IR, even if what you said were true, termites eat wood and that wood got the carbon from CO2 from the atmosphere. Cows eat grass. Do you get the distinction? Raisin is certainly far to the left of me but many of his proposals would be welcomed by conservatives and hated by Obama. Your criticism of him is ridiculous.
It has to be nuclear. That's the only possible option. Instead of looking at it in terms of tonnes of CO2 emitted its probably better to look at it as kilowatts consumed. Power, as in electrical power, scales with carbon use. It also scales very closely with standard of living. Now the current global annual consumption is about 15 terawatts. Most of the global warming folks want to arrest or even reverse THIS figure. That's not acceptable. The living standards of billions depend on this number going up.
I mean if you think how low the global average living standard is we have got to raise this bar and that means more juice. Power consumption has risen very predictably for the last 200 years so if it continues we'll be consuming about 6 times what we do today by the end of the century. Which in my book is a good thing because maybe we'll finally have some equality on this planet.
So we need something that has the all round muscle of fossil fuels, because it has to power a growing technological civilisation into the next century, but be carbon free. So rather than trying to cut energy consumption, which is not only impractical its downright unethical (I'd argue even genocidal) we need an alternative that can match fossil fuels and right now that's nuclear. You are not going to generate tens of terawatts of power with solar panels and windmills, it just doesn't add up. Fusion would be the magic bullet but as much as dreaming about fusion gives me a ***** it just doesn't exist yet. So its either nuclear, fossil fuels, or condemning billions of people to poverty. Its got to be nuclear.
Sometimes you can have a problem without a solution. This is one of them. The fact that we can support seven billion people on this planet is the result of burning fossil fuels. What we have is what's called a 'high equilibrium trap'. If we stop burning fossil fuels the energy required to maintain the lives of that many people will be impossible. On the other hand if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate of consumption the effect on the agriculture that maintains the lives of what will be 9 billion people by mid century when the CO2 load reaches 450ppm will retard enough agriculture to doom several billions of those people. What to do?
You have what's called the 'lifeboat equation'. You can only get so many people in a lifeboat...those not in will drowned. Given that no political or economic power on Earth will stop the burning of fossil fuels and even if it could be done it means that quite a few people will die because of that stoppage.. What should WE do?
The US of course could prepare for this. It would mean slowing and reversing our population by slowing down our birth rate and immigration rate. That means almost NO immigration plus free birth control and abortion. It means reducing our caloric consumption by X percent. It means moving on to decentralized farming and even high rise factory farming. It means massive investments in flood control and replacing most of our housing with super energy efficient structures. It also means moving immediately to wind and solar power with the least amount of fossil fuel backup power generation. It also means that none of the above will be done. At some point the survivors will reach a more or less steady state civilization where climate 'fits our clothes', or in other words our society accommodates itself to reality.
Conclusion: Agriculture is the basis of all civilization, and large scale agriculture is energy intensive, water intensive and depends on a steady and predictable growing season. Corporate farms are not going to go back to plowing with oxen. Fresh water supplies are already in danger. Rain has to come on time in in just the right amounts. Temperatures have to rise and fall in a predictable manner. All of that is reaching a critical point. The solution is to plan for a far different world than exists today, but we're probably out of time for planning.... we'll reach the 450 ppm of CO2 threshold within less than 50 years. We're at 390ppm now and adding 15 parts per million every 15 years....do the math. There are no rabbits to pull out of hat...there isn't even a hat!
Assuming it is true and the Illuminati conspiracy happening right in front of your eyes is not which I have spent over a decade researching and you have spent no more then a cup of coffee's time researching......here is the plan
1.) We would have to cut CO2 emissions by adding more clean energy, you know which ones the usual suspects. We can still use oil but cut consumption by 25% minimal
2.) We need to plant trees and other plant life wherever there is vacant government(Illuminati) owned land.
3.) Stop the destruction of the rain forest
4.) Give people tax breaks for driving hybrid vehicles and give tax breaks to auto makers who produce more hybrid vehicles
5.) Educate the children on how to maintain a low carbon footprint as they are the future. Also offer free programs for adults in local communities to be educated(brainwashing)
6.) Encourage corporations to use Skype and other technology to conduct meetings versus airline travel across the globe via tax breaks. Also cut down on air travel overall as a lot of flights are flying half filled......less flights charge more.
7.) Tell the government(Illuminati controlled) to quit funding terrorism so that way they could cut their military budget in half to pay for this crap.
8.) Kill off the population of "useless eaters" or anyone over the age of 75
9.) Keep allowing the good work of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as they sterilize Africa and other third world countries.
10.) Families are allowed to only have two children anything more must be aborted
11.) Fire half the police force so they don't just drive around harassing people
12.) Drop a nuke on China and India to eliminate more "useless eaters"
And finally.................eliminate all gas powered tools ALL electric(you thought it be more death didn't you:)
Problem solved......one less forum on YA! Maybe save the genocide as last resort......that is what the end game is however. Realize Chem that your belief will lead you to the slaughter.
I'm kind of skeptical that there is any practical war to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Since the biological carbon cycle is balanced, planting trees won't work. The best way is to use zero emission energy sources.
Nuclear power must play a big role. As long as we continue to burn coal to make electricity, there is lots of room for both renewable energy and nuclear power. A wind farm that is built instead of a nuclear power plant is a wind farm that should have been built instead of a coal plant.
I'm kind of skeptical that there is any practical war to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Since the biological carbon cycle is balanced, planting trees won't work. The best way is to use zero emission energy sources.
Nuclear power must play a big role. As long as we continue to burn coal to make electricity, there is lots of room for both renewable energy and nuclear power. A wind farm that is built instead of a nuclear power plant is a wind farm that should have been built instead of a coal plant.
If your goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, short of building planetary scrubbers, there does not appear to be any way to stop the build up of CO2. Even if you went back to 1960 level emissions atmospheric CO2 levels would still increase by the same amount. There has been almost no change in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 levels since the 60's. And humanity is emitting a considerable amount more CO2 than it was 60 years ago, but the growth is almost identical. But hey, who gives a crap what the data says, if you believe in AGW, nothing can convince you otherwise, you will freeze to death chanting the world is warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co...
Nuke China.
That eliminates 25% of CO2 emissions, and adds some aerosols to lower warming as well.
Then reevaluate how many other countries need to be nuked.
Sequestration, such as take Calcium phosphate and convert it to Calcium carbonate and use the phosphates for fertilizer or some other purpose. Converting it to biomass is another good idea, farm algae for food or other purposes.
Your 4 assumptions are totally wrong
1 CO2 is not causing significant warming
2 Co2 is beneficial
3 is incorrect because of above
4 no way will other countries follow your countries stupid actions.
The only way to reduce CO2 in the cycle is by photosynthesis, plant a billion trees
Assume, for the moment (if you do not already believe so) that you are adequately convinced that:
1. Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2, are causing significant warming
2. Said warming will cause significant harm in the medium to long term (the next 50-100 years)
3. The only way we can stop said harm is by reducing our worldwide net CO2 emissions (and equivalents) to roughly zero over the next 50 years, starting now.
4. If your country acts, other countries around the world will also act equivalently (or, at least, proportionally)
(Keep in mind that biological CO2 emissions--for example, people breathing--don't count, only CO2 from fossil fuels and deforestation, since biological carbon is a balanced cycle, more or less. Also keep in mind that we're talking *net* emissions, you can reach that by increasing carbon uptake in some way and still be burning some fossil fuels).
Overall, what plan would you favor to reach this goal? What are some specific ideas or plans that you think would be particularly helpful, or would be economically positive or the like? Any popular or common plans that you think either wouldn't do the job or would do more harm than good? Any other thoughts? (but please only answer if you have at least *one* positive plan to propose, don't just try to tear apart everyone else's plans or argue that it's all a hoax or whatever)
I like your syntax about "...if you do not already believe so...". You practically don't need to read anything else.
Well, if I would be that religious AGW fanatic, the only choice I would have is,to stop breathing and stop producing CO2, and make others to stop breathing. too... :D
Luckily for me, I am not the one.
Based on your first three assumptions (very realistic) but not the fourth (very unrealistic), I would advocate the phasing-in of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Assuming reasonable efficiency and a modest at first but non-token rate of tax, this would of course be much more effective if all countries were to adopt it, but it would still be beneficial on a solo basis to isolated countries adopting it. The system in place for some years in British Columbia is a good general role model, although details could vary, and it is certainly conceivable that improvements could be made on the BC setup. The advantages of a carbon tax over most other imagineable policies are:
1) It offers clear and transparent price signals to producers, consumers, brokers, planners etc.
2) The pricing provides clear and tangible incentives for producers to seek non-carbon alternatives and improve efficiencies, to consumers to choose low energy, particularly low-carbon energy products, and to seek efficiencies in energy use, to investors to favor no or low carbon technologies.
3) In general, this clearly favors efficient and/or low carbon uses and disincentivizes inefficient and/or high carbon uses.
4) Consumer, producer, transport, investment, etc. decisions are made through market interaction, and not through governmental regulation (with its accompanying risk of incompetency and corruption).
5) Operating the tax involves only a minimal amount of bureaucracy.
6) The revenue neutral carbon tax can be combined with other measures (as in BC), to improve efficiencies and help support those low-income but high carbon groups that might suffer under such a tax. Education, for example, could be an important complement.
The main reason carbon taxes are not widely discussed include:
a) cowardly politicians
b) uninformed voters
c) poorly educated journalists
Simplest way to do it? Plant a tree. If you want to ramp up then plant a pond full of algae. Then sit next to those things and watch the CO2 be used to produce O2. Simple chemistry and the simple reaction that takes place with the CO2/O2 cycle. It's so simple the government doesn't even have to get involved.
Why would you want to reduce carbon. More carbon in the atmosphere is what enhances the life cycles of most every living thing. Maybe you should research how carbon works in the oceans too.
http://news.yahoo.com/ocean-microbes-she...
It's very beneficial.
Shallow thinking alarmists are worried about one aspect of additional atmospheric CO2. LMAO!!!
CO2 cycles are not "balanced"! Science doesn't "know" this. That's shallow thinking climate scientists thinking they are smarter than everyone else. More shallow thinking. ROTFLMAO!!!!
I have already given this plan but I will do so again.
1.) Reduce the unnecessary regulations on nuclear power like not being able to reuse spent fuel. Set up plans to create many nuclear power plants using the same design and reduce the red tape for zoning. Protestors can protest, but they cannot interfere in the slightest with the building or operation of nuclear power plants. Once you have this set into place, nuclear power should be about as expensive as coal.
Plan for a nuclear power plant for every decommisioned coal power plant or every coal power plant over 30 years old. For locations around fault lines, work out other strategies.
2.) Solar panels. They continue to decrease in cost. Continue to work with the industry to keep bringing down the costs. In less than 25 years, I would expect that solar panels are going to become a common fixture on houses, dropping the amount of power necessary.
3.) Make a concerted move toward e-cars. I don't even mind regulating the auto industry to force the production of e-cars. Our car manufacturers need to work smarter and harder. We shoudl be leading the way given we invented automobiles. E-cars and high efficiency cars would sell easily overseas.
Both solar and car, we can export and help other countries reduce their CO2 emissions, while provide as inexpensive of a solution. Nuclear power can not be readily exported until we have a method of ensuring that the material used cannot be used for bombs, BUT the Non-proliferation treaty (NPT) allows for this. Further, I do not mind saying that the first world countries should be helping the other countries with development of nuclear power IF AND ONLY IF they agree to the NPT. I have plans for funding this, but this goes into a much longer conversation about:
1.) Legalizing marijuana and taxing it
2.) Changing Obamacare to an HSA to have actual reductions to health care costs.
3.) Slashing the military budget in half by closing bases in Germany, Japan, and other countries.
4.) Closing our borders with military guarding our borders, but allowing a path to citizenship for all illegals already here.
Generally speaking, my plan, if instituted, should be able to drop our CO2 production in half with 20 years and down to minimal levels in 40 years. The world production would follow, with Europe keeping up with us and countries like China taking time to keep up.
One thing to note. We are going around thinking that a large military keeps the peace. Look up the number of republics that have warred against each other. Promote rights, promote democracy, promote trade. This plan is JUST assuming that fossil fuels are a limited resource, NOT catastrophic climate change.
One other thing to make money. This is going to sound counter-intuitive, but we need to have a human land on Mars. The entirety of the space program cost a ton of money, BUT it placed FAR more money into the economy, then it cost. Stretching ourselves with goals like this, stimulates the economy and places fresh technology into the market.
And the "over-population" problem... Promote female rights across the world. Every country where women have equal rights, has a zero population growth, with the exception of the US. The US would have 0 population growth were it not for illegal immigration.
Note that IF (a big if) we find that the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is very problematic, then we may consider finding plants or algae that is particularly strong at pulling CO2, cultivate this and bury it.
Edit:
For caring about the lower and middle class, libs like Hey Dook certianly promote an overabundance of regressive taxation.
lrcamp,
Emailing an insult while not allowing return emails??? And you think I am the problem? And did I hear you correctly about wanting to limit who can vote when you said: "Maybe you should talk to Mr. Jefferson on why he wanted to limit the vote, as he would have included you had he had a discussion."??? Perhaps Jefferson was talking about people who can't debate and can only insult.
BTW, I am a libertarian, and this question was asked under the assumptions given in 1-4 with biological emissions not considered. But maybe the ability to read is too much to expect from you.
IRcamp,
BTW, the HSA plan has been proposed by a repub, the closing the borders idea is repub as is the nuclear plan. I am not above using the best solutions from both parties.
I can't even figure out how to get those who actually believe to cut there Carbon footprint in half which would begin a revolution: if your going to change the world you need to start with yourself.
1. greatest producers of C02 = termites
2. second greatest producers of C02 = cows
Want to get rid of both do you?
Coal can be used to generate electricity for electric cars, while at a very low cost to consumers, and provide C02 for enclosed greenhouses that can produce up to 20 pound tomatoes ( work done in the 1960's ). The plants that consume the C02 exhale O2, or maybe you want to get rid of that as well.
As for " Raisin Caine":
What a fanatic liberal. No understanding of how a macro-economy works, as he would bring it down faster than Obama did. This guy would make Obama look like a mastermind in job creation.
I would drive exactly .5 miles less
1-4 is not true or even happening .
by breathing less
