and driving a more cramped car at less safe, slower speeds, doesn't constitute a "benefit" as most people understand the word.
I don't like pollution anymore than larsb probably. But I am more willing to accept it as a result of activities that give me great benefit. Whether you consider the typical pollution or the newly defined pollution CO2, I am certainly okay with creating more pollution for the following reasons.
1) more structural integrity and larger crumple zones, which mean more mass, and lower mpg. I prefer safety over emitting more CO2. 2) I prefer to keep my house at 65F in the winter, and don't use AC in the summer. I will burn whatever amount of wood or oil is necessary to keep th temperature at that when I'm home. 3) I will burn fuel to go places, rather than sit at home all the time. 4) I will use electricity from coal burning plants freely to power the things I buy. It does no good for my money to sit in the bank. It does no good if the things I buy, sit unused. I will use my money and things to make my life happy and comfortable. 5) I will drive a relatively safe, non-optimal mpg vehicle, to ensure that I can do 3) and 4) as long as possible.
I will do all these things with the intent to do them in a way with minimal pollution effect, but they will pollute more than if I just decided to sit home in a parka, with 1 candle going, and riding a bicycle everywhere. I will use as much energy as I can afford, to be comfortable and enjoy life.
Good post; I think you express how one can achieve a balance between extreme behavior at either end of the environmental spectrum.
An by the way, I haven't yet seen a good presentation by anyone explaining why a few degrees of global warming is bad. (Even assuming that such is the case)
I can, however, present one good thing about global warming (there are others):
The amount of arable farmland would increase, thereby easing a coming food shortage which will surely arise from increased population coupled with the endless meddling by environmentalists: like the plan to take valuable farm land out of production and plant trees instead because trees absorb more CO2 and CO2 is bad.
If I had been driving a car all those years that got 40 mpg combined, I'd be ~$12,000 to $15,000 richer.
I think you meant to say you would be $6000-$7000 richer. Minus the $5000 interest on a new car and the chiropractor bills for a tweaked out back getting in and out of an econobox.
And you were doing your part to try and keep your little section of Idaho warmer. Or was it too warm for you?
This was the coldest winter for daytime highs I can remember in So California. It was the warmest winter for overnight lows. Figure that one out. So all the added Obama stoves burning wood kept it warmer at night. I guess the aerosols and sulfates burning wood do not cause cooling, or do they . And burning wood was a big business this year for those out of work. People on every corner selling bundles of split firewood. I got mine free from a friend. Just had to split it. I have lost a few pounds in the process.
So life is good and my tomatoes went through the winter with NO frost. And we have had a good crop of snow peas so far this winter.
I like this part, which helps prove my assertion that even the "Man is Causing It" deniers can STILL see the truth behind the data that show the warming is definitely happening. Cause? Unknown. Warming? No doubt.
Inhofe's Senate website lists more than 700 scientists who disagree with the IPCC report. Many of them agree that the Earth is warming but argue that other factors, such as solar flares or ocean temperatures, play a bigger role than human activity.
Here is some more material for discussion in this forum. These are a few excerpts from a recent speech given to the 2010 Club for Growth Economic Winter Conference held in Palm Beach, Florida, on March 5, 2010, by the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the full text of which can be found at:
I would suggest strongly reading the whole speech for yourself at the link provided.
To criticize environmentalism is for me not a new, suddenly discovered, fashionable or trendy activity. At the beginning of the 1970s I came across the first publications of the infamous Club of Rome, which tried to scare us by predicting an imminent exhaustion of natural resources and by asking for a radical change in our behavior. Its supporters had been arguing already then very dramatically that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels but – and we should not forget it – for different reasons than now. As an economist, I knew it was a wrong argumentation and the subsequent four decades proved it quite convincingly. Today, we have more proven deposits of basic raw materials and energy resources than 40 years ago. I felt already then that this was an arrogant, elitist and dirigistic doctrine attempting to stop economic growth, the overall social development and human progress.
In 1989, communism collapsed and we were finally free. To my great surprise, the environmentalist doctrine was still alive and even flourishing in its new incarnation called global warming doctrine. In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit endorsed the doctrine of global warming and climate change as a leading ideology of our times. I expected that the ideology of the free world would be based on freedom, parliamentary democracy and market economy – concepts that were absolutely crucial for us in the former communist countries in the moment of our radical and revolutionary transition from communism to free society. Life under communism made us extremely sensitive, if not oversensitive to all possible symptoms of violation and erosion of our freedom. That is the reason why I feel endangered now. The subtitle of the above mentioned book asks “What is endangered: Climate or Freedom?” My answer is resolute: climate is ok, what is under threat is freedom.
The environmentalists ask for substantial reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. When it happens – with our current technologies – it will substantially increase the costs of energy for everyone because it would imply restrictions on the use of oil and coal, which are no doubt much cheaper than all alternative energy sources. Cheap energy is the source of much of our life-style and our prosperity. When energy prices go up, the costs of nearly all other goods and services go up as well. All carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and wind and solar power subsidies are steps in the wrong direction, leading to a severe and protracted economic hardship for little or no benefit.
My lifelong experience tells me that I have to start protesting very loudly when someone tells me: “Don’t trust the market, trust me and us.” This is what I had been hearing for 40 years of my life under communism and I am not ready to accept it now. The belief in the possibility of controlling the Earth’s climate by reducing the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, I call it the theory of climate control, is as irrational, arrogant and pretentious as the communist planning that people like me were objects of for so many years.
There are plenty of arguments suggesting that the real threat for human society is not global warming itself. The real threat comes when politicians start manipulating the climate and all of us.
Fourth, the idea of a static, unchanging climate is, no doubt, foreign to the history of the Earth. The climate has always been changing and will always be.
Politicians, their bureaucrats as well as many well-meaning individuals who accept the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change probably hope that – by doing so – they are displaying intelligence, virtue and altruism. Some of them even believe they are saving the Earth. We should tell them that they are merely passive players in the hands of lobbyists, of producers of green technologies, of agrobusiness firms producing ethanol, of trading firms dealing in carbon emission rights, etc., who hope to make billions at our costs. There is no altruism there. It is a political and business cold-hearted calculation.
Before concluding, I have to repeat my question:“What is endangered?” My answer is: “our freedom, and our prosperity.”
Today, I am here to discuss global warming -- the single greatest environmental challenge facing our planet. So let me explain the gravity of the situation station. The fuel we use to power our homes, our cars, and our businesses is causing the earth to warm faster than anyone expected. The first seven months of this year, and the last three decades, were the warmest in the United States since national record-keeping began in 1895. And the Earth’s temperature has climbed to the highest point it has been in the past 12,000 years. A scientific consensus has been forged. There is broad agreement that the Earth will only get hotter. The question is how hot and why? First, how hot? If we act now and further temperature increases are kept to 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century, the damages – though significant – will be manageable. But if we don’t act, and warming increases by 5 to 9 degrees by the end of this century, the damage will be catastrophic and irreversible. So we must act now. Each of us is confronted with a choice: a choice that will impact not only our future, but the futures of our children and grandchildren. Do we continue with a business-as-usual attitude? Or do we make the changes necessary to prevent catastrophe? Now for the question, why? Quite simply, because we are addicted to fossil fuels. And it is the burning of these fuels – coal, oil, gasoline and natural gas and the greenhouse gases they produce – that is the primary cause of global warming. Carbon dioxide is produced by power plants, cars, manufacturing, and to power residential and commercial buildings. And here is the key: Carbon dioxide doesn’t dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for five decades or more – causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. That means that the carbon dioxide produced in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s is still in the atmosphere today. And the carbon dioxide produced today will still be in the atmosphere in 2050 and beyond. And there will be serious consequences for our planet unless we make major changes. Leading scientists say that to stabilize the planet’s climate by the end of the century, we need a 70 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. So the goal should be to stabilize carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million by 2050. This could contain further warming to 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth has warmed 1 degree in the past century, and we are now seeing the dramatic effects: Oceans are rising; coral reefs are dying; species are disappearing; glaciers are melting. We learned just last week that Greenland is now losing 20% more mass than it receives from new snowfall each year. And it will shrink further as the planet warms. Extreme weather patterns have emerged – heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, floods – and they are occurring with greater frequency and greater intensity. In 2003, heat waves caused 20,000 deaths in Europe and 1,500 deaths in India. And the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled since the 1970’s. Katrina alone is testament to that. And things will only get worse as Earth’s temperature rises. The question is: how much will the increase be? If nothing is done if the Earth warms 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, the face of our planet will change forever. The Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets would melt completely. These two ice sheets currently hold 20 percent of the Earth’s fresh water. Sea levels could well rise by 20 feet. Think about the damage that would cause to coastal areas around the world. Additionally, hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather would become more volatile than ever. Malaria would spread. Here in California: More than half of the Sierra snowpack would disappear. This is equal to the water supply for the 16 million people in the Los Angeles basin. The rise in sea levels would cause catastrophic flooding – and the Los Angeles basin would be especially vulnerable. Catastrophic wildfires would more than double. We had a mild taste of that future in July. Here in Los Angeles, temperatures spiked to well above 100 degrees. And it was far worse in other areas of the State. I met recently with scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. And they said to me that if they have erred, it has been because their climate projections are too conservative and the Earth may be much closer to a tipping point than science has shown thus far. And if we move beyond that tipping point, catastrophe becomes a certainty. You can’t go back, because the carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for so long. That’s why we must act soon and decisively. The question is: what should we do? The United States emits some 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, and we’re 4 percent of the world’s population. So we are the big producer. The largest contributor to global warming is electricity generation -- 33 percent – followed by transportation -- 28 percent. These two sectors combine to make up 61 percent of the problem. The remaining contributors are: Industry – 20 percent Agriculture – 7 percent Commercial – 6.5 percent Residential – 6.5 percent Let me be clear: there is no silver bullet. There is no one thing that we can do to solve the problem. Every business, home, and industry must do its share. So what can be done? Let me begin with electricity generation. This is the single largest piece of the global warming puzzle --responsible for 33 percent of global warming gases in the United States . And the biggest culprit here is pulverized coal, which is the major source of energy in 40 of the 50 states. Coal, alone, produces 27 percent of annual carbon dioxide emissions, or 2.1 billion tons every year. Globally, coal produces 9.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year – or one-third of all global greenhouse gas emissions. So it’s critical that we find ways to clean up coal. Earlier this year, the Senate Energy Committee held a symposium on global warming. The consensus was that a mandatory cap-and-trade program would be the most effective way forward. And so we are working to create such a program. We would begin with two bills – one for electricity and one for industry. Here’s how it would work: we would cap the amount of global warming gases – including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide – and that cap would be established on all major emitters. In all likelihood, the cap would remain at present levels for a few years to give the industry the opportunity to make the changes necessary. Gradually, these caps would be tightened, and emissions reduced. Electricity producers would have two ways to meet the cap: Either implement new technologies, or Purchase credits from other companies that have reduced their emissions below the target cap. (A credit essentially is an allowance to emit a ton of greenhouse gases.) So, the cap w
. So, the cap would be met—and carbon dioxide would be reduced over time. One of the key elements of our program is to put agriculture in the system. We would allow farmers and foresters to earn credits for moving to greener farming practices. These include: Tilling land less frequently; Planting trees on vacant land; and Converting crops to those that can be used for bio-fuels. Farmers and growers would be able to earn dollars for acres converted to carbon sequestration and reduction. Next we need to include other major industrial producers of carbon dioxide in a similar regime. The fact of the matter is that cap and trade has worked before. It’s not a revolutionary concept. Using the Clean Air Act, a cap-and-trade regime was implemented in the 1980s to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from electric utility plants in the northeast. These are the primary culprits of acid rain. In the 16 years, this scheme has been in place, sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by about 34 percent (5 million tons) and nitrogen oxide emissions have been reduced by 43 percent (3 million tons). So cap and trade can be effective. And, the governors of seven northeastern states are instituting a cap-and trade system known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. It will become effective in 2008. The plan is to cap carbon dioxide emissions from electricity plants at current levels until 2015; and then begin reducing emissions incrementally to achieve a 10% reduction by 2019. And last week, Governor Schwarzenegger announced that California may well join the Northeast regional system in the trading of credits. At the same time, I am pleased to announce that I am very close to reaching agreement with the Clean Energy Group of utilities on a cap a trade regime for electricity. The Clean Energy Group consists of PG&E, Florida Power and Light, Exelon, Entergy, Calpine, and Public Service Enterprise group. These companies produce 15 percent of the energy consumed in the United States today – 150,000 megawatts out of the 1 million megawatts produced nationwide. This is enough energy to power 150 million homes. I will be introducing the legislation in the new session of Congress. Let me take up transportation -- cars, trucks, planes, and cargo ships, which represents 28 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. And passenger vehicles alone – cars, light-trucks, and SUVs – make up 20 percent of all U.S. emissions (1.2 tons). Fundamentally, there are two ways to reduce these emissions. 1. Improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles. 2. Move away from oil and gasoline-based fuels and toward alternatives. I believe we need to do both. The good news is that the technology exists to significantly improve the fuel economy of these vehicles. The bad news is that Detroit and many foreign auto makers refuse to utilize the technologies. So Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and I have offered legislation that would require the mileage for all cars, pick-up trucks, and SUVs to be increased from 25 to 35 miles per gallon over the next 10 years. We call it the “ten-by-ten” bill. If this bill becomes law: We would save 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2025. That is the equivalent of taking 90 million cars off the road in one year. And we would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025. By coincidence, this is the amount of oil imported daily from the Persian Gulf. This is a simple solution, and it can be accomplished. The other side of the transportation coin is new technologies and alternative fuels. As long as our nation continues its addiction to oil, we cannot sufficiently slow the warming trend. That’s why we need to develop new, clean technologies and alternative fuels. This includes the electric plug-in hybrid, biofuels, E-85 using cellulosic ethanol, and fuel cells. The good news is that substantial venture capital funding is available today for clean energy projects. Here are just a few of the most promising: Last week I visited a Silicon Valley start-up -- Bloom Energy -- that is developing clean fuel cells that will produce both electricity and hydrogen to fuel our vehicles. The fuel cell has cathode ink on one side, anode ink on the other, separated by zirconia sand covered plastic, which becomes the catalyst. The size is about 4 inches by 4 inches. It alone can power a 30 watt light bulb for 5 years. Together these fuel cells can be combined to fit in a parking space, and can power a 20,000 square foot building. The electricity is produced -- with no carbon dioxide emissions – only water and hydrogen. This is the future, and this is what we ought to be supporting. It is also my understanding that Bill Gates has joined with venture capitalist Vinod Khosla to spearhead investment efforts in ethanol plants which, when completed, will produce 220 million gallons by 2009. Others are investing in new ideas – inexpensive solar panels, windmills that can be built in your backyard for $10,000, and geothermal energy that harnesses the heat of the Earth. Chevron has formed a strategic research alliance with the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado to advance the development of biofuels. It is also working with scientists at UC Davis to develop cellulosic ethanol. And Los Angeles has become a “Climate Action Leader” and has registered its greenhouse gases and will be seeking to reduce its emissions. These efforts are so important, and I want to encourage you to support them. So that’s the electricity and transportation sectors. But America needs to become much more energy efficient as well – both in terms of green building codes and individual conservation and energy use. An aggressive energy national efficiency program could prevent a substantial amount of carbon dioxide going into the air. This is the third prong of my proposal.
. This would come from the incorporation of energy efficient building materials in construction – such as insulation, more efficient windows, and renewable technologies like solar or wind. Green construction is also cost-effective. An initial $100,000 investment can result in a savings of $1 million or more over the life of a building of 20,000 square feet – that’s about the size of a Safeway or Borders bookstore. And the bigger the building, the greater the potential savings. Individuals can also make a difference. This means carpooling, using energy efficient light bulbs, and choosing ENERGY STAR appliances. ENERGY STAR home products, such as air conditioners, furnaces, refrigerators, dishwashers, phones, DVD players, and televisions, must become standard for all Americans. In 2005, these products saved consumers $12 billion, and reduced emissions by nearly 5 percent. These are easy to do, and they can really make a major difference. So early on in the 110th Congress, I plan to introduce a series of bills to meet these goals: 1. A mandatory cap-and-trade program for electricity. A mandatory cap-and-trade program for industry. 2. Then “ten-by-ten bill,” requiring increased mileage of 10 miles per gallon within the next 10 years. That means mileage would go from 25 to 35 miles per gallon. 3. An alternative fuels bill that requires 70 percent of all vehicles produced after 2014 to be flex-fuel capable. The cost is small, $100 per vehicle. These vehicles would be required to have a green gas cap to show the owner that the car can accept other fuels. We would also require that gas stations owned and operated by major oil companies have at least one pump that provides alternative fuels at every station. 4. The fourth bill will be a national energy efficiency program -- including strict appliance and building standards and requiring utilities to use energy efficiency measures to meet a portion of their demand. 5. Elimination of the protectionist tariff (54 cents per gallon) placed on Brazilian ethanol. This was done at the behest of the corn industry – to make imported ethanol non-competitive. It is estimated that Brazilian produced E-85 will be cheaper and work better. And Senator Craig Thomas and I are working on a plan to use Wyoming Powder River Coal to produce cleaner electricity by sequestering carbon dioxide. The power will then be sold to Western States including California. These bills are just the beginning. Additionally, the U.S. must make addressing global warming a top priority and join the European Union and other nations in reducing emissions. We can, and must lead. But this won’t solve the problem. Here’s why: the United States certainly leads in the production of greenhouse gases, but we are closely followed by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, and India. So all countries must participate. The Kyoto Protocol is certainly not perfect, and it will expire in 2012. So the U.S. needs to gear up and be a leader. At the same time, the United States should also lead an effort with China to create a public-private partnership fund to prioritize bilateral global warming projects. China’s coal use outpaces that of the United States, EU, and Japan combined. Coal accounts for 70 percent of China’s energy needs. China is building a new pulverized coal power plant every week. China will soon pass the United States as the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. If China continues its course, it could cause carbon dioxide levels to quadruple. So it’s vital to engage China. That is why a private/public partnership that funds key carbon dioxide reduction projects on a bilateral basis is so important. The business community should consider investing in joint ventures to develop clean power quickly in China, as well as the United States. Bottom line: now is the time to act. And here’s what I’d like to ask you to do. Please support these bills. Let the members of the House and the Senate you support them. Right now, the mentality of the congress is do-nothing, and it won’t work. The choice is clear. It is time to stop talking and to begin acting. Thank you.
"I look at it like this: Let's say that you're in your car, you open up the owner's manual, and you discover a typo on page 225. Does that mean you stop driving the car? Of course not. Those are the kind of errors we're talking about here," Mann says. "Nothing has fundamentally changed."
Seeing that I have an MS degree, I feel academically qualified to state that Michael Mann is wrong in downplaying the errors as typos. Examples of typos are: when you omit a word, duplicate a word or misspell something. A typo is not when you have whole paragraphs of fictitious information, from a dubious unchecked source!! The errors that have been noted are errors with adjusted and missing data, and calculations leading to CONTENT statements. It is the stated data and facts, and their conclusions which have errors, and have led to doubts.
This sort of error if likened to a vehicle manual, is like having a page in the manual describe how to adjust the automatic climate control system, when the vehicle isn't even offered with that feature. It makes you question what else could be wrong with the rest of the manual, seeing that it wasn't carefully considered on that page! :P
Yes, you are correct is saying that that is what she said in her speech prima facie. However, the effect, and indeed the GOAL of this strategy is to raise energy prices to curb use.
Personally I don't have a problem with costly energy prices. I am fortunate enough to be insulated from even a ten-fold increase. It is the effects on all those less fortunate than me that I am pointing out, whether they are willing participants or not.
larsb: I like this part, which helps prove my assertion that even the "Man is Causing It" deniers can STILL see the truth behind the data that show the warming is definitely happening. Cause? Unknown. Warming? No doubt.
You are debating a strawman. Several of us have said that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own over the centuries. But if the earth is warming on its own, then why impose costly regulations on people and businesses that make everyone poorer and have no effect on global temperatures?
And please note that there is still a debate as to whether global temperatures have risen over the past 15 years. Climategate started when several proponents of manmade global warming massaged data that showed no warming over that time span.
Efficient building practices, using wind and solar where possible.
Here is the sort of ignorance coming from the Pen of Diane Feinstein.
Published: December 21, 2009 AMBOY, Calif. — Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.
I would not waste my time reading anything that trollop writes. Her, Pelosi and Waxman have done more harm to Californians than is imaginable. And the idiots in the cities keep electing them.
That is the problem with just about everyone in politics. It is do as I say not as I do. It would be interesting to measure her carbon footprint. I don't consider the ideas of people I detest as worthy of reading. They are hollow words. I read what you say because I do believe you live what you preach.
Of course the otherside (which I kind of lucked into) is to drive the car you want, but live closer to where you need to drive. I have averaged ~ 5,500 miles a year for the last 5 years by living close to where I am working. I get to drive a car I like, I spend less time in traffic, and more time with my family, and save money as well.
My scientific attention these days has definitely drifted to read more about the Earth's magnetic field and its weakening. As my links of last week showed the magnetic field which blocks much of the sun's radiation is weakening - about 10% in the last 150 years. AND the weakening is accelerating. So I bring to your attention again a link that discusses that the Earth is quickly losing "its shields".
Knowing the immense power of the Sun relative to anything we do here on Earth, I believe that this weakening of the Earth's magnetic field will in the next few decades become apparent as the #1 environmental issue. I would not be surprised if by the next century mankind is not digging extensive shelters underground, to which mankind will have to retreat in a growing number of areas of the world, during the worst of solar-storms.
Any changes that occur in or on the Sun will eventually affect every person alive. The solar activity during this last sunspot cycle was greater than anything ever seen before. One study, authored by Dr Mike Lockwood and colleagues from Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, UK, in 1999, investigated the Sun's activity over the previous 100 years. They reported that since 1901 the overall magnetic field of the Sun has become stronger by 230 per cent. Scientists do not understand what that means for us. Some of the sunspot activity in this last cycle was greater than anything ever recorded before. But scientists claim that they don't understand what that means, either.
If it weren't for the Earth's protective magnetic field and atmosphere, this bombardment of particles would burn us to a crisp.
Besides the steady increase of cosmic rays that the Earth will receive with a weakening electromagnetic field, the concern during the sunspot cycles of the Sun is that we are in line with 1 of these CME's "with our shields down".
Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are eruptions into interplanetary space of as much as a few billion tons of plasma and embedded magnetic fields from the Sun's corona.
I think you meant to say you would be $6000-$7000 richer.
HEY, my math is just as good any of those hockey stick guys. :P
Murphydog, I haven't had a commute since 1983. My old subcompact 1982 Tercel wound up with around 114,000 miles when I sold it mid 1999. And for seven of those years, it was the only car for the two of us.
You do the math.
Still, doubling my mpg to 40 would be sweet. Gas is over $3.00 for premium and RUG isn't far behind.
My wife and I talked about that today. We mostly drive the Sequoia at 15 MPG around town. We could buy a Jetta Sportwagen TDI for probably about $28k cash out the door. How long would it take us to recoup that expense? We would still drive the Sequoia out to the desert when we take friends. I would not subject anyone to that kind of back seat for 100 miles or more. As much as I would like a diesel rig in my garage. I am having a hard time parting with the cash. So I guess you all are going to have to put up with it getting warmer when I drive my big honkin' SUV.
I'm funny that way; I'd rather pay more up front if I have to in order to lower my operating costs. I can budget for the up front cost, but if gas spikes to $4 or $5 a gallon, that's not fun.
Same reason I paid $150 for a well-used Laser Jet 8 or 10 years ago when I could have gotten 3 or 4 ink jets. Toner lasts forever.
Still need to get solar or wind or that Bloom box down to an affordable level with a 7 year payback though.
The only thing that $5 gas did was keep my vehicles parked more. We did not just pop down to Costco on a whim. We are used to the nearly $3 gas now so it does not seem to be an issue. When a round trip to Costco was about $9 it seemed to be a big deal for me.
Now to put that $9 trip to Costco in perspective with a new $28k Jetta TDI. That is over 3100 trips to Costco. Or once a week for 59 years. And I have a lot more room, comfort and safety in the Sequoia. Even more of a stretch would be the X5 diesel I really liked driving. It is not as big or comfortable as the Sequoia. It is faster and better handling and would probably get me 8-10 MPG better on average. I would not live long enough to justify any of them. I just wish some time I was not so practical and frugal.
As much as I dislike the NAV and audio in the Sequoia, it will probably stay in our fleet for the foreseeable future. If Barry has another C4C I may trade in the Ford Ranger or Lexus on something more practical. Not likely though.
I bought a supercharged V6 and drove it 88,000 miles in the last 6 years. I averaged 27 mpg for the first 75,000 miles until it lost 4th gear. Now it averages 20 mpg. I paid 1.69 a gallon for gas for the first 50,000 miles I drove it, starting in 2004. My new Malibu is returning 25.8 mpg from the first tank of gas but on a 15 mile each way drive to work. My BP card bill averages about $225 for 4 vehicles lately, all averaging around 20 mpg. If I take the 21k miles a year that that represents and figure the gas bill if I averaged 26 mpg (representing an all 2.4 L 4 cyl fleet), my monthly BP pmt would drop from 225 to 173. Not exactly a difference that justifies trading in any V6's or V8's.
Cocaine users were last night accused of helping to make global warming worse.
MPs on the home affairs select committee said the drug was devastating Colombian rainforests because trees are knocked down to grow coca plants.
Group chairman Keith Vaz said: "We were horrified to learn for every few lines of cocaine snorted in a London club, four square metres of rainforest is destroyed."
It is entertaining how every day they come up with a new consensus on what is causing AGW. Here Brits are cracking down on dubious GW ads. Which is good because Warmers are horrible poets.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the adverts – which were based on the children's poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub – made exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming.
In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said.
It noted that predictions about the potential global impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that the adverts failed to reflect.
The two posters created on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.
One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”
My neighbor stopped by and asked if I had got a new car. I mentioned that I had to drive 100 miles a day for 4 years a couple of years ago. He then said that he has a 100 mile a day commute when he lived in Mich. He said his diesel VW gets 45 mpg. That is equal to 40.6 mpg at reg unl price. Still very good mileage when a Prius only gets 48.
If I even got 45 mpg I'd probably double the amount I drive, thinking nothing of making 200 mile roundtrips on the weekend. Right now I moderate what I do - having in mind a certain gas budget/month.
It goes back to my theory that the nation uses energy roughly in-line with's its GDP. The more I make, which I'm encouraged to do - be successful, make the country successful, the more things I buy (manufacturing and transport) and the more I travel and recreate.
But it's comforting to know that mankind's CO2 emissions are but a few % of those emitted naturally. So "don't worry be happy" and "In Heaven there is no gas, so that's why we burn it here".
Parts of our government apparently believe the spiel of Al Gore and the IPCC that there is no more need to study the Climate Change issue. They are asking for action on their unproven theories of AGW. The negative effects on the U.S worker and taxpayers over the next decade would include:
The tax isn't expected to be huge -- starting at something under 10 cents a gallon for gasoline and moving up to maybe 20 cents a gallon after 10 years, said Kevin Book, Managing Director of research at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington D.C.-based research firm.
And the tax isn't expected to discourage people from driving, said Book, as it's too gradual and small to have much of an impact.
Hey genius, 10% of the population is trying to survive on unemployment pay right now! And record numbers of people are still facing foreclosure. There's no guarantee that's going to get better anytime soon!
But revenue from it would likely be spent on other, cleaner transportation projects like mass transit or subsidies for hybrid cars.
No comment.
For utilities, a cap-and-trade law allows them to upgrade their equipment and pass the cost along to consumers. And under the House cap-and-trade bill, the pass-through to consumers is offset by plans that allow reductions to come from things like planting trees and rebates for low income ratepayers. The Congressional Budget Office said the House bill would cost the average household an additional $175 a year.
Added to the gas-cost-increase mentioned above! And with higher gas and electricity costs, we can expect overall price increases on everything.
To get around this, the Senate plan calls for some delay in holding factories accountable to the new rules -- maybe five to 10 years.
More likely so that they don't get voted out, and the tax will be forgotten about as it phases in years later. So when costs go up, and manufacturing losses more jobs, you won't be thinking of why things have gotten worse.
The best thing DC can do for me is to put a freeze on all new legislation; and start reviewing their existing laws, regulations, programs and departments and cutting what isn't essential. It is DC and our local governments which are strangling the U.S. economy and society! :mad:
OF COURSE there is a continuing need to study Climate !!!
From the debates here, the ONE THING FOR SURE that most agree on is that "we do not know what is causing the warming" and until we can rule out "man's activity" then of course we need to keep studying it !!
AMEN to that. Higher utility rates have shut down a lot of manufacturing. We forced companies like Alcoa to move to less expensive locations. Now energy costs are taking their toll on them in foreign lands.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi wrote to Alcoa chief executive Klaus Kleinfeld on Friday not to take a decision on the matter before the European Commission evaluates government measures to lower energy costs.
Electricity is the countries life blood. Even more than oil. If we regulate it to the extent that it is in many states we will further cripple our economy. The idea that we can replace coal with solar and wind is just so unrealistic. And becoming more so every day as projects get shot down by the very folks that have pushed for alternatives.
"the idea that we can replace coal with solar and wind is just so unrealistic."
Gary, you don't (seem to) understand.
Fossil fuels are a LIMITED supply. They WILL run low some day. It will someday cost a lot more to get the last of the coal out of the ground. When, 50, 75 years? Who knows, but SOMEDAY it's gonna happen. It's as inevitable as death and taxes.
Sunlight - unlimited supply. Wind, in certain areas - unlimited supply.
Now, as a Republican, of course I want the regulations to free up business and keep people employed while still accomplishing the goal of cleaner power generation.
But you can put all those coal workers to work installing and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines just as easily as you have them mining coal.
It only makes sense, when planning for future generations, to get off coal and oil as electricity generation fuels.
Not true in the least. According to the Sierra club, there is 25,000 years supply of coal under Lake Powell. Of course that was part of their push to block that lake from being built. We do have known coal reserves of at least 400 years in the USA. I don't think the earth will be around that long. I am sure you and I will not be.
Now, as a Republican, of course I want the regulations to free up business and keep people employed while still accomplishing the goal of cleaner power generation.
You still have to get past the Democrats that want solar and Wind. Just Not in Their Back Yard. SDG&E has been blocked on both except on the Indian Reservations where the Eco Nuts have NO say. They have very limited land for Wind. Solar has not been proven feasible for utility power generation. Still in the engineering phase. Our big solar collector was supposed to go online in 2008. Still on hold last I read.
Better lock your solar panels down Larsb. Here is the latest trend in solar panels.
Forty solar panels were stolen from the city of Napa’s water treatment plant at Lake Hennessey, the Napa County Sheriff’s Department reported Friday.
A city representative estimated the loss at $30,000.
The stolen Sanyo 3-by-4.5 foot solar panels, each of which weighs 33 pounds, are part of a $2.7 million solar collector system the city installed in July 2006 at the foot of Conn Dam to generate power. The system was paid in part with PG&E rebates.
OK, so even if we do have enough coal (which I will agree about right now) it still doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate better solutions, cheaper ones, CLEANER ones.
Solar panel technology is making leaps and bounds in the labs.
In Texas, they are generating so much wind their wired infrastructure cannot keep up.
No reason to keep burning dirty coal and polluting the coal towns forever when there WILL BE cleaner and cheaper solutions in the coming decades.
I am not against Wind and Solar. I just want it to be kept in perspective. We still generate about 50% of our electricity with coal. Wind and solar combined are less than 2%. As the technology matures it will gain ground. Punishing the consumer because the technology is not quite there is not right. My guess is the same nuts that pushed for wind are now trying to get rid of many of the wind farms that are in use. I remember seeing 100s of wind generators laying down headed to Palm Springs. That was from the Last big oil crisis in the late 1970s early 1980s. People jumped on the Wind bandwagon, wrote off millions on their taxes and now they are worthless piles of metal. Our hero in TX is having second thoughts about Wind last I read. $4 billion in Wind Generators and no place to send the electricity. Again we have the same problem. No one wants a high voltage line running across their land. So how do you get the wind and solar power to the consumer in the city?
As long as the NIMBYs and LULUs block the alternative energy sources we have a problem. With Coal you do not have to depend on mother nature to supply the energy.
If wind and solar were relaibel and cheaper than coal or natural gas, I guarantee you - your local electricity company would convert. Why? They would make more $. I'm sure they have engineers and finance people do this evaluation regularly.
Personally - even if I could get a zoning variance on height for a windmill, the cost of the windmill + the interest on the loan would far exceed my $90/month on-the-grid bill. So it is not cheaper, and I don't try to do it. Solar - between lack of sunshine being so far north, and maintenance (snow removal, leaf removal in Fall), I'm not putting one on the roof. If it's feasible let the electricity generator put out a few square miles of panels and then transmit the energy to me. Again, I'm sure the electricity company makes this evaluation regularly.
At least some oil companies can see the future well enough: Shell has predicted that 50% of the world's energy will come from renewable sources by 2040.
Huge areas in Texas, which can ship power to several nearby states, are viable for solar and wind.
There are a lot of very smart people working on alternative energy sources and working on solving all the problems/hurdles that are preventing them from wider adoption.
Shell has predicted that 50% of the world's energy will come from renewable sources by 2040.
That would be good, because the world population is predicted to just-about double by then. So that means we'll still need as much fossil-fuel energy as we use now. And if masses of people continue to move out of poverty, we'll be using more energy still. Remember that maybe 1 in 6 people today live a Western lifestyle, but the other 5 out of 6 (developing and 3rd world nations) want the same sort of lifestyle.
Comments
I don't like pollution anymore than larsb probably. But I am more willing to accept it as a result of activities that give me great benefit. Whether you consider the typical pollution or the newly defined pollution CO2, I am certainly okay with creating more pollution for the following reasons.
1) more structural integrity and larger crumple zones, which mean more mass, and lower mpg. I prefer safety over emitting more CO2.
2) I prefer to keep my house at 65F in the winter, and don't use AC in the summer. I will burn whatever amount of wood or oil is necessary to keep th temperature at that when I'm home.
3) I will burn fuel to go places, rather than sit at home all the time.
4) I will use electricity from coal burning plants freely to power the things I buy. It does no good for my money to sit in the bank. It does no good if the things I buy, sit unused. I will use my money and things to make my life happy and comfortable.
5) I will drive a relatively safe, non-optimal mpg vehicle, to ensure that I can do 3) and 4) as long as possible.
I will do all these things with the intent to do them in a way with minimal pollution effect, but they will pollute more than if I just decided to sit home in a parka, with 1 candle going, and riding a bicycle everywhere. I will use as much energy as I can afford, to be comfortable and enjoy life.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
An by the way, I haven't yet seen a good presentation by anyone explaining why a few degrees of global warming is bad. (Even assuming that such is the case)
I can, however, present one good thing about global warming (there are others):
The amount of arable farmland would increase, thereby easing a coming food shortage which will surely arise from increased population coupled with the endless meddling by environmentalists: like the plan to take valuable farm land out of production and plant trees instead because trees absorb more CO2 and CO2 is bad.
Regards, DQ
My lifetime mpg is 21.4.
I don't track gas prices, just gallons and miles. At $2 a gallon that's $12,000 for gas. At $2.50 a gallon (probably more realistic), that's $15,000.
If I had been driving a car all those years that got 40 mpg combined, I'd be ~$12,000 to $15,000 richer.
What was the question again?
I think you meant to say you would be $6000-$7000 richer. Minus the $5000 interest on a new car and the chiropractor bills for a tweaked out back getting in and out of an econobox.
And you were doing your part to try and keep your little section of Idaho warmer. Or was it too warm for you?
This was the coldest winter for daytime highs I can remember in So California. It was the warmest winter for overnight lows. Figure that one out. So all the added Obama stoves burning wood kept it warmer at night. I guess the aerosols and sulfates burning wood do not cause cooling, or do they . And burning wood was a big business this year for those out of work. People on every corner selling bundles of split firewood. I got mine free from a friend. Just had to split it. I have lost a few pounds in the process.
So life is good and my tomatoes went through the winter with NO frost. And we have had a good crop of snow peas so far this winter.
Questions about research slow climate change efforts
I like this part, which helps prove my assertion that even the "Man is Causing It" deniers can STILL see the truth behind the data that show the warming is definitely happening. Cause? Unknown. Warming? No doubt.
Inhofe's Senate website lists more than 700 scientists who disagree with the IPCC report. Many of them agree that the Earth is warming but argue that other factors, such as solar flares or ocean temperatures, play a bigger role than human activity.
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2529
I would suggest strongly reading the whole speech for yourself at the link provided.
To criticize environmentalism is for me not a new, suddenly discovered, fashionable or trendy activity. At the beginning of the 1970s I came across the first publications of the infamous Club of Rome, which tried to scare us by predicting an imminent exhaustion of natural resources and by asking for a radical change in our behavior. Its supporters had been arguing already then very dramatically that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels but – and we should not forget it – for different reasons than now. As an economist, I knew it was a wrong argumentation and the subsequent four decades proved it quite convincingly. Today, we have more proven deposits of basic raw materials and energy resources than 40 years ago. I felt already then that this was an arrogant, elitist and dirigistic doctrine attempting to stop economic growth, the overall social development and human progress.
In 1989, communism collapsed and we were finally free. To my great surprise, the environmentalist doctrine was still alive and even flourishing in its new incarnation called global warming doctrine. In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit endorsed the doctrine of global warming and climate change as a leading ideology of our times. I expected that the ideology of the free world would be based on freedom, parliamentary democracy and market economy – concepts that were absolutely crucial for us in the former communist countries in the moment of our radical and revolutionary transition from communism to free society. Life under communism made us extremely sensitive, if not oversensitive to all possible symptoms of violation and erosion of our freedom. That is the reason why I feel endangered now. The subtitle of the above mentioned book asks “What is endangered: Climate or Freedom?” My answer is resolute: climate is ok, what is under threat is freedom.
The environmentalists ask for substantial reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. When it happens – with our current technologies – it will substantially increase the costs of energy for everyone because it would imply restrictions on the use of oil and coal, which are no doubt much cheaper than all alternative energy sources. Cheap energy is the source of much of our life-style and our prosperity. When energy prices go up, the costs of nearly all other goods and services go up as well. All carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and wind and solar power subsidies are steps in the wrong direction, leading to a severe and protracted economic hardship for little or no benefit.
My lifelong experience tells me that I have to start protesting very loudly when someone tells me: “Don’t trust the market, trust me and us.” This is what I had been hearing for 40 years of my life under communism and I am not ready to accept it now. The belief in the possibility of controlling the Earth’s climate by reducing the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, I call it the theory of climate control, is as irrational, arrogant and pretentious as the communist planning that people like me were objects of for so many years.
There are plenty of arguments suggesting that the real threat for human society is not global warming itself. The real threat comes when politicians start manipulating the climate and all of us.
Fourth, the idea of a static, unchanging climate is, no doubt, foreign to the history of the Earth. The climate has always been changing and will always be.
Politicians, their bureaucrats as well as many well-meaning individuals who accept the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change probably hope that – by doing so – they are displaying intelligence, virtue and altruism. Some of them even believe they are saving the Earth. We should tell them that they are merely passive players in the hands of lobbyists, of producers of green technologies, of agrobusiness firms producing ethanol, of trading firms dealing in carbon emission rights, etc., who hope to make billions at our costs. There is no altruism there. It is a political and business cold-hearted calculation.
Before concluding, I have to repeat my question: “What is endangered?” My answer is: “our freedom, and our prosperity.”
Delivered on 25 October 2006.
Today, I am here to discuss global warming -- the single greatest environmental challenge facing our planet. So let me explain the gravity of the situation station. The fuel we use to power our homes, our cars, and our businesses is causing the earth to warm faster than anyone expected.
The first seven months of this year, and the last three decades, were the warmest in the United States since national record-keeping began in 1895. And the Earth’s temperature has climbed to the highest point it has been in the past 12,000 years.
A scientific consensus has been forged. There is broad agreement that the Earth will only get hotter. The question is how hot and why?
First, how hot?
If we act now and further temperature increases are kept to 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century, the damages – though significant – will be manageable. But if we don’t act, and warming increases by 5 to 9 degrees by the end of this century, the damage will be catastrophic and irreversible.
So we must act now.
Each of us is confronted with a choice: a choice that will impact not only our future, but the futures of our children and grandchildren. Do we continue with a business-as-usual attitude? Or do we make the changes necessary to prevent catastrophe?
Now for the question, why?
Quite simply, because we are addicted to fossil fuels. And it is the burning of these fuels – coal, oil, gasoline and natural gas and the greenhouse gases they produce – that is the primary cause of global warming.
Carbon dioxide is produced by power plants, cars, manufacturing, and to power residential and commercial buildings. And here is the key: Carbon dioxide doesn’t dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for five decades or more – causing the Earth’s temperature to rise.
That means that the carbon dioxide produced in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s is still in the atmosphere today. And the carbon dioxide produced today will still be in the atmosphere in 2050 and beyond.
And there will be serious consequences for our planet unless we make major changes. Leading scientists say that to stabilize the planet’s climate by the end of the century, we need a 70 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.
So the goal should be to stabilize carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million by 2050. This could contain further warming to 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Earth has warmed 1 degree in the past century, and we are now seeing the dramatic effects:
Oceans are rising; coral reefs are dying; species are disappearing; glaciers are melting.
We learned just last week that Greenland is now losing 20% more mass than it receives from new snowfall each year. And it will shrink further as the planet warms.
Extreme weather patterns have emerged – heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, floods – and they are occurring with greater frequency and greater intensity.
In 2003, heat waves caused 20,000 deaths in Europe and 1,500 deaths in India.
And the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled since the 1970’s. Katrina alone is testament to that.
And things will only get worse as Earth’s temperature rises. The question is: how much will the increase be?
If nothing is done if the Earth warms 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, the face of our planet will change forever.
The Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets would melt completely. These two ice sheets currently hold 20 percent of the Earth’s fresh water.
Sea levels could well rise by 20 feet. Think about the damage that would cause to coastal areas around the world.
Additionally, hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather would become more volatile than ever. Malaria would spread.
Here in California: More than half of the Sierra snowpack would disappear. This is equal to the water supply for the 16 million people in the Los Angeles basin.
The rise in sea levels would cause catastrophic flooding – and the Los Angeles basin would be especially vulnerable.
Catastrophic wildfires would more than double.
We had a mild taste of that future in July. Here in Los Angeles, temperatures spiked to well above 100 degrees. And it was far worse in other areas of the State.
I met recently with scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
And they said to me that if they have erred, it has been because their climate projections are too conservative and the Earth may be much closer to a tipping point than science has shown thus far.
And if we move beyond that tipping point, catastrophe becomes a certainty. You can’t go back, because the carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for so long.
That’s why we must act soon and decisively.
The question is: what should we do?
The United States emits some 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, and we’re 4 percent of the world’s population. So we are the big producer.
The largest contributor to global warming is electricity generation -- 33 percent – followed by transportation -- 28 percent. These two sectors combine to make up 61 percent of the problem.
The remaining contributors are:
Industry – 20 percent
Agriculture – 7 percent
Commercial – 6.5 percent
Residential – 6.5 percent
Let me be clear: there is no silver bullet. There is no one thing that we can do to solve the problem. Every business, home, and industry must do its share. So what can be done?
Let me begin with electricity generation. This is the single largest piece of the global warming puzzle --responsible for 33 percent of global warming gases in the United States . And the biggest culprit here is pulverized coal, which is the major source of energy in 40 of the 50 states.
Coal, alone, produces 27 percent of annual carbon dioxide emissions, or 2.1 billion tons every year.
Globally, coal produces 9.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year – or one-third of all global greenhouse gas emissions. So it’s critical that we find ways to clean up coal.
Earlier this year, the Senate Energy Committee held a symposium on global warming. The consensus was that a mandatory cap-and-trade program would be the most effective way forward. And so we are working to create such a program.
We would begin with two bills – one for electricity and one for industry.
Here’s how it would work: we would cap the amount of global warming gases – including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide – and that cap would be established on all major emitters.
In all likelihood, the cap would remain at present levels for a few years to give the industry the opportunity to make the changes necessary. Gradually, these caps would be tightened, and emissions reduced.
Electricity producers would have two ways to meet the cap:
Either implement new technologies, or
Purchase credits from other companies that have reduced their emissions below the target cap. (A credit essentially is an allowance to emit a ton of greenhouse gases.)
So, the cap w
So, the cap would be met—and carbon dioxide would be reduced over time.
One of the key elements of our program is to put agriculture in the system. We would allow farmers and foresters to earn credits for moving to greener farming practices.
These include:
Tilling land less frequently;
Planting trees on vacant land; and
Converting crops to those that can be used for bio-fuels.
Farmers and growers would be able to earn dollars for acres converted to carbon sequestration and reduction.
Next we need to include other major industrial producers of carbon dioxide in a similar regime.
The fact of the matter is that cap and trade has worked before. It’s not a revolutionary concept. Using the Clean Air Act, a cap-and-trade regime was implemented in the 1980s to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from electric utility plants in the northeast. These are the primary culprits of acid rain.
In the 16 years, this scheme has been in place, sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by about 34 percent (5 million tons) and nitrogen oxide emissions have been reduced by 43 percent (3 million tons). So cap and trade can be effective.
And, the governors of seven northeastern states are instituting a cap-and trade system known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. It will become effective in 2008.
The plan is to cap carbon dioxide emissions from electricity plants at current levels until 2015; and then begin reducing emissions incrementally to achieve a 10% reduction by 2019.
And last week, Governor Schwarzenegger announced that California may well join the Northeast regional system in the trading of credits.
At the same time, I am pleased to announce that I am very close to reaching agreement with the Clean Energy Group of utilities on a cap a trade regime for electricity.
The Clean Energy Group consists of PG&E, Florida Power and Light, Exelon, Entergy, Calpine, and Public Service Enterprise group.
These companies produce 15 percent of the energy consumed in the United States today – 150,000 megawatts out of the 1 million megawatts produced nationwide. This is enough energy to power 150 million homes.
I will be introducing the legislation in the new session of Congress.
Let me take up transportation -- cars, trucks, planes, and cargo ships, which represents 28 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.
And passenger vehicles alone – cars, light-trucks, and SUVs – make up 20 percent of all U.S. emissions (1.2 tons).
Fundamentally, there are two ways to reduce these emissions.
1. Improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles.
2. Move away from oil and gasoline-based fuels and toward alternatives.
I believe we need to do both.
The good news is that the technology exists to significantly improve the fuel economy of these vehicles. The bad news is that Detroit and many foreign auto makers refuse to utilize the technologies.
So Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and I have offered legislation that would require the mileage for all cars, pick-up trucks, and SUVs to be increased from 25 to 35 miles per gallon over the next 10 years.
We call it the “ten-by-ten” bill.
If this bill becomes law:
We would save 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2025. That is the equivalent of taking 90 million cars off the road in one year.
And we would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025. By coincidence, this is the amount of oil imported daily from the Persian Gulf.
This is a simple solution, and it can be accomplished.
The other side of the transportation coin is new technologies and alternative fuels. As long as our nation continues its addiction to oil, we cannot sufficiently slow the warming trend. That’s why we need to develop new, clean technologies and alternative fuels.
This includes the electric plug-in hybrid, biofuels, E-85 using cellulosic ethanol, and fuel cells.
The good news is that substantial venture capital funding is available today for clean energy projects. Here are just a few of the most promising:
Last week I visited a Silicon Valley start-up -- Bloom Energy -- that is developing clean fuel cells that will produce both electricity and hydrogen to fuel our vehicles.
The fuel cell has cathode ink on one side, anode ink on the other, separated by zirconia sand covered plastic, which becomes the catalyst. The size is about 4 inches by 4 inches. It alone can power a 30 watt light bulb for 5 years.
Together these fuel cells can be combined to fit in a parking space, and can power a 20,000 square foot building.
The electricity is produced -- with no carbon dioxide emissions – only water and hydrogen.
This is the future, and this is what we ought to be supporting.
It is also my understanding that Bill Gates has joined with venture capitalist Vinod Khosla to spearhead investment efforts in ethanol plants which, when completed, will produce 220 million gallons by 2009.
Others are investing in new ideas – inexpensive solar panels, windmills that can be built in your backyard for $10,000, and geothermal energy that harnesses the heat of the Earth.
Chevron has formed a strategic research alliance with the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado to advance the development of biofuels. It is also working with scientists at UC Davis to develop cellulosic ethanol.
And Los Angeles has become a “Climate Action Leader” and has registered its greenhouse gases and will be seeking to reduce its emissions.
These efforts are so important, and I want to encourage you to support them.
So that’s the electricity and transportation sectors. But America needs to become much more energy efficient as well – both in terms of green building codes and individual conservation and energy use.
An aggressive energy national efficiency program could prevent a substantial amount of carbon dioxide going into the air.
This is the third prong of my proposal.
This would come from the incorporation of energy efficient building materials in construction – such as insulation, more efficient windows, and renewable technologies like solar or wind.
Green construction is also cost-effective. An initial $100,000 investment can result in a savings of $1 million or more over the life of a building of 20,000 square feet – that’s about the size of a Safeway or Borders bookstore.
And the bigger the building, the greater the potential savings.
Individuals can also make a difference. This means carpooling, using energy efficient light bulbs, and choosing ENERGY STAR appliances.
ENERGY STAR home products, such as air conditioners, furnaces, refrigerators, dishwashers, phones, DVD players, and televisions, must become standard for all Americans.
In 2005, these products saved consumers $12 billion, and reduced emissions by nearly 5 percent.
These are easy to do, and they can really make a major difference.
So early on in the 110th Congress, I plan to introduce a series of bills to meet these goals:
1. A mandatory cap-and-trade program for electricity.
A mandatory cap-and-trade program for industry.
2. Then “ten-by-ten bill,” requiring increased mileage of 10 miles per gallon within the next 10 years. That means mileage would go from 25 to 35 miles per gallon.
3. An alternative fuels bill that requires 70 percent of all vehicles produced after 2014 to be flex-fuel capable. The cost is small, $100 per vehicle.
These vehicles would be required to have a green gas cap to show the owner that the car can accept other fuels.
We would also require that gas stations owned and operated by major oil companies have at least one pump that provides alternative fuels at every station.
4. The fourth bill will be a national energy efficiency program -- including strict appliance and building standards and requiring utilities to use energy efficiency measures to meet a portion of their demand.
5. Elimination of the protectionist tariff (54 cents per gallon) placed on Brazilian ethanol. This was done at the behest of the corn industry – to make imported ethanol non-competitive. It is estimated that Brazilian produced E-85 will be cheaper and work better.
And Senator Craig Thomas and I are working on a plan to use Wyoming Powder River Coal to produce cleaner electricity by sequestering carbon dioxide. The power will then be sold to Western States including California.
These bills are just the beginning.
Additionally, the U.S. must make addressing global warming a top priority and join the European Union and other nations in reducing emissions. We can, and must lead. But this won’t solve the problem.
Here’s why: the United States certainly leads in the production of greenhouse gases, but we are closely followed by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, and India. So all countries must participate.
The Kyoto Protocol is certainly not perfect, and it will expire in 2012. So the U.S. needs to gear up and be a leader.
At the same time, the United States should also lead an effort with China to create a public-private partnership fund to prioritize bilateral global warming projects.
China’s coal use outpaces that of the United States, EU, and Japan combined. Coal accounts for 70 percent of China’s energy needs. China is building a new pulverized coal power plant every week. China will soon pass the United States as the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. If China continues its course, it could cause carbon dioxide levels to quadruple. So it’s vital to engage China.
That is why a private/public partnership that funds key carbon dioxide reduction projects on a bilateral basis is so important.
The business community should consider investing in joint ventures to develop clean power quickly in China, as well as the United States.
Bottom line: now is the time to act.
And here’s what I’d like to ask you to do. Please support these bills.
Let the members of the House and the Senate you support them.
Right now, the mentality of the congress is do-nothing, and it won’t work.
The choice is clear. It is time to stop talking and to begin acting.
Thank you.
It would be very funny if it weren't so ironic!
"I look at it like this: Let's say that you're in your car, you open up the owner's manual, and you discover a typo on page 225. Does that mean you stop driving the car? Of course not. Those are the kind of errors we're talking about here," Mann says. "Nothing has fundamentally changed."
Seeing that I have an MS degree, I feel academically qualified to state that Michael Mann is wrong in downplaying the errors as typos. Examples of typos are: when you omit a word, duplicate a word or misspell something. A typo is not when you have whole paragraphs of fictitious information, from a dubious unchecked source!! The errors that have been noted are errors with adjusted and missing data, and calculations leading to CONTENT statements. It is the stated data and facts, and their conclusions which have errors, and have led to doubts.
This sort of error if likened to a vehicle manual, is like having a page in the manual describe how to adjust the automatic climate control system, when the vehicle isn't even offered with that feature. It makes you question what else could be wrong with the rest of the manual, seeing that it wasn't carefully considered on that page! :P
But the rest looked like reasonable, well-thought out programs.
Reduce coal burning.
Put more fuel-efficient cars on the road.
Efficient building practices, using wind and solar where possible.
Sometimes you have to fight through all the garbage to see the good ideas, but they are in there.
Personally I don't have a problem with costly energy prices. I am fortunate enough to be insulated from even a ten-fold increase. It is the effects on all those less fortunate than me that I am pointing out, whether they are willing participants or not.
You are debating a strawman. Several of us have said that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own over the centuries. But if the earth is warming on its own, then why impose costly regulations on people and businesses that make everyone poorer and have no effect on global temperatures?
And please note that there is still a debate as to whether global temperatures have risen over the past 15 years. Climategate started when several proponents of manmade global warming massaged data that showed no warming over that time span.
Here is the sort of ignorance coming from the Pen of Diane Feinstein.
Published: December 21, 2009
AMBOY, Calif. — Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.
I would not waste my time reading anything that trollop writes. Her, Pelosi and Waxman have done more harm to Californians than is imaginable. And the idiots in the cities keep electing them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/business/energy-environment/22solar.html
But I posted her speech for the GOOD IDEAS in it, not the sucky ones,
So why do we need cars that get 40 mpg combined?
Knowing the immense power of the Sun relative to anything we do here on Earth, I believe that this weakening of the Earth's magnetic field will in the next few decades become apparent as the #1 environmental issue. I would not be surprised if by the next century mankind is not digging extensive shelters underground, to which mankind will have to retreat in a growing number of areas of the world, during the worst of solar-storms.
Any changes that occur in or on the Sun will eventually affect every person alive. The solar activity during this last sunspot cycle was greater than anything ever seen before. One study, authored by Dr Mike Lockwood and colleagues from Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, UK, in 1999, investigated the Sun's activity over the previous 100 years. They reported that since 1901 the overall magnetic field of the Sun has become stronger by 230 per cent. Scientists do not understand what that means for us. Some of the sunspot activity in this last cycle was greater than anything ever recorded before. But scientists claim that they don't understand what that means, either.
If it weren't for the Earth's protective magnetic field and atmosphere, this bombardment of particles would burn us to a crisp.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/06/392087.shtml
Besides the steady increase of cosmic rays that the Earth will receive with a weakening electromagnetic field, the concern during the sunspot cycles of the Sun is that we are in line with 1 of these CME's "with our shields down".
Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are eruptions into interplanetary space of as much as a few billion tons of plasma and embedded magnetic fields from the Sun's corona.
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/cme.html
There are far more important changes and concerns than CO2 levels rising a few ppm!!
HEY, my math is just as good any of those hockey stick guys. :P
Murphydog, I haven't had a commute since 1983. My old subcompact 1982 Tercel wound up with around 114,000 miles when I sold it mid 1999. And for seven of those years, it was the only car for the two of us.
You do the math.
Still, doubling my mpg to 40 would be sweet. Gas is over $3.00 for premium and RUG isn't far behind.
My wife and I talked about that today. We mostly drive the Sequoia at 15 MPG around town. We could buy a Jetta Sportwagen TDI for probably about $28k cash out the door. How long would it take us to recoup that expense? We would still drive the Sequoia out to the desert when we take friends. I would not subject anyone to that kind of back seat for 100 miles or more. As much as I would like a diesel rig in my garage. I am having a hard time parting with the cash. So I guess you all are going to have to put up with it getting warmer when I drive my big honkin' SUV.
Same reason I paid $150 for a well-used Laser Jet 8 or 10 years ago when I could have gotten 3 or 4 ink jets. Toner lasts forever.
Still need to get solar or wind or that Bloom box down to an affordable level with a 7 year payback though.
Now to put that $9 trip to Costco in perspective with a new $28k Jetta TDI. That is over 3100 trips to Costco. Or once a week for 59 years. And I have a lot more room, comfort and safety in the Sequoia. Even more of a stretch would be the X5 diesel I really liked driving. It is not as big or comfortable as the Sequoia. It is faster and better handling and would probably get me 8-10 MPG better on average. I would not live long enough to justify any of them. I just wish some time I was not so practical and frugal.
As much as I dislike the NAV and audio in the Sequoia, it will probably stay in our fleet for the foreseeable future. If Barry has another C4C I may trade in the Ford Ranger or Lexus on something more practical. Not likely though.
MPs on the home affairs select committee said the drug was devastating Colombian rainforests because trees are knocked down to grow coca plants.
Group chairman Keith Vaz said: "We were horrified to learn for every few lines of cocaine snorted in a London club, four square metres of rainforest is destroyed."
Glad to hear that before I sell my SUV. :P
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the adverts – which were based on the children's poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub – made exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming.
In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said.
It noted that predictions about the potential global impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that the adverts failed to reflect.
The two posters created on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.
One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7440664/Government-re- buked-over-global-warming-nursery-rhyme-adverts.html
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Normal, for the most part, with occasional hyper-ness
Right now I moderate what I do - having in mind a certain gas budget/month.
It goes back to my theory that the nation uses energy roughly in-line with's its GDP. The more I make, which I'm encouraged to do - be successful, make the country successful, the more things I buy (manufacturing and transport) and the more I travel and recreate.
But it's comforting to know that mankind's CO2 emissions are but a few % of those emitted naturally. So "don't worry be happy" and "In Heaven there is no gas, so that's why we burn it here".
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/17/news/economy/cap_and_hybrid/index.htm?source=cnn- _bin&hpt=Sbin
The tax isn't expected to be huge -- starting at something under 10 cents a gallon for gasoline and moving up to maybe 20 cents a gallon after 10 years, said Kevin Book, Managing Director of research at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington D.C.-based research firm.
And the tax isn't expected to discourage people from driving, said Book, as it's too gradual and small to have much of an impact.
Hey genius, 10% of the population is trying to survive on unemployment pay right now! And record numbers of people are still facing foreclosure. There's no guarantee that's going to get better anytime soon!
But revenue from it would likely be spent on other, cleaner transportation projects like mass transit or subsidies for hybrid cars.
No comment.
For utilities, a cap-and-trade law allows them to upgrade their equipment and pass the cost along to consumers. And under the House cap-and-trade bill, the pass-through to consumers is offset by plans that allow reductions to come from things like planting trees and rebates for low income ratepayers. The Congressional Budget Office said the House bill would cost the average household an additional $175 a year.
Added to the gas-cost-increase mentioned above!
To get around this, the Senate plan calls for some delay in holding factories accountable to the new rules -- maybe five to 10 years.
More likely so that they don't get voted out, and the tax will be forgotten about as it phases in years later. So when costs go up, and manufacturing losses more jobs, you won't be thinking of why things have gotten worse.
The best thing DC can do for me is to put a freeze on all new legislation; and start reviewing their existing laws, regulations, programs and departments and cutting what isn't essential. It is DC and our local governments which are strangling the U.S. economy and society! :mad:
From the debates here, the ONE THING FOR SURE that most agree on is that "we do not know what is causing the warming" and until we can rule out "man's activity" then of course we need to keep studying it !!
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi wrote to Alcoa chief executive Klaus Kleinfeld on Friday not to take a decision on the matter before the European Commission evaluates government measures to lower energy costs.
Electricity is the countries life blood. Even more than oil. If we regulate it to the extent that it is in many states we will further cripple our economy. The idea that we can replace coal with solar and wind is just so unrealistic. And becoming more so every day as projects get shot down by the very folks that have pushed for alternatives.
"the idea that we can replace coal with solar and wind is just so unrealistic."
Gary, you don't (seem to) understand.
Fossil fuels are a LIMITED supply. They WILL run low some day. It will someday cost a lot more to get the last of the coal out of the ground. When, 50, 75 years? Who knows, but SOMEDAY it's gonna happen. It's as inevitable as death and taxes.
Sunlight - unlimited supply.
Wind, in certain areas - unlimited supply.
Now, as a Republican, of course I want the regulations to free up business and keep people employed while still accomplishing the goal of cleaner power generation.
But you can put all those coal workers to work installing and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines just as easily as you have them mining coal.
It only makes sense, when planning for future generations, to get off coal and oil as electricity generation fuels.
Not true in the least. According to the Sierra club, there is 25,000 years supply of coal under Lake Powell. Of course that was part of their push to block that lake from being built. We do have known coal reserves of at least 400 years in the USA. I don't think the earth will be around that long. I am sure you and I will not be.
Now, as a Republican, of course I want the regulations to free up business and keep people employed while still accomplishing the goal of cleaner power generation.
You still have to get past the Democrats that want solar and Wind. Just Not in Their Back Yard. SDG&E has been blocked on both except on the Indian Reservations where the Eco Nuts have NO say. They have very limited land for Wind. Solar has not been proven feasible for utility power generation. Still in the engineering phase. Our big solar collector was supposed to go online in 2008. Still on hold last I read.
Better lock your solar panels down Larsb. Here is the latest trend in solar panels.
Forty solar panels were stolen from the city of Napa’s water treatment plant at Lake Hennessey, the Napa County Sheriff’s Department reported Friday.
A city representative estimated the loss at $30,000.
The stolen Sanyo 3-by-4.5 foot solar panels, each of which weighs 33 pounds, are part of a $2.7 million solar collector system the city installed in July 2006 at the foot of Conn Dam to generate power. The system was paid in part with PG&E rebates.
Solar panel technology is making leaps and bounds in the labs.
In Texas, they are generating so much wind their wired infrastructure cannot keep up.
No reason to keep burning dirty coal and polluting the coal towns forever when there WILL BE cleaner and cheaper solutions in the coming decades.
As long as the NIMBYs and LULUs block the alternative energy sources we have a problem. With Coal you do not have to depend on mother nature to supply the energy.
Personally - even if I could get a zoning variance on height for a windmill, the cost of the windmill + the interest on the loan would far exceed my $90/month on-the-grid bill. So it is not cheaper, and I don't try to do it. Solar - between lack of sunshine being so far north, and maintenance (snow removal, leaf removal in Fall), I'm not putting one on the roof. If it's feasible let the electricity generator put out a few square miles of panels and then transmit the energy to me. Again, I'm sure the electricity company makes this evaluation regularly.
They.
Will.
Be.
Huge areas in Texas, which can ship power to several nearby states, are viable for solar and wind.
There are a lot of very smart people working on alternative energy sources and working on solving all the problems/hurdles that are preventing them from wider adoption.
Please enlighten me as to what line of investigation you would take to prove a negative. You are asking the impossible.
How long would the investigation have to be to prove that too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not causing earthquakes?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Proving Negatives
I'm not a climate scientist, so I would not know.
But to assume Man has ZERO negative influence is a ridiculous stance to take.
That would be good, because the world population is predicted to just-about double by then. So that means we'll still need as much fossil-fuel energy as we use now. And if masses of people continue to move out of poverty, we'll be using more energy still. Remember that maybe 1 in 6 people today live a Western lifestyle, but the other 5 out of 6 (developing and 3rd world nations) want the same sort of lifestyle.
http://www.yikebike.com/site/gallery/video/yikebike-discovery-channel
The more things change....