Can reducing greenhouse emissions be a gas? Ron Bailey thinks so.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Lowdog | August 10, 2005, 2:23pm | #
But denying people what they want is a 'Good Thing'. We have become to hedonistic and libertine in our world today. People should be made to suffer for their own good. It builds character, or something./snark off
M1EK | August 10, 2005, 2:41pm | #
This is a friggin' joke. More 'voluntary' pollution standards from Our Man Bush, and the randroids can't get on board fast enough.And the comments about Europe really miss the boat - there's a long lead time to payback on any investments in less CO2-intensive energy development, i.e., Germany's strong investment in wind and solar started to be made a while back but most of those facilities aren't even built yet.
Here's a tip: the only thing that will work is a tax on carbon emissions. Tax goes up a bit each year until it reaches a level at which a general equilibrium of (current emissions - some big chunk) is reached. Let the market then figure out what the best energy technologies are.
If more libertarians were honest about externalities instead of just being frustrated suburban Republican SUV drivers who like to smoke pot, a carbon tax would be seen as the easy no-brainer. But instead we get troglodytes like the first commenter who devolve into Rush Limbaughisms.
drf | August 10, 2005, 2:43pm | #
"Rationing is also painful—it means denying people something that they want."so is going to the gym to run off these extra fucking pounds i have and to keep my hypertension in check. I'd want to sit around, watching movies and drinking beers.
While I understand the Sheeple don't understand sacrafice and don't like it (Carter's "put on a sweater" speech comes to mind), we can easily see the most ardent, over-zealous liar global warming exploiter using a Hypertension-style comment above. It seems like a straw man for a straw man who's greased up on the slippery slope, ready to get humped like a rented blow-up noam chomsky doll.
While I do regard many (see below) of the global warming types with skepticism, I do not find that line of argumentation particularly compelling, especially given the first sentence of the article, "Assume dangerous global warming is happening".
If the case against anthropogenic warming is so strong, and if the case set by the global warming cassandras is as weak as many would have us believe, we wouldn't need that type of argumentation.
But this is like the 2nd hand smoke argument. I personally dont like smoke, but i tend to puke at the lack of principles on the two extremes of that argument, too.
Any thoughts?
cheers,
drf
Kevin Carson | August 10, 2005, 2:49pm | #
Cheap energy (and cheap transportation) don't fuel growth and development. They fuel the consumption of energy and transportation, and make it less costly to use these factors inefficiently. They render the firms that rely most heavily on these factors artificially competitive against smaller firms producing for decentralized local markets. Cheap energy and cheap transportation simply inflate the distance between things, and render the economy more dependent on energy and transportation than it would otherwise be.The solution is not Kyoto statism, but for fuel and transportation prices to fully internalized costs. That means funding the interstates with weight-distance tolls on trucks, and eliminating the U.S. political role in guaranteeing access to the Persian Gulf and Caspian oil reserves.
M1EK | August 10, 2005, 2:53pm | #
Kevin,Amen. Although you'd probably want a railroad stimulus of some kind at the same time in order to prevent an economic logjam, given the difficulty the individual railroads would have in handling increased traffic (to say nothing of the impossibility for them to build new rail lines without some government intervention).
R C Dean | August 10, 2005, 2:54pm | #
Cheap energy (and cheap transportation) don't fuel growth and development.Sure they do. Cheap anything frees up resources that can be invested in something else. Spending more to obtain the same thing is a deadweight cost that drags down growth.
Ah, the old shibboleth of "fully internalized costs." Well, if we offset fully internalized costs with fully internalized benefits first, then we can talk.
M1EK | August 10, 2005, 2:57pm | #
RC,"Cheap anything frees up resources that can be invested in something else."
Point is it's not any cheaper overall; just cheaper to the guy wasting the energy. The rest of us pay in the form of higher taxes (fund current war in Iraq; high property and sales tax contributions to roadways for commuters and freight-truckers; etc).
There are essentially zero externalized benefits from subsidizing energy wasters.
Lowdog | August 10, 2005, 3:19pm | #
Actually, M1EK, drf, I wasn't commenting on global warming, per se, but the tendency of many liberals/environmentalists who think we shouldn't be so happy with our succes. In fact, we should be ashamed of it. Also those conservatives/religious nut-jobs who think we don't kowtow enough to irrational beliefs in religion, 'traditional' marriage, and the like. And maybe even trying to bait mr marius just a little. :)As far as climate change, I'm pretty much in agreement with Hakluyt (see his posts from yesterday) that we don't really know yet, but that I could be persuaded with sufficient proof. However, I don't see that as being very easy, considering how complex of a system climate is. I also think the gov't needs to lessen some of the onerous barriers to nuclear energy so that we can increase it's use for our needs. I'm also in favour in looking at alternate fuel sources, especially in vehicles, although that is another difficult proposition.
I could go on, but I think that's a good start.
When a computer model can tell me whether I will need an umbrella six days from now with greater than 50% accuracy, I will start listening to its predictions for half a century in the future.
drf | August 10, 2005, 3:32pm | #
Lowdog - i was trying to express your views too, along with a general skepticsm towards the strong believers on all sides - it didn't work. You expressed it much better, avoiding the canadian spelling and all.:)
Matt | August 10, 2005, 3:34pm | #
I also think the gov't needs to lessen some of the onerous barriers to nuclear energy so that we can increase it's use for our needsLowdog, You mean the barriers like not subsidizing, if not completely picking up the tab, for the entire cost of insurance on these plants? Or do you mean the barriers like paying for the cost of transporting and maintaining nuke waste sites? Which onerous barriers are you talkin' bout? I suspect you'll point to the laws prohibiting any new reactors. Tell you what, I'll vote for repealing those laws if you'll invoke some free-market mojo on Nuc-energy and have them pay for their own damn insurance and waste disposal.
M1EK | August 10, 2005, 3:35pm | #
JMoore,"When a computer model can tell me whether I will need an umbrella six days from now with greater than 50% accuracy, I will start listening to its predictions for half a century in the future."
You betray a stunning ignorance of the distinction between global climate and local weather. Please go get some education, quickly.
Pollard | August 10, 2005, 3:38pm | #
M1EK,Are you a meteorologist, or do you base your stance on reports of what other people reported to reporters?
You betray a stunning ignorance of basic civility. Please go get some class, quickly.
JMoore | August 10, 2005, 3:39pm | #
M1EKYou display a stunning ignorance of the limits of computer modelling. Please stop watching "The Day After Tomorrow."
Lowdog | August 10, 2005, 3:40pm | #
Sorry drf, I misread your post. Now that I re-read it, I don't think you were really commenting towards me in particular.I also want to say that there's no fucking way I'd support Kyoto. What a bunch of dumb shit that is. Sure, make those countries that are actually becoming advanced enough to actually be rolling back our pollution levels curb their production so their progress stops. Great idea.
Honestly, I don't know enough about it from the scientific side to have any great revelation about how we're going to help the environment. I just think that continuing advancement in wealth leads to advancement in technology and allows people to have to free time to realise that maybe we should do something. And I'm not even talking about climate change, but just making sure we keep some trees and other 'wild' areas around to enjoy.
If all you're worried about is where you're going to get your next meal, or how to stay warm, you couldn't give a shit less about that poor endangered tree or owl over there.
Anvilwyrm | August 10, 2005, 3:40pm | #
Isn't there a tax on all nuke power specifically to cover the storage and transport of waste?Not exactly a subsidy....
wellfellow | August 10, 2005, 3:41pm | #
"You betray a stunning ignorance of the distinction between global climate and local weather"Yes, they are distinct. And yes, computer models can hardly predict either.
Thank you, Pollard. I meant to say that, but I decided to take the low road as well.
Isaac Bartram | August 10, 2005, 3:52pm | #
AnvilwyrmIsn't there a tax on all nuke power specifically to cover the storage and transport of waste?
I believe I've heard that having paid the tax the plant operators are then relieved of meeting the actual costs of storage and transport.
Given the govt's record and its interest in promoting nuke energy in the past it is likely that they have lowballed the cost estimates and the public will be left on the hook for meeting the shortfall.
So yes, in a nushell it's probably a subsidy.
joe | August 10, 2005, 3:53pm | #
I take exception to Kevin Carson's comment "Cheap energy (and cheap transportation) don't fuel growth and development."If the locations made more accessible by the transportation investment contains the same things (jobs, resources, manufacuting capacity) as your surrounding region, this may be true. However, if the transportation investment allows your local economy to access things that aren't locally available, or are more expensive locally, than the transportation investment can enhance overall growth, even given the cost of that investment.
Isaac Bartram | August 10, 2005, 3:53pm | #
nushell sb nutshelldrf | August 10, 2005, 3:56pm | #
Howdy Lowdog!we both jumped on that rationing sentence. That's why - but no i was only throwing out some stuff. Still, you were expressing what i can't seem to say well at all.
And I generally share the wealth idea with you, too. But - how can we get firms or customers to be forward thinking about this. I mean renewable energy (highly efficient solar cells on tops of buildings etc. or wind power that kicks ass or something like this - sure, now it's a pipe dream) and suchlike would change the inputs used in production. It would reduce costs.
There is a positive allure to funding efficient solutions that can be immediately applied to the developing world, for example. We can skip the leaded gas 2 stroke noisy dirty engine phase there. We can skip, maybe, some growing pains in the developing world. Maybe. Yes - this idea is compelling, and I like the idea of being able to cross Western Avenue and not choke. I like the idea of not worrying about brown outs because Com Ed fucks up. I'd like to be able to just clean off the cell on the roof and go from there.
I kinda like the idea of an airconditioner that cools more and costs less. I like these ideas. It means that the opportunity costs from electricity drops. I like that.
How do we get there? Yes government can coerce private industry. Yes some brave, wealthy soul could come up with a solex agitator (a la "Man with the Golden Gun") or something. Do I see Standard Oil of Ohio undertaking such a risk? No. Do I see some other private company doing it either? No.
Might this be like AA in the 50s, where something was needed to prime the pump to tell the crackers to fuck off? Maybe. I don't know. Might we need a pump primer to start this off? Maybe. Again, I don't know.
And what are the short term and long term costs and benefits here? AVOIDING the immediate "cost benefit" analysis as a means of throwing out any hope for renewable energy - but without government provided distortions can the market failure here be avoided? Can there be some sort of acceptable cost-benefit point?
Maybe permits is a good solution. Markets do quite well for themselves.
But my skepticism of the hardcore people on all sides is still there. The tone of the debate around this subject doesn't help matters.
Matt | August 10, 2005, 4:02pm | #
AnvilwyrmIsn't there a tax on all nuke power specifically to cover the storage and transport of waste?
Dont know all the details but I do know Ive read that insurance companies wouldnt touch the nuclear plants so the Feds stepped in and covered the risk.
Ruthless | August 10, 2005, 4:05pm | #
Where's the money coming from to buy the carrots?Excuse me if I missed it.
drf | August 10, 2005, 4:08pm | #
Dammit, Ruthless - you're bringing in reality to my fantasy world above. Since corporations wouldn't stick their necks out that far, the money would come from government programs. We can see where this discussion would be headed, then.Joe: and isn't that the concept behind WalMart's Distribution centers? (transportation)
cheers,
drf
Isaac Bartram | August 10, 2005, 4:12pm | #
MattDont know all the details but I do know Ive read that insurance companies wouldnt touch the nuclear plants so the Feds stepped in and covered the risk.
Liability is a separate issue.
It's covered by the Price-Anderson Act (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Price-Anderson+Act) which limits an operators liability in case of a nuclear accident to a very low sum.
Price-Anderson is disliked by libertarians and environmentalists alike.
So could the increasing transportation costs of agricultural products get to the point where it offsets the sundry subsidies and allows "developing" nations to actually develop? Maybe Kyoto is worth a second look after all.
joe | August 10, 2005, 4:33pm | #
drf,That's the theory behind all transportation hubs, public and private. They're costs, but bring benefits.
drf | August 10, 2005, 4:37pm | #
thanks, Joe!now if we can get some theory into practice about how the baggage collection/distribution at O'Hare follows the "benefit" part :)
cheers,
drf
Russ R | August 10, 2005, 5:28pm | #
M1EK:"Here's a tip: the only thing that will work is a tax on carbon emissions. Tax goes up a bit each year until it reaches a level at which a general equilibrium of (current emissions - some big chunk) is reached. Let the market then figure out what the best energy technologies are."
A tax on carbon emissions. Sounds simple in theory... how do you plan on making it work in practice? Who's going to collect the tax? From whom? Will this require tailpipe carbon meters?
Who's going to set the tax rate? How? What's thier objective? Maximize tax revenue, minimize emissions? Achieve a "general equilibrium" of something? What exactly should that something be?
Where will the tax revenue go? What should it fund?
You're going to have to fill in a few more details if you want to make a convincing argument in favour of such a tax.
M1EK | August 10, 2005, 5:40pm | #
Pollard,It's not difficult to discern what pretty much every climatologist not in the pay of the Exxon guys is saying. You're nothing but a lousy liar if you're trying to assert that the science about GW isn't settled to the degree that they pretty much all think something needs to be done.
And no, I won't waste civility on liars.
M1EK | August 10, 2005, 5:42pm | #
Russ,Carbon taxes are pretty easy - you can hit motor vehicle fuels even more reliably and fairly than the current half-assed pretend-we're-funding-roadways-but-oh-no-we-need-a-bunch-more-money gasoline tax model. Coal is trivial to tax; as is natural gas. Pretending that a carbon tax is too hard is disingenuous - it's easier than what we do today with plenty of other taxes.
M1EK | August 10, 2005, 5:49pm | #
JMoore,"M1EK
You display a stunning ignorance of the limits of computer modelling. Please stop watching "The Day After Tomorrow.""
You're a liar. Climate modelling is, today, capable of getting very close to current climatological conditions when fed in past historical data; the lie that models can't even get to current conditions (a necessary part of the claim that they're still not good enough) hasn't been true for at least five or ten YEARS now.
A recent article from the well-known liberal rag the Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050606-111933-8954r.htm
General discussion on climate models' accuracy, with information about the 'shrinking gap' between observations and model predictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming
Brad | August 10, 2005, 6:02pm | #
Russ R:Taxes should be levied per gallon of fuel times the emissions effiency of the instrument. This will cover everything from manufacturing to cars. Many cities already have mandatory tests for emissions.
The money collected from the taxes pays for the carrot to develop zero emissions technologies.
Of course, the money would probably end up paying for anti-drug ads on TV. Carrots in the hands of any government invariably get turned into sticks.
M1EK | August 10, 2005, 6:07pm | #
Brad,Even if the revenue is used for general spending, it's still a positive instrument in reducing the negative externality. More typically, it can displace other, more damaging, forms of taxation. (pay for roads more out of gas taxes and less out of property taxes = less subsidization of driving, for instance).
Russ R | August 10, 2005, 6:19pm | #
M1EK:"Carbon taxes are pretty easy - you can hit motor vehicle fuels even more reliably and fairly than the current half-assed pretend-we're-funding-roadways-but-oh-no-we-need-a-bunch-more-money gasoline tax model. Coal is trivial to tax; as is natural gas. Pretending that a carbon tax is too hard is disingenuous - it's easier than what we do today with plenty of other taxes."
You've only answered the first of my questions... so you'll tax fuels at source rather than measuring and taxing emissions directly. No problem. I'll buy that part.
How will you you how much to tax fuels to pay for this alleged externality?
Correction: How will you know how much to tax fuels to pay for this alleged externality?
John | August 10, 2005, 6:24pm | #
I am constantly amazed how so many alleged "libertarians" jump on the global warming bandwagon. Yeah, let’s tax the hell out of gasoline and any kind of carbon based energy. Let’s make it so expensive that no one but the very rich can afford to drive a car bigger than Smartcar. Let’s make truck transportation so expensive that the cost of food goes through the roof. Let’s make electricity so scarce and expensive that few people can afford to use it. Yeah, that will be one hell of a free society.You don't pull reductions in emissions out of your ass. They come from somewhere. You either get them through increased efficiency or by decreasing the use of fossil fuels. Efficiency is a great way to do it. There are always economic reasons independent of government intervention to be more efficient, so there is probably not much more efficiency that doesn't already occur. You are left then with reducing consumption, with is another way of saying reducing the standard of living. Economic power and affluence is, while not the only measure, certainly a large measure of freedom. Affluence gives us the freedom to choose the lifestyle that suits us. Someone who is living at or near subsistence level isn't very free even before government restrictions on his freedom which inevitably come. Money and affluence equals freedom. Anytime someone is advocating the reduction in standard of living and affluence, they are really advocating the reduction in freedom.
Lowdog | August 10, 2005, 7:17pm | #
M1EK - using wikipedia for a source isn't gonna cut it. That article could have been written by anyone. Like someone who's already bought all-in to 'global climate change is happening'.Also, try looking this article. It discusses sunspot cycles and their effect on earth climate. While they can infer a lot, there is still some they don't know.
I'm sorry, but we're still a long way off from having an accurate climate model. And even though they're different, it's still important to note we can't predict localised weather, either. Why is that so hard to fathom?
And again, I'm not saying global climate change isn't happening, but stiffling growth is not the best way to stop it if it is.
Just think of all the other benefits of a carbon tax. All by itself it would eliminate obesity and clean the air. "It's the carrot stick that's good in all low-carb diets, introducing the carbon tax!" (canned cheers in background) sponsored by the meat growers association.
Brad | August 10, 2005, 7:53pm | #
John:Trust me, I am as for affluence and freedom as much as the next capitalist. I agree that there is a direct correlation between affluence and freedom. But freedom is NOT having the money to go to the store to buy a DVD or a houseboat, it is being legally allowed to do as such. Do not confuse material capability with legal freedom: they are two entirely different concepts.
In the borderlands between free markets and public domain, there are many slippery slopes that need careful attention. For example, I should be allowed to carry a firearm, but what about a rocket launcher? I should be allowed to get stoned out of my mind, but what about driving a semi while doing it?
I have a right to breath clean air as much as you have a right to drive an SUV. We must clearly define property rights for each person's share of a public asset such as clean air. Setting up semi-market based system of taxing usage or rewarding efficiency is a good step: the border must be defined, so define it by use.
This would also address another problem with costs for which no market has accounted. The federal government built a huge roadway system for which the populace was taxed (roughly) evenly. This created an artificial demand (i.e. not market created) for vehicles most effective at utilizing the roadway system: cars and trucks rather than planes and railways (or even, say, a phone call rather than a trip in person).
Every time you drive your car on the road, you are cashing in on taxes paid by people that do not drive as much. These costs (pollution, road building) should be accounted for so that the market is not artificially unbalanced. You can do that with the carrot or the stick, but Bailey is right, the carrot is probably better.
Dedskin | August 10, 2005, 9:12pm | #
Boy is this ever a weird blog for Reason.I am amazed that so many people have bought in so thoroughly to the idea that government has the need and ability to reduce human-generated CO2 emissions. You really want to screw-up the environment? Let the government fix it.
Yes, there is a human caused component to global warming, but it is difficult to quantify, and there is no consensus on how much effect the CO2 reductions will have. Latest estimates show that even draconian cuts in CO2 will have a barely noticeable effect on global warming.
So we're going to suffer trillions of dollars in spending and a loss of personal freedoms, just because some people want to live next to the ocean. Here's a cheaper idea: buy their houses and build a dike -- to handle that whopping 2 foot rise in sea level.
Instead of advocating MORE taxes, how about CUTTING taxes to generate non-fossile-fuel incentives. Let individuals make their own choices about this stuff.
Never thought I'd see the day so many so-called libertarians would be arguing about how to create more taxes.
Brian Courts | August 10, 2005, 9:44pm | #
You're nothing but a lousy liar if you're trying to assert that the science about GW isn't settled to the degree that they pretty much all think something needs to be done.Yet another example of M1EK's charming tolerance of different opinions. Wtf is it with this guy? I am starting to think it's just pathological; everyone that disagrees with him on climate, transit, the environment in general, or anything else, is either paid by the oil industry, a GOP shill, a "liar for hire" or all three. Can we please stop feeding this pathetic troll? Even if you agree that GW is a serious problem that requires action, do you really want someone who makes that kind of statement on your side?
It's one thing to call someone dishonest when there is evidence to that effect - but to routinely throw that out as one's preferred method of argument ought to be embarrassing to anyone with a modicum of shame. To childishly believe you can win the debate by begging the question and calling anyone in opposition a "lousy liar" simply does not deserve the respect of a substantive response.
Russ R | August 10, 2005, 9:47pm | #
Lowdog:"And again, I'm not saying global climate change isn't happening, but stiffling growth is not the best way to stop it if it is."
Again, assuming that climate change is really happening, and assuming that humankind's CO2 emissions are really a cause, and assuming that global treaties or government policies could possibly be effective, perhaps we shouldn't be asking "What's the best way to stop it?", and ought to instead consider the question "Should climate change be stopped at all?".
I have yet to see a good cost/benefit analysis of global interventions to halt or reverse climate change.
Rick Barton | August 11, 2005, 1:10am | #
M1EK:You're nothing but a lousy liar if you're trying to assert that the science about GW isn't settled to the degree that they pretty much all think something needs to be done.
That's just not true. The problem with positing a link between human activity and global warming is that there have been periods of global warming when human activity couldn't *possibly* explain it and these warming periods correlated well to solar activity as do more recent warming episodes, including the current one:
"Sun more active than for a millennium"
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
"New Perspectives in Climate Science: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us"
http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/2003-07-28-climate_report.pdf
And speaking of "lousy liars"-There have been episodes where both the political and scientific leadership among global warming advocates have shamefully encouraged dishonesty on behalf of the global warming cause. When the facts are really on your side, you don't have to tell folks to lie.
Rick Barton | August 11, 2005, 1:52am | #
...These appeals to dishonesty among GW advocates have been so outrageous and so void of compunction that we should examine very carefully any claims of these folks. Especially when they serve as pretext for plans to limit our liberty.Kahn, the Great Witch Doctor | August 11, 2005, 2:51am | #
These appeals to dishonesty among GW advocates have been so outrageous and so void of compunction that we should examine very carefully any claims of these folks.Oh ye of little faith. Don't you know it's scientists who are making those GW predictions about the end of the world? You mean to tell us you don't trust scientists?
Sam | August 11, 2005, 7:02am | #
Hello allI love these discussions. :)
Is A-GW happening? These guys think so, and they are climatologists, not politicians or biased corporates, nor wannabe experts or enviro-nazis :
http://www.realclimate.org/
no alarmism or other bs with these guys, be prepared for boring technical details.
But even if it isn't known, like the link between nicotine smoke and lung cancer wasn't 'proven' for a looong time, reason strongly suggests caution. We have known the basics of CO2 forced warming since around 1900AD, it's the details that are mind numbing.
Details such as exact results. Many opponents to Kyoto treaty say that the treaty (or any comprehensive action) will have no significant effect on global warming and flooding by 2050 or so. This is true. However the whole point is to get the ball rolling -now- so that the humans can continue to enjoy civilization -later-; as in around 2250AD, when the seas could be 30 feet higher or 100 feet higher depending on our actions -now-...assuming the models are good (and they are getting better)
As far as climate vs. weather modelling, here's a simple gambling analogy: Climate prediction is to game selection (blackjack has better odds of winning than roulette ec) as weather prediction is to actual results and plays (die rolls, bet choices, cards drawn etc). The first can be readily calculated, and the second is mosty unpredictable.
---
We probably don't need to to tax gasoline any further...at least in California (and the roads stillare inpoor condition!) :( But, I think all here would agree that fossil fuels of all sorts should have all their subsidies revoked.
If they do add a general fossil fuels tax, the revenue should go to help upgrade home energy systems of those who would otherwise have to turn off their power & gas.
Since I am not a hardcore libertarians (moderate really) and I don't get coniption fits at the thought of government intervention. I ask, "How can government help?"
Perhaps by Mandating that:
1. All (or most) gasoline engines E85 Ethanol Flex-fuel engines within 5 years. (I am not fond of Ehtanol but it's there)
2. Most diesel engines be capable of running B100 (biodiesel). Most can already, but there are some doubts about newer models, and you don't want to use this in an airplane (it gets real cold). ( if it takes off, we would need new pipelines for massive scale biodiesel use; and meat would get more expensive, as animal grains competes with veggie oil for cropland)
3. That the feedstocks of Vegetable oil and Alcohol used in the above are not overspecified (example Soybeans and Corn are very poor produces of these, yet there are in some cases mandates for only useing these two crops :boggle:)
3. That Hybrid vehichles can have their batteries recharged by plugging them into common outlets.
4. That a National set of gasoline fuels be used (instead of 50ish varieties defined from state to state) to keep costs down, and refining efficiency up.
5. Forget about hydrogen as an auto fuel...with the sole exception of only water emitting at the tailpipe, it is all around stupid.
6. Require better fuel efficiency monitoring displays or other feedback on autos. Prius drivers get obsessed with their effiency mostly because they have better feedback. This sort of thing would also work on any auto, by simply improving the efficiency of the driver. (some Prius owners claim they can get around 100 actual miles per gallon burned.)
7. Get airlines to fly their planes about 10,000 lower. At 33,000ft the air is fairly saturated with water; when jetliners fly through, it creates high altitude clouds which block surface heat from excaping into space. This is apparantly not as much of a problem at lower altitudes; however it is a little less efficient, and airlines would balk.
8. Require that power utilities bills each customer gets report on how much carbon has released from that customer's usage. Novel idea: have the uitility offer to sell Carbon Credits to their customers for their CO2 output!! (see TerraPass below) If they don't want it, they don't have to pay for it.
9. And that power utility customers be given a monthly choice on what type power generation they want. ie one can select cheap as dirt Coal, or expensive Solar, or a mix, etc. Market demand takes care of the rest. Yearly contracts available too.
Outside of governemnt mandates, I have found:
http://www.terrapass.com/index.html
Buy this (somewhat expensive) bumpersticker, and Carbon Credits and related carbon abatements efforts will be paid for. They should offer this at all gas stations!
be well
-Sam
The Real Bill | August 11, 2005, 7:15am | #
Seriously, don't feed that freaking troll M1EK. If he were alive in the early 20th century, he would have been going off about how eugenics were the wave of the future or some other bullshit. There is no reasoning with fanatics, or sheople of any stripe.The Real Bill | August 11, 2005, 7:23am | #
Sam,You sound earnest, but you a very, very silly for mentioning ethanol (and so is everyone who entertains the idea for even an instant). Ethanol is one of the most economically and environmentally unsound ideas ever. You basically have to be blind or a math-illiterate to believe that ethanol is a solution to anything. Basically, you'd have to plant the entire world's farmland in corn to even partially provide for our energy needs. One thing I do agree with is the elimination of subsidies for the petroleum industry. But why not just eliminate all subsidies and be done with it!
Sam | August 11, 2005, 7:42am | #
Real bill,like I said, " (I am not fond of Ehtanol but it's there)". It's not a very energy dense fuel and is awkward when used with gasoline.
And not meaning to be snarky, you mentioned "corn" as if that were the only source of ethanol. It's not. Corn is grown int he U.S. as feed starch to animals for meat, the alchohol is a secondary product made from the otherewise wasted sparts.
Brazil uses sugarcane to much greater effect to make it's fuel.
Switchgrass, which once carpeted the Great Plains (grows well with little water on marginal land, doesn't require replanting and restores otherwise spent soil) seems to be the best option for purposeful ehtonal production. Also there is still plenty of waste biomass from a wide range of crops which can be used as feestock for making Ethanol. There have also been develpments in better yeasts for making alchohol, celluose breakdown techniques, and other technologies. So I maintain that it is 'possible' for ethanol to be a part of the market; but IMO not as desireable or as productive as say vegetable oil based biodiesel.
Skoal!
-sam
We could just spread photo-reflective particles into orbit around the planet and block out the excess radiation. Similar things happen naturally such as in 1815 when Tambora erupted just at the start of the industrial revolution. Over time the particles will fall back and burn up in the atmosphere and if another dose is needed then so be it. Or is the concern not really about temperature?