Journal zogger's Journal: Capenhaggling in Doomark 13
This is what I have been saying about cap and trade, that it is a scam and a way for big wall street to usurp and pervert the science and reality around climate change and use it to fund themselves for another boom and bust to follow bubble. And I say "big wall street" as the more extreme carbon foes are wont to label anyone questioning motives and science around this claimed "consensus" as "being in the pockets of big oil and big coal". Their alternative, once you get down to the fine print, is to "be in the pocket of big wall street gamblers" instead.
As an environmentalist, I find that idea to be just as abhorrent and just as likely to be a failure, an expensive one, and to not do anything but further ruin the economy and not do much at all to help towards a cleaner environment, with the additional "benefit" of more (malevolent and totalitarian) nanny statism and a push towards global government.
Skimming trillions out of the global economy to fund those same crooked casino gamblers and political kommisars who have destroyed so many other aspects of the economy is *not* any way to work towards a cleaner environment, and the entire point of all of this is to have a cleaner environment just in case it helps with moderating the extremes of climate change. It's a pure enron styled con packaged up in a pretty box with green ribbons around it and sold as an emergency situation, do it or else, designed to accumulate money and power, that's it. A wolf in sheep's clothing. It is *extortion*, just like the investment so called bank's bailout was, extortion, "do it or else you are doomed".
Until this cap and scam war on carbon nonsense is airgapped from the science,(I would prefer it outright banned as just a bad idea, along with most other derivatives) I hold all of it to be suspect and to be potentially compromised in advance, i.e. "climategate", to the tune of trillion$ in "conflicts of interest" units and political power shifts. I've thought this all along since I have heard of that idea, just instantly smashed the "waitaminnit, here's the BS showing up now" warning buzzer.
Once you have a big profit motive around any political direction, compromises and corruption occur, just our past human historical record.
what is your proposal? (Score:1)
It is a tough topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Not tough at all.
Once you reject the Matrix of lies - you see the emperor has no clothes.
Re: (Score:2)
My proposal is this, based on the climate science I've seen:
Step 1, identify tropical edible plants, particularly those that are able to survive drought conditions, and plant the deserts with them.
Step 2. In more northern areas, take edible plants from the immediate south and plant jungles instead of landscaping.
Step 3. Just as we build skyscrapers now for hurricanes and with shock absorbers for earthquakes, coastal and island communities should be built with an eye towards seasteading- when the sea level
chancy (Score:1)
Something to be said for proactive terraforming, but you really have to guess *right* in species selection to pull this off. Suppose we get cooling instead of heating? If the no sunspots action stays that way well into this solar cycle, this is what we will get, cooler and wetter, co2 levels be danged, I do declare it.
I think it is better to hedge, plant a mixture of cooler tolerant and more heat and drought tolerant stuff, then let nature sort out what works the best for you in your particular micro climat
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried feeding Kudzu? It's not poisonous, grows like a bat out of hell, etc...and it seems to love the extremes.
Nope (Score:1)
Pretty lucky here, no kudzu on the property yet, so haven't seen them eat it or tried to feed it. There's a lot down the street so eventually it will get here. I know they can eat it, theoretically, and so do deer and so on, goats whatever, but so far across the south, there's no group of animals that will eat kudzu faster than it grows unless you got them in such a small pasture as they would eat anything at all to keep from starving. Once it is established it takes over near as I can see, short of massive
Re: (Score:2)
What controls Kudzu in Japan is the fact that it is an island significantly north of you, latitude-wise. Harsher winters with less sunlight are the only thing that can really control kudzu- the closest thing in the Southeastern US I've seen is Henry Edwards from North Carolina- who runs a farm called Kudzu Konnection- using a modified International Harvester to keep it trimmed low to the ground and baled for animal feed.
There's also the bean plataspid (Megacopta cribraria), a type of stinkbug native to you
tax credits (Score:2, Insightful)
Up to 100%, corporate or private, for any of the cleaner alternatives, with a decent multi year carry over period.
Example at a joe homeowner level: At 10-30% tax credits, some homeowners install large PV systems today, but it is still a rather large out of pocket expense upfront. This precludes a lot of people who want such systems from getting them obviously. Whereas, at a 100% tax credit level, say up to at least 25 grand for a ten year stretch of accumulated credits, millions would opt for the system, be
1 & 2 (Score:1)
1) Will capping carbon production actually do anything?--no, because it won't happen anyway, except in a few select western developed nations, not with the conjob they are proposing. It's feel good nonsense. Full bore head burning will continue unabated around most of the planet.
Can carbon production really be traded in the form of sequestering other carbon elsewhere?---it's a con on the face of it. They are taking things like already growing forests, allowing them to be called so many "credits", th
For the sake of discussion (Score:2)
I am now reading the wiki page on emissions trading. [wikipedia.org] I did not know sulfur had been subject to this regime. I may have to read up on the state of acid rain as well. [wikipedia.org] Interesting:
Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[15][16]
In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[17]
The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted
What I can say is that, in general, the more radical the environmentalist, the less likely they are to support cap and trade. While groups like The Sierra Club are generally supportive of the concept, groups like Greenpeace are not.
Why is this? It appears we have a very successful example of cap and trade with sulfur emissions. A ban
thanks (Score:2, Interesting)
That's one of the big points with co2 and declaring it a dangerous pollutant. It is vastly larger in size than the other gases, and human beings exhale the stuff, meaning we have all been declared in preliminary theory to be dangerous polluters now. It is the stuff of life and what plants need, and so on. We don't need a war on it, just use it more intelligently.
Anyway, thanks, good link, what those guys say, and more....like we *need* more foreign currency trade deficits, less jobs, higher costs for everyt
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as I said, you aren't saying anything that someone from Earth First or Greenpeace would disagree with. The fat cats can try to claim we are in the pockets of whomever, but all sane environmentalists (and even a few crazies) think cap and trade is a big scam.
Al Gore fanatics, (like my sister-in-law) on the other hand, think cap and trade is the bee's knees.