Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obana, G8 DEMAND greenhouse gas reduction

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Jul 11, 2009.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,102
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +903 / 14 / -7

  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,370
    Likes Received:
    307
    Ratings:
    +838 / 7 / -3

    Really? Gee, I wonder why...

    tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax ,tax ,tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax.....
     
  3. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,102
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +903 / 14 / -7

    So all the industrial nations' governments are conspiring to raise taxes, and the concensus among climatologists has been "manufactured" to support this taxation program, and it's all about taxes...?

    Sounds a little on the conspiratorial side to me, RW.
     
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,872
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +735 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    Great - I DEMAND that you become a Republican and obama hater.

    Let's see how that goes.

    China didn't even show up.
     
  5. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    so there will be a tax for this that the libbies will find a way to spend on other crap........so the problem will remain, but everything will be more expensive


    gotcha
     
  6. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,102
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +903 / 14 / -7

    Showed up and left early, something about having to repress Uighurs.
     
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,872
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +735 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    Whatever, the Chinese and Indians aren't going to go along - even if the obamans say pretty please.
     
  8. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,102
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +903 / 14 / -7

    You know this how? We don't need them to make kissy faces, we just need them to reduce greenhouse emissions per capita. Or more to the point in their case, to slow the increase before they get to some obscene amount, say one quarter the per capita emissions of Americans.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,872
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +735 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    Because they're growing. Fast. Short of a significant technological breakthrough it's not possible to reduce emissions with significant growth. Technological growth requires energy.
     
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,102
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +903 / 14 / -7

    Okay at least we see the same parameters here.

    Let's stipulate that we want a reduction in the global increase, and then reduction in the global total emissions, then reductions in the total unsequestered carbon in the atmosphere.

    Let's just say it's true for the sake of argument that it's a good thing to have less unsequestered carbon floating about.

    How would you go about convincing India and China?

    Thus far, all that has worked is that the industrialized nations have worked with the developing world to determine a fair regime of carbon caps. These caps have favored the developed world, on a per capita basis. They favor the developing world, on a per country basis. They do not allow the average Chinese or Indian to attain an American-sized carbon footprint, and all the runing together of "Al" and "Gore," and citing of the size of his house, that the fringies can muster, does not change this fact.

    So then: we have on our hands a process that the U.S. largely ignored for the last eight years, finally getting buy-in from what is STILL the world's largest economy (and of course the world's largest emitter, on a country-wide and per-capita basis.)

    India and China, thus far, are behaving as if bringing America into the process is worth their abiding by it.

    Do we or do we not want this?

    PFnV
     
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,872
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +735 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    You can't.

    C
    A
    N
    '
    T

    If the obamans were serious about it they would stop the oversight, caps, taxes, crap and get serious about other energy. Like converting vehicles to natural gas while working on non gas/oil alternatives. Natural gas is about 30% cleaner than oil with respect to carbon emissions.
     
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,102
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +903 / 14 / -7

    So basically you like natural gas, and you want it to be a top-down, government-driven, soviet-style mandate?

    Obama doesn't dislike natural gas. If it's 30% better per unit of energy, in fact, development of natural gas will benefit from a cap-and-trade system; it will be advantaged, and oil will be disadvantaged.

    Of course, you neglect to state whether natural gas is cleaner than the better coal-burning technologies. If it's not, you don't save even over other carbon alternatives; all you've done is add a dead-end substitute solution to the problem of energy portability (i.e., substituted nat. gas for transportation purposes, when in fact electric stores energy just fine, and generation at the source is not cleaner via gas than say coal.)

    Either way, you're advocating a Stalinist approach, whereas the Obama approach is to use market mechanisms (i.e., cap-and-trade.)

    Why do you prefer communist methodology in confronting this problem in the United States?

    PFnV
     
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,872
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +735 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    Not mandated but natural gas is cheaper and if part of the stimulus were to give tax incentives to get new or converted cars a lot of people would be on the bandwagon. I know I would.
     
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,102
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +903 / 14 / -7

    Okay, so you'd favor a tax credit for buying a natural-gas powered vehicle (such as some of the Washington area metro bus fleet)?
     
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,872
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +735 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    I think so. Not that I like the government helping to pay for cars but I think we would more than get our money back by expanding our economy by using our own resources, we have about 2,000,000,000,000,000 (2 thousand trillion) cubic feet according to Pickens. We could create a gazillion jobs getting it and then using it. Meanwhile the middle east would be left to drink their oil.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>