As usual when the global warming zealots show up:
It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation’s toughest greenhouse gas control law.
As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sporsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.
“We are going to pass this bill this year,” said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince George’s County and chairman of the senate’s environmental matters subcommittee. “We are not going to rest, we are not going to stop….We are going to keep going until we pass this bill.”
This happens so often that one begins to think that a Power is trying to get something through rather thick, leftwing skulls…be that as it may, there is also this news from Greenland:
Residents insist Greenland’s freezing temperatures don’t mean global warming has been called off
While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.
On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.
‘The ice is up to 50cm thick,’ said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. ‘We’ve had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.’
Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.
Gee, almost like its some sort of…well…what would the best word be?…..hmmm…oh, I know: its almost like a cycle; you know, a recurring pattern in weather where sometimes its warming, and sometimes its colder…
Blogs For Victory 
Rico,
You know I fundamentally disagree with you on the concept of a carbon tax, but your last post is by far the most convincing argument you’ve made to date. And you’re right — there is just a boatload of cool stuff on the energy horizon.
I do have a couple questions, however. Would the tax be applied only at the provider level or at both the provider level and consumer level? i.e. would everyone who has gas hot water, gas forced air, wood pellet or corn-burning furnace, a gas clothes drier, gas cook stove, gas grill, gas fireplace log, or a wood-burning fireplace or wood-burning stove pay a periodic tax? Taxes on carbon intensive consumer products, just by the shear numbers, could yield a huge amount of tax revenue, something that would not be lost on politicians at all levels who never saw a tax they didn’t like. Could be an unintended consequence.
Second, in your opinion, how would the tax revenue be used? If it would go for Liberal entitlement programs, then I could not support it. If it could be earmarked specifically for energy research without favoring any specific company or companies, I might support it depending on the details. If it could be used to solve the Social Security and Medicare crisis, there’s a good chance I would support it.
Just some food for thought.
neocon, 8:32am:
when debating an issue, it’s best not to attack the messenger.
neocon, exactly one hour earlier:
Well, when you have a governmental body like the IPCC, that has a vested interest in perpetuating thier climate change claims, of course you’re going to have unwarranted hysteria and legislation.
Much like the denial of progress against Islamic terrorism. Theirs is not reality based policies but agenda driven policies.
Ahhh, I love the smell of wingnut hypocrisy in the morning.
Tractatus,
I have to disagree with your assessment of neocon’s statement. An attack on a magazine, news paper or network, can be an attack on the source or simply on the messenger of something you do not like. If attacking an article it is more appropriate to attack the source of the article (ie the writer) than it is to only attack the vessle that publishes it.
An attack on the credibility of the IPCC is an attack on the direct source of the infomation, their methods and their integrity. It is not the same thing at all.
It would be like attacking a your local news program because the weatherman blew the forecast. Attack the weatherman, not the entire news outlet.
Concerned Citizen: The most damaging one is water vapor and you don’t see anyone bitching about that.
I think the reason is that essentially all of the evidence suggests that the atmospheric concentration of water vapor (although a very important GHG) is regulated by temperature. In other words, the average relative humidity remains essentially the same. It is thus more properly considered a feedback, or an “amplifier”, rather than a forcer.
Funny thing is probably the biggest contributors to both CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere is human life itself.
I hope you wrote that wrong, or I hope I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but the way it’s written makes it sound like you’re saying you think human respiration is the biggest contributor to both CO2 and water vapor. That can’t possibly be what you mean… could it?
“Well, when you have a governmental body like the IPCC”
IPCC is not Government. The UN is not a government either. The fact that IPCC stands for inter-governmental panel on climate change does not make it a government panel. It is a UN activity, not directed by a specific Government, which would be an absolute necessity for it to be considered “governmental”.
Further, technical aspects within the scientific community, ignored by this panel, significantly reduces the meaning and value of its conclusions. Its a sham.
www.
oism org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5979
Tractatus,
Concerned Citizen beat me to it. The IPCC is the source, not the messenger.
Ok, Rico, let me restate that to be a tad bit more accurate. Animal life in general.
Just for example, human exhale on average 1kg/day of CO2 (this varies greatly but the accepted average is 1kg). Current population estimates are at 6.64 billion people on this planet. Thus, we are epelling 6.64 teragrams (6.64 billion kg) each day. So human life contributes 2,423.63 teragrams (2,423.63 billion kg) of CO2 to the atmosphere annually. That has got to hurt.
Considering how the world as a whole only emmitts 27.34 teragrams annually, of which we contribuste 6.04 teragrams, that is really a drop in the bucket as compared to what humans are exhaling.
Take into consideration all the massive amounts of biological life on this planet and the number becomes astounding and unimaginable and our minor emmission from vehicles seem insignificant in comparisson.
My point was the level of absurdity that some people will take the environmentalism too. I agree that we need to control all forms of pollution that we release. That only makes sense.
However, to argue that our carbon emmissions from industrial sources, that amount 1.12% of the carbon put into the atmosphere by our mere existence, has made an undeniable damaging impact on this planet is absurd.
Ok, may I just add that I apparently lost all ability to type and/or spell while posting that last article.
Spook: I do have a couple questions, however. Would the tax be applied only at the provider level or at both the provider level and consumer level?
It would depend on the policy implemented. But my short answser is: I don’t think the notion of a carbon tax will ever float. So I’m not sure it’s worth speculating about. But mandates ARE floating. I don’t know what your area is like, but in CA the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program requires retail sellers of electricity to increase their sales of eligible renewable-energy resources by at least 1 percent of retail sales per year, so that 20% of their retail sales are served with eligible renewable energy resources by 2010. My understanding is that the definition of “eligible renewable energy resources” includes conservation measures as well (although that may be covered by the Integrated Energy Policy bill — it’s hard to keep them separate), like the deployment of smart grids and centrally controlled appliances… the kind of thing that Concerned Citizen characterized as “socialist control mechanisms”. In my area, the local power supplier (SoCal Edison) implemented a plan where if you let them hook up a monitor to your central air conditioner they’ll give you a discount on your electric bill based upon the CPU capacity of your unit. That’s capacity, not “typical use”. And since I hardly ever use the thing anyway, I figured what the heck. There are different plans, and any of them can be manually overridden, but my monthly savings have been running almost 20%. If that’s socialism, I’m for it. Then again, maybe they’re listening in on my conversations through my electrical lines. If so, I’m guessing they’ll be very disappointed.
At any rate, the idea behind incentives of that sort is to even out the load on the grid. Smart appliances are the same concept (e.g., instead of letting your refrigerator decide when it runs it’s defrost cycle, the grid only allows it to do so at off-peak hours). I don’t have a problem with that, and it’s not exactly a major imposition. The grid could be so much more efficient if the load was evened out.
Concerned Citizen, re: comment #33, you really need to check your numbers — particularly the ones associated with the “the world as a whole”.
Rico, you were correct. I was off by two decimal places. I had a converted percentage where it should not have been. The total planetart emmissions should have been 2.734 petagrams. This changes the overall calculation by two magnitudes, but not the overall point.
We emitt 112% as much carbon as our mere existence emitts. So we animal life on the planet is still an enormous contributor to global warming.
My entire point was to the extremes in which this can be taken.
You understand that we cannot even begin to calculate the amount of carbon released accurately in a given year. Even the amounts of industiral carbon are estimates with a wide margin for error. We have now clue how much is being released by the planet from the biomass or from geological activity. We also have no idea about how our planetary climate actually works. The models we use are filled with supposition, assumption and flat our guesses. None of them even take into account the difference in our distance from the sun based on the positions of Jupiter and Saturn which can migrate not ony our orbit but the very postion of the sun istelf relative to the center of the solar system.
You sometimes misunderstand my position I believe. I am all for smart environmental conservation and reduction of pollutants of all kinds. What I am inherently opposed to it the blithering idiots that say that the discussion is closed and all evidence points to man made global warming as the cause of a 1 fracking degree increase over a century of time.
There is no such thing as a consensus in science and if there is not demontrable proof of something then it is still a theory. Untill you can imperically prove a theory, the discussion is most certainly NOT closed.
Do not forget, I would in the environmental industry and I see first hand some of the damage that moronic, knee-jerk legislation can have. The perfect examples of panic trumping real science are all over: DDT, Freon, the catalytic-converter, ehtanol, etc. We do not need legislation based on junk science and fear. We need solutions based on scientific fact and real world applications.
If you do not find the aspect of your government being able to contol the temperature of your own home distrubing, than I pity you. When they are controlling when and how you can watch TV, shower, cook, drive, cool your home and have your lights on, how free will you feel then? It can all be done in the name of the environment.
Funny side note: I do not see California trying to do ANYTHING about the most environmentally damaging industry in the entire world that calls your misguided state home: Hollywood. The entertainment industry directly and indirectly cause more polution that any other industry on the planet, but apparently all they have to do is buy phony carbon credits and espouse their evironmentalism while they continue to pollute more than anyone else.
Who said carbon causes Global Warming? Based on EXACTLY what scientific proof?
There is no proof. Probably, the men say, this is the cause. Several hundred years ago, junk science told us the world was flat.
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
The concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in Figure 17. The magnitude of this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon per year. Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C (56,57).
So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties of these estimated numbers that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not been determined with certainty (58,59). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at approximately 200 ppm (60-62).
Ice-core records are reported to show seven extended periods during 650,000 years in which CO2, methane (CH4), and temperature increased and then decreased (63-65). Ice-core records contain substantial uncertainties (58), so these correlations are imprecise.
In all seven glacial and interglacial cycles, the reported changes in CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore, have caused them (66). These fluctuations probably involved temperature-caused changes in oceanic and terrestrial CO2 and CH4 content. More recent CO2 fluctuations also lag temperature (67,68).
www oism org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5978
Ya, I saw those guys.
The ones in the white coats that came through here in 1998. They were weighing the carbon emissions from our cars, you know, with carbon emission scales…….
Strange enough, I been tryin to buy one of them scales now goin on ten years, and I just can find anyone who sells them…..
So, when the guys come back, maybe Ill just run up and steal one of thiers. How else is a guy ever supposed to figure out if global warming is real?
Concerned Citizen: You sometimes misunderstand my position I believe.
I assure you, the feeling is mutual. That being said, read what you’ve written on this thread. How much sense do you make out of it?
I’m not trying to give you an inordinately hard time, but I suggest you might want to check your numbers one more time. Or give me your sources and I’ll do it for you. Then again, it might be a moot point because after all the numbers you quoted you now add, “You understand that we cannot even begin to calculate the amount of carbon released accurately in a given year.”
What am I supposed to say about that? Perhaps it might be this: you seem to be rather careless about your figures. You also seem to have a bit of a problem following any sort of cycle all the way through. With those caveats in mind, let me suggest that you check out the data pertaining to the global carbon flux. When you do, keep in mind that no one is denying that there are huge carbon sources and huge carbon sinks — in fact, they are estimated to be bigger by several magnitudes than anything you’ve mentioned thus far. The problem is, the sources are swamping the sinks — in fact, they’re spiking. So unless you think GHGs aren’t actually GHGs, that’s a concern. How big a concern? I don’t know.
If you do not find the aspect of your government being able to contol the temperature of your own home distrubing, than I pity you.
I appreciate your pity, but the bottom line is… I’m saving money. I don’t know if you’ve noticed yet, but I’m a very bottom line oriented kind of guy. I like to consider all the options, but in the end it’s eventually all about margins for me. By the way, did I mention that I can manually override the system? If I chose to it would cost me twice as much, perhaps a little more, for the time I did. But I don’t have a problem with that, because I am quite confident that I could never be so gluttonous as to lose money in the long run. But if that eventuality ever came to pass, I would elect to rescind the priviledge of trying. That override capability seems to be a concept you don’t understand. There are few requirements. Everything is essentially elective — wonderfully and mindlessly so. I guess you could call it “elective socialism”, lol!
Funny side note: I do not see California trying to do ANYTHING about the most environmentally damaging industry in the entire world that calls your misguided state home: Hollywood.
You might want to check those numbers too — or at least put them in context. For example, how does Hollywood compare to, say, the cement industry — both in terms of energy expended and total (per capita) revenues? Mind you, I’m not sticking up for Hollywood, I’m just trying to put THE WHOLE CYCLE into context. But for what it’s worth, yeah, I think carbon credits are BS.
See the number cited in the comment js posted are very differnt than the numbers I cited. Mine were from the UN report on climate change as of 2004. His came from different sources and are vastly different, especially the exhilation amount which is a widely confused number.
I apologize for the bad math, I was writing that post while I was doing several other things and I should have paid more attention to my calculations.
However, the point is still valid. Most of these numbers are just guiesses and estimates. The data on carbon flux is no different. I understand that there are massive sources and sinks and no one knows that the sources are swamping the sinks. That is a statement based on supposition and cannot be tested or proven. Climate models are horribly innaccurate and filled will variables that we have so assume because we cannot hope to accurately ascertain their true values.
As to Hollywood, in November 2006, UCLA released a study citing the most environmentally damaging industries in the United States. The data was from a five year comprehensive study examining thousands of data points per industry. Hollywood was numero uno on the offender list.
Oh and as to the remote control thermostat issue, California was not offering to make it a voluntary program that you could override when you chose. They were attempting to pass it as law that you were forced to comply with. There is a BIG difference in those two concepts.
Concerned Citizen,
With regard to the California “remote control thermostat issue”, this is what the relevant section says:
2) Communicating Capabilities. All PCTs (programmable communicating thermostats) shall be distributed with a non-removable Radio Data System (RDS) communications device that is compatible with the default statewide DR communications system , which can be used by utilities to send price and emergency signals. PCTs shall be capable of receiving and responding to the signals indicating price and emergency events as follows.
Price Events. The PCT shall be shipped with default price-event offsets of +4°F for cooling and -4°F for heating enabled; however, customers shall be able to change the offsets and thermostat settings at any time during price events. Upon receiving a price-event signal, the PCT shall adjust the thermostat setpoint by the number of degrees indicated in the offset for the duration specified in the signal of the price event. The PCT shall also be equipped with the capability to allow customers to define setpoints for heating and cooling in response to price signals as an alternative to temperature-offsetting response, as described in Reference Joint Appendix JA5.
Emergency Events. Upon receiving an emergency signal, the PCT shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the setpoint by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature setpoint. The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events.
The emphases are mine. And I presume your beef is with the last sentence. It does sound kind of “Big Brothery”. But the alternative is to head mindlessly into a blackout. Those really suck. And when they happen you could be completely out of power for quite a while. And while you are, your thermostat setting becomes irrelevant. I suppose it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. But personally, I’m inclined to avoid blackouts if I can. And if it means I have to go without air conditioning every once in a while, I can deal with it. I might sweat a bit, but at least I can get work done. And the stuff in my freezer won’t thaw out.
With regard to the Hollywood issue. I presume you were referring to this study:
Click to access RC06.pdf
I don’t care to defend the film and television industry (FTI). As the study indicates, the FTI could do more to cut emissions. However, as I suspected, your statement that “The entertainment industry directly and indirectly cause more polution that any other industry on the planet” is not even close to true. What IS true is they are a major polluter in the LA metro area. Then again, given how the FTI dominates in the LA area, that’s not entirely surprising. But it’s nice to have it pointed out. Hopefully they will do something about it. In comment #40 I also suggested that it would also be important to look at the industry’s emissions in terms of “per capita revenues”. That was a sloppy way to say it, but the idea is to scale the emissions relative to some unit of production (i.e., in terms of every dollar they generate). The UCLA study did that, and they found that the FTI was the lowest of the industries they compared it against. Of course, they may be just “guesses and estimates” and therefore don’t mean a thing. But if they didn’t mean a thing, why did you bring them up in the first place?
I enjoy discussing things with you, CC. But you really need to be more careful about what you say.
Finally, what did you think about what I said in comment #24?
No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this – all I can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why not do all we can.
Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have 27,000 takers so far. I have written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a couple of videos that I have recorded at http://www.solarjoules.com. Feel free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case – the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative.
This solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less pollution and would be a great step “just in case”.
If anyone would like company information you can go to http://www.jointhesolution.com/razmataz.
Darwin pointed out that it is not just the strongest, fittest, or smartest who survive. It is those who are willing and able to adapt.
Are you willing and able to adapt? I think most of you B4Vers are content with sitting on your butts and doing nothing.
However, I just hope that the market catchs up and begins to provide us with more options. Because most people really don’t want to choose to use fossil fuels. They just do it because they have no choice even if that is because they can’t afford the alternatives.
I’d love to have solar power, for instance, and in my city their are incentives for purchasing them even giving me the option to sell my extra energy back to the city. This infrastructure is in place but at this time I cannot afford the estimated $12,000 it would cost to set up. Nor do I see myself being able to afford it any time soon.
What are my choices? Not use very much electricity. Ok, so I don’t use a lot and way below the average amount. But still, unless I start camping out in my yard and go completely cave-man there’s no way I can go without electricity where a majority of it comes from fossil fuels.
However, if my city were to purchase all of it’s power from renewable resources … or at least provided me that option at an affordable rate … then I would have the option and could then decide to either be responsible with my energy use or not be.
At this time, unless the market hurries up and makes these things available, we as average paycheck-to-paycheck working folks have to either go caveman and live in the woods or keep using fossil fuels for energy.
But, yeah, back to what I said… are you guys willing to adapt? Because if what you say on here is any indication by the time you think you need to adapt it will be too late.