IEA is getting gross numbers, that is fossil fuel production as well as imported. They do not know exactly where it went, and for fuels, how efficiently it was used. China has some of the dirtiest coal going and does little to no cleaning. As such, it is pretty high emitters (one of the worst in fact). In addition, I believe that it keeps it quiet as to how much they actually dig. Then you have issues like Ag that makes major changes to national output. For example, we have brazil burning their rain forests to open land for Ag. So, they are trading efficient sinks for inefficient emitters. Worse, brazil is likely following the Chinese model (though that one is a SWAG on my part ).
First, I seriously doubt that is true. However, we will find out when we have OCO2 doing measurements around the globe. It will be able to see how much CO2 flows in and then out of a nation. That is actually important. Whether it is per sq km, per $ of production, or per capita, it is all tied to national boundaries. Once we have real numbers and not simple guess work, things should be quite a bit different.
Actually, tariffs and embargoes are the WORST way to go. It will lead to nations producing inefficiently. So, by nations putting taxes on ALL GOODS, they get themselves and the foreign nations to change their habits.
As to China, it is already a requirement of doing business that they allow their money to float, stop subsidizing, stop dumping and even per the Japanese treaty, stop the heavy polluting. Yet, they simply ignore it and other nations allow it because businesses push this so that they can get into the Chinese market.
IOW, the current situation proves your last paragraph totally wrong.
Finally, the goal of 1.5t per person is a joke. The reason is that our population is still increasing and per capita has little correlation to CO2 emissions. Instead, economic output or better yet, a fixed item such as land mass, are much much better and fairer than per capita certificates.
Here in the states, we have a number of old coal plants that are being shut down and converted to natural gas or 'cleaner coal'. For example, in Colorado, we are shutting down over 1.5 GW of coal plants from the 40's-60's, and they will be replaced by a smaller number of new high temp. natural gas plants and one shared high temp coal plant (which has the ability to convert to natural gas). In addition, since 2009, America has had growth, but most results show that emissions are still dropping. Finally, unlike EU, we are still looking to move towards nukes and still grow our AE faster than does EU overall, and japan.
Simply put, America is likely lowering our emissions, while EU is idling.
That is as stupid of an idea as Gates' idea of stopping hurricanes or wiping out mosquitoes. Lightening likely does a LOT of good since nature has grown up with it. Instead, we should be trying to figure out how to harness it. That is a good source of renewable energy.
Until you require ALL nations to do this, then it will simply lead to businesses leaving a place that is fairly clean (read expensive) to places with high emissions and climbing. China is by far the worst example, but India, Brazil, etc will happily follow the path if it brings businesses their way and they have exceptions.
Actually, the real problem with emissions is that we really do not have any way to figure out how much CO2 emissions are being done. It is all guesswork. Yes, we put up some monitors around the world, but most of them are 'downwind' of the prevailing path from LARGE emitters. So, in EU and America (the most studied), we still have mostly guesswork on cars, Ag, etc. Then to make matters really bad, you have nations like China, that cheat like mad, and prevent real measures except under very controlled circumstances. OCO2 is coming and will show that many nations emit far far more than what is thought. A number of the undeveloped nations will double. China alone will jump 300-600% what current numbers show. It will also show that many of these 'offsets' are worthless.
The only real way to make this work, is to say that offsets can be bought within the local area (probably national boundaries), and then OCO2 simply measures the national boundaries.
Loads of problems with that. First, CO2 is far more tied to economics and ag than to ppl, so per capitia is not only unfair, it is just plain brain-dead. Secondly, nations will lie about population.
Thirdly, this encourages ppl growth, not cutting them back. You actually REWARD a nation to have more ppl. Kind of a foolish concept. Fourth,
US is already below 18 and probably closer to 15, while EU is climbing towards 15, unless you choose to ignore those nations with all of your growth.
Fifth, the idea of handing out certificates, is BS esp. when you point out that Germany is cheating at it. Germany and Japan speak of wanting to do the right thing, but they are now cutting their nuke plants, rather than pushing for SAFE nuke plants. So what will work? Well over the next 20 years, it will not be AE. So, they will have to move nukes to coal and gas. If they do that, their costs go up and businesses will move production to China, India, Brazil, Poland, Slovania, etc, all places with massively growing CO2 emissions. IOW, your idea will make things WORSE, by pushing manufacturing to those nations that choose to cheat, or have been granted a cheat.
Finally, if you listened to some of the stories in/., then you should know that 20 years is really not going to work. ZERO chance of it.
Seriously. They have tied the emissions to a unit of production. That is just plain stupid. It is as worthless as tying emissions to another variable of PER CAPITA. Ppl move around all the time. In addition, gov. lie (China comes quickly to the forefront, but no nation is a saint). Basically, we need emission limits tied to PER SQ KM. Period. We need a fixed value to work from. Will a few nations like Canada, Australia and Russia look better Sure. So what. That is minor in the scope of things. By putting taxes on ALL GOODS from an area (both local and imported) based on the CO2 PER SQ Km from which the final product and perhaps the largest sub-component come from, it pushes ALL NATIONS to lower their CO2.
Cap and Trade is beyond a shadow of a doubt only useful for helping the local area and more importantly, will lead to cheating since all govs., either implicitly or explicitly, KNOW that businesses will flee to places that have cheat. But with the tax approach it prevents that. If businesses flee to nations that cheat, then the business will later on be hit with large taxes as they export.
And the per sq km is the ONLY VIABLE MEANS TO PREVENT NATIONS FROM CHEATING. It is also allows the amount to be fixed to something that is relatively fair.
We put more effort into stoppping piracy of MS software then we do into real terrorism. What makes this even odder, is that it was Gates who pushed piracy of MS crap to kill off competitors. Now, he wants the USA to pay to stop it, even though the MS shits still push piracy in China, as well as sell it for $2-4 for what sells here at $200-400.
Since reagan/neo-cons all but killed the anti-monopoly bill, America has gone downhill. Capitalism is the way to go, but only when it is fair and now one cheats. Sadly, the larger the business, or the more tied to a gov the business, the higher the likelihood that cheating will occur. Monopolies are infamous for cheating. So, are china-owned business.
The author meant to say packed WITH BLUE GILLS. We are sending a bunch of fish there since we think that there is more water than all the fresh h20 on earth. So, the idea is to let blue gills grow there. If they survive, we will send some bass, crappies, a few pike, etc.
If you are in Ill, and more appropriately Chi-town, you must go see Chicago museum of Science and industry. If you are coming out west, we have far too many active projects going on, so items will not be as available. However, I know that this is not science, but since you are driving and on your way west, you really should see the Grand Canyon. Now, there is a glass ledge in which you get to walk out on and OVER the canyon. You can do the same at the sears tower in chi-town(yeah, yeah, I know it was renamed, but any local will know it as the sears; besides you can not miss it if you are in the city). If you make it up to Seattle, stop in at Boeing's museum. You can sit in a SR-71 and see how it felt (cramped and primitive). Beautiful lines on her though.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. It is politically feasible. The reality is that undeveloped nations have LOW emissions. By applying taxes on per sq km, it would hit developed nations and sloppy undeveloped nations much harder. 3rd world nations will likely love it because it allows them to compete better. Think about how much pollution China is dumping. They account for more than 50% of all mercury emissions in the world. IIRC, they should have already accounted for more than 50% of all mercury that has EVER been emitted. Around 2015, China is supposed to hit 50% of all CO2 emissions. Then somewhere around 2020, they will account for 50% of what man has ever emitted. The amonut of CO2 that china emits is large. The continued 10% compounded growth is what will cause this. Yes, in less than 10 years, China will have doubled their emissions, even though they are now over 1/3 of all CO2 emissions.
As to your ideas, well go for it. Go ahead and sell EU on it. I am sure that they will be happy to spend the money to do that. NO PROBLEMO. OTH, if a nation like USA were to start this tax, it WOULD get ALL NATIONS TO CHANGE. Heck, if a nation like UK were to start this, it would force all nations to change.
Actually, electric cars cost a bit more than a gas car for a short time longer. Within 2 years, that will be a none issue. Tesla's batteries are dirt cheap and last longer compared to other cars. That is why a car that takes on $200-250K ferrari and lotus is just around 100K. Likewise, the model S at 50K has performance and styling of cars that cost around 60-70K. ANd it will continue to drop in price, not increase.
Does florida require ALL HOMES to upgrade that way? Nope. Just new ones. That is a different issue. And that is happening. Oddly, if a tax is placed on all goods, then businesses will push local gov. to push conservation quickly so that they are not hit by taxes from other locations.
And NO, we should NOT mandate the optimal forms, etc. Instead, we should require all new homes and regular commercial buildings to have 50-100% of their HVAC (and it must include AC as well as heat) from local site AE. In doing that, it will encourage different solutions. For example, some builders will throw on solar panels to do the job. THat will will work in some places like Tennesse. Most will choose to add more insulation, seal things tighter, etc, and then add a smaller amount of solar panels. Finally, others will choose to add the insulation, but also switch to geothermal HVAC so that they they have next to nothing to put on top (and it will probably be the cheapest). With this approach, it allows the market to decide how to deal with things. If we take the approach that you suggest, it will lead to similar situations like we got with drywall and katrina: cheap horrible drywall from china, loaded with lead, mercury and other contaminants.
if a business switches to China and then exports the goods to America, but finds the taxes high because china is the largest polluter all around, then they will not want to be there. Even now, outsourcing is slowing down. Finally.
You have it totally backwards.
.5-1GW EACH WEEK and they have said that they have ZERO intentions of stopping this for the foreseeable future. IOW, their emissions from coal will continue to get worse. In addition, they are buying new gas/diesel cars at breakneck speeds. They will not move to electric cars anytime soon because they do not have enough excess production to support it. Basically, China has not choice but to continue what they are doing, OR, they must pay BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS, out to western nations for technology. That is why they spy on us so heavily. We have the technology that they need to avoid paying us. And since the Chinese gov. sees themselves in a cold war with the west, that is the last thing that they want to do.
China gets about 85% of their electricity from Coal and natural gas, of which 75% is from coal. Now, China is building 1-2 NEW COAL PLANTS of
Now, America's CO2 profile is interesting. The largest emissions that we have is our electrical production. It accounts for more than 41% of our CO2. Of that, the majority comes from Coal, not natural gas. Unless you inject the CO2 from coal into the ground, then the best burning coal is still worse than natural gas. Yet, our coal usage continue to drop. It used to be over 70% and is now below 45%. It is expected to be below 33% by 2015 (or was it 2020?).
The second largest emitter in America is Transportation (of all sorts) is about 33-36% of total emissions. How easy is it to move off gas/diesel? Well, are slowly moving towards natural gas vehicles as well as electric. We have BOTH in cheap supply (relative to most other nations). A number of natural gas supply states are pushing to buy state fleets and add natural gas fuel stations. Electric cars are coming in a big way here over the next 3 years. The reason is because of the cheap electricity and the already built up grid that can handle 100% of our vehicles being converted to electricity (except in the northwest; it would need some work; not a big deal). That will drop the second largest amount by a great deal over the next 5-10 years.
Just on a per capitia basis, America will see our CO2 emissions drop by 25-50% over the next 10 years. China's will not only continue to climb, but once OCO2 is on-line, then China will not be able to stop reports from getting out. It will be shown that China's emissions are more than 3x what we think it is. Add the fact that China has ZERO intentions of slowing emissions and you suddenly realize that a business does not want to go elsewhere and suffer the taxes that they would be hit with. Far better to upgrade local.
As to tax vs. conservation, great. I agree. Far better to use conservation. HOWEVER, a tax on the CO2 waste, allows govs. businesses, and consumers to decide how best to lower their emissions. Telling others that they MUST DO SOMETHING, well, that is not working so well. Do note that with taxes increasing, then there is an incentive to lower your CO2 emissions and have the least amount of taxes hitting you all around the world, as well as the local businesses in your neck of the woods. However, the tax approach makes us ALL work towards it. Forced conservation will be ignored by govs. all over.
You have a good point. But the good news about this tax is that it will disappear over time. The reason is that most nations will change rather than have their businesses lose ground due to other nations pouring money into changing, while they do not.
The only ones paying, are those that are buying products from an area. IOW, I live in Colorado. If I buy something from China, then the tax on them is presumably high (they have a large and growing CO2 emissions per sq km). Probably not the highest, but up there. So, I would have to pay 100% of the tax that increases yearly. OTH, if I buy a product from a nation like say France, and assume that EU has decided to allow nations to go individually, I would guessing that they have some lower emissions. Probably in the bottom 1/3. Of course, we could pick Russia, which would obviously be in the bottom due to their monster area (that may change when permafrost really starts melting and methane comes). Either way, it would be say .33 of the tax, or 0 for Russia. Now, if the tax is increased over the next 5-10 years, it gives nations time to adjust, but will tell all nations that they have to chose to either control and lower their emissions (by what ever means they want), OR, the nations that they export to, will simply keep the tax going up.
As long as the tax is applied relatively slowly, but steadily, and is applied to ALL, it will be fair. It gives every nation time to adjust. It also take out the incentives for businesses to move jobs around.
This really is the fairest of them all. We are not concerned with what happened in the past. We need to be concerned with what is happening today and in the future. We need a way to lower it in a steady fashion. Playing the political game will solve NOTHING, except pass the buck. We have seen EU cheating like mad. We see Canada doing the same. Point is, that every poltician will want to make it LOOK like they are doing something, but without huring their local area. The only way, is to apply this to EVERY NATION. And the only way to accomplish that, is by nations taxing ALL GOODS.
So what if it is pulsed? It is ALWAYS happening around the world. ALWAYS. And in large large large quantities per strike. 5 billion joules for a small strike. If it is possible to encourage a strike and to get it to hit a particular area, then this can be used in storage (thermal? Electrical?) or simply converts H2O to 2 H2 and O2. One normal storm can actually power all of USA for 20 minutes. And a storm in the midwest (very wicked strong storms) can power all of the USA for several hours. Keep in mind that just 60 years ago, if you told ppl that they could get direct electricity from the sun, few would believe you. More importantly, most would say that it was not useful. Finally, what is wind and solar, but pulsed energy as well. Just for longer durations. But you have ZERO control over these, where as, it is POSSIBLE to control lightening.
Well, lets see:
Production of O3 that protects us from UV. I think that is a big one.
Starts forest fires every so often that restarts the growth cycles (which shows that nature has adopted to NEEDING lightening).
Miller/Urey's experiments showing that lightening's impact on various chemicals made a number of base molecules that life needed. I would say that suggests that many more molecules are produced by lightening than we realize, that are likely absorb by bacteria, plant, or some other bottom feeders.
And that was just a few positives from Lightening.
Now, as to hemlock, it has a number of interesting issues. A number of animals are somewhat immune to it, so with multiple feedings on it, they build up a quasi immunity to it. That means that other animals that enter the area and attempt to eat the plant will succumb to it. Interestingly, there is evidence that hemlock alkaloids build up in small quantities in herbivores such that if a predator kills and eats them, they die (think mercury in our ecosystem).
Point is, that nature has adopted and used hemlock.
What an idiot and asshole you are. Pretending to be somebody that knows something of science. You remind me of another troll (flyinwhitey, ifwm and a few other logins that that idiot had).
Actually, they do not. They only track it from nations that report it, which is likely just the western nations. In addition, the IEA is getting gross numbers, that is fossil fuel production as well as imported. They do not know exactly where it went, and for fuels, how efficiently it was used. China has some of the dirtiest coal going and does little to no cleaning. As such, it is pretty high emitters (one of the worst in fact). In addition, I believe that it keeps it quiet as to how much they actually dig. Then you have issues like Ag that makes major changes to national output. For example, we have brazil burning their rain forests to open land for Ag. So, they are trading efficient sinks for inefficient emitters. Worse, brazil is likely following the Chinese model (though that one is a SWAG on my part ).
First, I seriously doubt that is true. However, we will find out when we have OCO2 doing measurements around the globe. It will be able to see how much CO2 flows in and then out of a nation. That is actually important. Whether it is per sq km, per $ of production, or per capita, it is all tied to national boundaries. Once we have real numbers and not simple guess work, things should be quite a bit different.
Actually, tariffs and embargoes are the WORST way to go. It will lead to nations producing inefficiently. So, by nations putting taxes on ALL GOODS, they get themselves and the foreign nations to change their habits.
As to China, it is already a requirement of doing business that they allow their money to float, stop subsidizing, stop dumping and even per the Japanese treaty, stop the heavy polluting. Yet, they simply ignore it and other nations allow it because businesses push this so that they can get into the Chinese market.
IOW, the current situation proves your last paragraph totally wrong.
Finally, the goal of 1.5t per person is a joke. The reason is that our population is still increasing and per capita has little correlation to CO2 emissions. Instead, economic output or better yet, a fixed item such as land mass, are much much better and fairer than per capita certificates.
Here in the states, we have a number of old coal plants that are being shut down and converted to natural gas or 'cleaner coal'. For example, in Colorado, we are shutting down over 1.5 GW of coal plants from the 40's-60's, and they will be replaced by a smaller number of new high temp. natural gas plants and one shared high temp coal plant (which has the ability to convert to natural gas). In addition, since 2009, America has had growth, but most results show that emissions are still dropping. Finally, unlike EU, we are still looking to move towards nukes and still grow our AE faster than does EU overall, and japan.
Simply put, America is likely lowering our emissions, while EU is idling.
That is as stupid of an idea as Gates' idea of stopping hurricanes or wiping out mosquitoes. Lightening likely does a LOT of good since nature has grown up with it. Instead, we should be trying to figure out how to harness it. That is a good source of renewable energy.
Until you require ALL nations to do this, then it will simply lead to businesses leaving a place that is fairly clean (read expensive) to places with high emissions and climbing. China is by far the worst example, but India, Brazil, etc will happily follow the path if it brings businesses their way and they have exceptions.
Actually, the real problem with emissions is that we really do not have any way to figure out how much CO2 emissions are being done. It is all guesswork. Yes, we put up some monitors around the world, but most of them are 'downwind' of the prevailing path from LARGE emitters. So, in EU and America (the most studied), we still have mostly guesswork on cars, Ag, etc. Then to make matters really bad, you have nations like China, that cheat like mad, and prevent real measures except under very controlled circumstances. OCO2 is coming and will show that many nations emit far far more than what is thought. A number of the undeveloped nations will double. China alone will jump 300-600% what current numbers show. It will also show that many of these 'offsets' are worthless.
The only real way to make this work, is to say that offsets can be bought within the local area (probably national boundaries), and then OCO2 simply measures the national boundaries.
Loads of problems with that. /., then you should know that 20 years is really not going to work. ZERO chance of it.
First, CO2 is far more tied to economics and ag than to ppl, so per capitia is not only unfair, it is just plain brain-dead.
Secondly, nations will lie about population.
Thirdly, this encourages ppl growth, not cutting them back. You actually REWARD a nation to have more ppl. Kind of a foolish concept.
Fourth, US is already below 18 and probably closer to 15, while EU is climbing towards 15, unless you choose to ignore those nations with all of your growth.
Fifth, the idea of handing out certificates, is BS esp. when you point out that Germany is cheating at it. Germany and Japan speak of wanting to do the right thing, but they are now cutting their nuke plants, rather than pushing for SAFE nuke plants. So what will work? Well over the next 20 years, it will not be AE. So, they will have to move nukes to coal and gas. If they do that, their costs go up and businesses will move production to China, India, Brazil, Poland, Slovania, etc, all places with massively growing CO2 emissions. IOW, your idea will make things WORSE, by pushing manufacturing to those nations that choose to cheat, or have been granted a cheat.
Finally, if you listened to some of the stories in
Seriously. They have tied the emissions to a unit of production. That is just plain stupid. It is as worthless as tying emissions to another variable of PER CAPITA. Ppl move around all the time. In addition, gov. lie (China comes quickly to the forefront, but no nation is a saint). Basically, we need emission limits tied to PER SQ KM. Period. We need a fixed value to work from. Will a few nations like Canada, Australia and Russia look better Sure. So what. That is minor in the scope of things. By putting taxes on ALL GOODS from an area (both local and imported) based on the CO2 PER SQ Km from which the final product and perhaps the largest sub-component come from, it pushes ALL NATIONS to lower their CO2.
Cap and Trade is beyond a shadow of a doubt only useful for helping the local area and more importantly, will lead to cheating since all govs., either implicitly or explicitly, KNOW that businesses will flee to places that have cheat. But with the tax approach it prevents that. If businesses flee to nations that cheat, then the business will later on be hit with large taxes as they export.
And the per sq km is the ONLY VIABLE MEANS TO PREVENT NATIONS FROM CHEATING. It is also allows the amount to be fixed to something that is relatively fair.
We put more effort into stoppping piracy of MS software then we do into real terrorism. What makes this even odder, is that it was Gates who pushed piracy of MS crap to kill off competitors. Now, he wants the USA to pay to stop it, even though the MS shits still push piracy in China, as well as sell it for $2-4 for what sells here at $200-400.
America really has become a fascists nation.
Since reagan/neo-cons all but killed the anti-monopoly bill, America has gone downhill. Capitalism is the way to go, but only when it is fair and now one cheats. Sadly, the larger the business, or the more tied to a gov the business, the higher the likelihood that cheating will occur. Monopolies are infamous for cheating. So, are china-owned business.
I think that girlintraining will join you in being happy about that.
The author meant to say packed WITH BLUE GILLS. We are sending a bunch of fish there since we think that there is more water than all the fresh h20 on earth. So, the idea is to let blue gills grow there. If they survive, we will send some bass, crappies, a few pike, etc.
And be sure to flip them off as you go by
If you are in Ill, and more appropriately Chi-town, you must go see Chicago museum of Science and industry. If you are coming out west, we have far too many active projects going on, so items will not be as available. However, I know that this is not science, but since you are driving and on your way west, you really should see the Grand Canyon. Now, there is a glass ledge in which you get to walk out on and OVER the canyon. You can do the same at the sears tower in chi-town(yeah, yeah, I know it was renamed, but any local will know it as the sears; besides you can not miss it if you are in the city). If you make it up to Seattle, stop in at Boeing's museum. You can sit in a SR-71 and see how it felt (cramped and primitive). Beautiful lines on her though.
d) man claiming to be friend steals 1000 blindly, and then at the end, puts your stolen gun to your head and says give up or we shot.
d
Are you talking about when we were spying on middle east companies and found Airbus offering bribes to them? THAT spying?