Cap And Trade

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

it passed the house and a similar bill is being debated in the senate i believe.all 1200 pages of it.

[strategy 4]

it passed the house and a similar bill is being debated in the senate i believe.all 1200 pages of it.

I will go ahead and get off the fence to say that it's purely idiotic to pass this so soon.

[Balloon guy 158]

I will go ahead and get off the fence to say that it's purely idiotic to pass this so soon.

Bought time you made a decision,And for what it's worth, they also rammed the stimulus bill through because it 'Had to be done now'4 months later they have only spent 6% of it, so there's that

[brvheart 1,752]

Bought time you made a decision,And for what it's worth, they also rammed the stimulus bill through because it 'Had to be done now'4 months later they have only spent 6% of it, so there's that

Biden has also gone on record as saying it was wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

Biden has also gone on record as saying it was wrong.

But at least he can name a newspaper he's read before...probably...given time...and a teleprompter

[brvheart 1,752]

I haven't put in the time to read a word of this legislation. I can't really have an opinion, can I?

'not having an opinion' is not the same as 'being on the fence', in my book.

You can't be fooled by those numbers. First, read my numbers above -- U.S. accounts for 22% of man-made carbon emissions and the EPA projects the bill leads to over 80% reduction over 50 years -- that's a reduction of 18% of the world's C02 output. Second, we have to understand that very small changes can have very big effects in a dynamical system. Changing atmospheric levels of a gas by .2% could have a huge effect on climate. It's the same trick with the 1 degree temperature change. It sounds small, but it would only take a few degrees of temp change to kill off most of the life on the planet.

According to one report that you read it's an 18% reduction in MAN-MADE CO2 output... not total CO2 output. That's the point NC was making. Volcanoes are much more 'damaging' to the environment than anything we will ever do. Sal was asking what percentage of the total number is man-made. You have not answered nor shown your work.

[brvheart 1,752]

Did anyone actually read part of this bill?It calls for an environmental inspector to inspect every single house prior to selling, for environmental issues, which the homeowner must fix before transferring deed! So there's your 'new green jobs', AND your continued destruction of the housing market. Sal will NEVER be able to move!

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Did anyone actually read part of this bill?

it's pretty clear - no.

[Sal Paradise 57]

ok, to me, this is the biggest point made in this thread, and I don't think I saw anybody respond to it at all. first off, is the data correct? that our CO2 output only makes up for .2% of total greenhouse gases? if it is correct, and we have that little impact on the atmosphere in the first place, and even if the bill somehow works amazingly well (which is impossible given we cannot govern the entire world's CO2 output, and other less developed countries have vowed NOT to limit it) and we reduce a huge amount, say 80% of our CO2 output, is it still worth nine trillion dollars (just to the U.S. mind you) to reduce total CO2 in the greenhouse by .16% or so? please answer fully and show your work.

You can't be fooled by those numbers. First, read my numbers above -- U.S. accounts for 22% of man-made carbon emissions and the EPA projects the bill leads to over 80% reduction over 50 years -- that's a reduction of 18% of the world's C02 output. Second, we have to understand that very small changes can have very big effects in a dynamical system. Changing atmospheric levels of a gas by .2% could have a huge effect on climate. It's the same trick with the 1 degree temperature change. It sounds small, but it would only take a few degrees of temp change to kill off most of the life on the planet.

ok, so with all of these numbers, I'm coming up with a reduction of total CO2 output into the atmosphere over the next 50 years of .0352%. if it works. and this will cost an estimated 9 trillion dollars. please let me know where I'm off here because nobody can think this is logical (and I'm stupid).

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

no, the .2% number already included the global perspective from what i understand. it doesn't make it any more logical.

[vbnautilus 48]

ok, so with all of these numbers, I'm coming up with a reduction of total CO2 output into the atmosphere over the next 50 years of .0352%. if it works. and this will cost an estimated 9 trillion dollars. please let me know where I'm off here because nobody can think this is logical (and I'm stupid).

Yeah I don't see how you are getting these numbers. We're talking about reducing the world's man-made C02 output by 18%.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah I don't see how you are getting these numbers. We're talking about reducing the world's man-made C02 output by 18%.

That's why we should be talking to an accountant about this.not some dumb ol scientist

[vbnautilus 48]

That's why we should be talking to an accountant about this.not some dumb ol scientist

who you callin ol', old man!

[Sal Paradise 57]

Yeah I don't see how you are getting these numbers. We're talking about reducing the world's man-made C02 output by 18%.

ok so 18% of .2% is .036% which is the reduction of total man made CO2 in reference to all CO2 in the atmosphere. I did .2%*22%*80% which gave me a .0352% reduction. I mean is that enough to really make any difference at all? and not even accounting for cost either, is that going to make any difference?again, if my math is off here or if I'm using the wrong numbers, tell me.

[Sal Paradise 57]

damn it I'm trying to find data on this .2% number to see if it's accurate and it is very hard to find. and I'm supremely lazy. vb, please find data for me kthnx.

[brvheart 1,752]

damn it I'm trying to find data on this .2% number to see if it's accurate and it is very hard to find. and I'm supremely lazy. vb, please find data for me kthnx.

We need to find Cindy.

[vbnautilus 48]

ok so 18% of .2% is .036% which is the reduction of total man made CO2 in reference to all CO2 in the atmosphere. I did .2%*22%*80% which gave me a .0352% reduction. I mean is that enough to really make any difference at all? and not even accounting for cost either, is that going to make any difference?again, if my math is off here or if I'm using the wrong numbers, tell me.

Ok now I understand what you are trying to do. You are saying that .2% of all C02 is man made, and want to calculate exactly how much C02 we are reducing as a percentage of the total atmospheric amount. I don't think that's a meaningful number to interpret without knowing how much change in atmospheric C02 leads to how much climate change. For example, if a .0001% increase in atmospheric C02 leads to a 3 degree increase in global temperature, then .035 is quite a lot. But to answer the question, I don't know what percentage of atmospheric C02 is due to human activity, but .2% seems reasonable.We have like every kind of expertise possible in here except no climate guy?

[Sal Paradise 57]

I don't think that's a meaningful number to interpret without knowing how much change in atmospheric C02 leads to how much climate change. For example, if a .0001% increase in atmospheric C02 leads to a 3 degree increase in global temperature, then .035 is quite a lot.

yeah this is exactly what I'm trying to get at. how much we can supposedly reduce, and how much this reduction will actually affect (effect) affect the global climate. that would then lead me to the question of "is it worth it to spend 9 trillion dollars to do this?" which needs clarification on how much is it estimated to cost exactly and over what period of time and what is included in the costs. is it just administrative costs? does it include job losses from fleeing energy companies? the cost of possible trade wars for the tariffs that would be imposed to limit job exportation? standard of living decreases?this is all keeping in mind that we're using two constants which certainly aren't: a) 80% reduction (lol, no) and b) we'll have 9 trillion to pay for it (where is this coming from exactly?)

[vbnautilus 48]

yeah this is exactly what I'm trying to get at. how much we can supposedly reduce, and how much this reduction will actually affect (effect) affect the global climate. that would then lead me to the question of "is it worth it to spend 9 trillion dollars to do this?" which needs clarification on how much is it estimated to cost exactly and over what period of time and what is included in the costs. is it just administrative costs? does it include job losses from fleeing energy companies? the cost of possible trade wars for the tariffs that would be imposed to limit job exportation? standard of living decreases?this is all keeping in mind that we're using two constants which certainly aren't: a) 80% reduction (lol, no) and b) we'll have 9 trillion to pay for it (where is this coming from exactly?)

Yeah this is all the stuff that report deals with. There's pages and pages of graphs. The senators should be able to digest it all in a few microseconds, so I'm not concerned.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Yeah this is all the stuff that report deals with. There's pages and pages of graphs. The senators should be able to digest it all in a few microseconds, so I'm not concerned.

the report that specifically excluded the dissenting view? oy vey, not too good this makes me feel.edit: ok so is this report available anywhere? and is the bill online anywhere? does anybody know?

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah this is all the stuff that report deals with. There's pages and pages of graphs. The senators should be able to digest it all in a few microseconds, so I'm not concerned.

With this kind of logic I am not so sure of my original opposition to this bill.Luckily what I think means nothing

[strategy 4]

'not having an opinion' is not the same as 'being on the fence', in my book.

failure to articulate on my part.

[vbnautilus 48]

edit: ok so is this report available anywhere? and is the bill online anywhere? does anybody know?

If you'd like to read and comment on the science in the EPA report, its here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics...54_Analysis.pdf

[Sal Paradise 57]

SCREW YOU BACK BUTTON

[El Guapo 8]

Wait, nobody said this report had graphs.