Al Gore: 'Cap and Trade' Needed to Avoid 'Climate Cliff'

From Breitbart

On Tuesday, Al Gore again called for a “cap and trade” system by warning Americans the country faces a “climate cliff” in addition to a “fiscal cliff.”

“It will be difficult for sure but we can back away from the fiscal cliff and the climate cliff at the same time,” Gore said. “One way is with a carbon tax.”

Gore proposed a “carbon tax swap,” where a cap and trade system would be instituted in exchange for income taxes being lowered. Even conservatives like Grover Norquist had given some credence to this idea before backing off, realizing that income taxes could be raised by future Congresses while a carbon tax — once instituted — would be nearly impossible to undo.
“The most direct policy solution to the climate crisis is a carbon tax, offset by reductions in taxes on wages,” Gore said. “By including the carbon tax in the solution to the fiscal cliff we can [get] away from the climate cliff.”

Read more here.

40 Responses to Al Gore: 'Cap and Trade' Needed to Avoid 'Climate Cliff'

  1. Rob N. Hood November 27, 2012 at 9:55 am #

    wreck, not wreak

  2. Rob N. Hood November 27, 2012 at 9:55 am #

    Wrong Neilio. I (speak only for myself, I don’t speak for others although many Liberals share my views)) want the destruction of (corporate) capitalism, but not the decline of industry. These are mutually exclusive things regardless of the Right’s unimaginative ability to recognize that fact. That said, corporate capitalism will, ironically, destroy itself and industry eventually, and has been doing so for decades. Since 2008 gas has been poured onto the flaming wreak to keep it humming for awhile longer.

    Re: the global warming data listed above, much has beeen produced and reproduced by both sides. One of them came first, the other, debunking as it goes along. Debunking is the much easier gambit. Is there some kind of powerful hoax/hypnotizing going on by either side? Only our emotions at this point decide for us. The waters have been successfully muddied by the debunkers.

  3. Frank Lee November 22, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    Understanding the data related to global temperature is so simple it should not require more than a middle school math course. Over 91 proxies have been analyzed to reconstruct global temperature and CO2 over the last 600 million years. The consensus of all these studies is that Global temperature rises before CO2 increases and not before.
    But consider just the last 420,000 years which cover the last 4 interglacials. CO2 during all four periods never rose above 290 ppm, whereas it is now above 390 ppm. Global temperature was 2C warmer than the current interglacial. During this interglacial global temperature peaked about 8,000 years ago as CO2 dipped. Since then global temperature has declined about 1.5C while CO2 has increased from 255 ppm.
    These facts are obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at the data. Still there is an unbelievable quantity of people who speak have never seen the data who issue unfounded dire warnings . Check these simple graphs.
    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Comparing global temperature estimates

    • NEILIO November 27, 2012 at 6:07 am #

      Thanks for that Frank Lee. I appreciate it. But facts don’t matter to these people. They really don’t want to know what the facts are because we are not dealing with people who have an objective view. Their view is subjective. It doesn’t matter because what they really want are the “solutions”, which just happen to be the same thing as the original goals of the modern environmentalist movement, i.e., the decline of industry and the destruction of capitalism. You can throw facts at them all day, but they will have no effect.

  4. Rob N. Hood November 20, 2012 at 9:34 am #

    Funny story- The Heartland Conference, which is the annual confab for all the climate deniers, and at which James Inhofe was supposed to be the keynote speaker. He’s the rock star among the climate deniers. Inhofe is coming, he’s opening up this conference, right? The first morning the main conference organizer stands up at breakfast and lets loose the bad news that James Inhofe has called in sick and he can’t make it.

    And it turns out that he had gone swimming in a lake filled with blue-green algae, which is actually a climate-related issue. When lakes get too warm, this blue-green algae spreads. And he had gone swimming. And he had gotten sick from the blue-green algae. So he actually arguably had a climate-related illness and couldn’t come to the climate change conference.

  5. Rob N. Hood November 20, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    You also seem incapable of seeing sarcasm and irony, for the sake of satirical and/or black humor for lack of a better descriptor. The only groups of people, and they do exist despite your pretending otherwise, who actually use the word Kenyan and they are all right-wing. You yourself even stated you still question his birthplace and/or certificate- which runs into the realm of REALLY paranoid conspriacy theory territory. So again- Neil, you do yourself no favors constraining yourself in that hypocritical staitjacket, no matter how comfortable it is for you. Break free young man, you can do it! (maybe).

    As far as what I know about conservatives, it could fill a book, and your denial again reeks of an ego-maniacal fixation on how my posts relate to you personally. Once again however, that in and of itself is a right-wing trait. Check and mate.

  6. Rob N. Hood November 18, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    Once again your histrionics betray your IQ, or your emotional development, or both. I was being very specific- you on the other hand toss in the bathroom sink and then throw the baby out with the bathwater (somewhat mixed metaphors). That is par for the Right wingnut course, as you have aptly demonstrated over and over again. But yes Neil, I am your personal boogieman, apparently. I call you on your BS (not just yours) etc. and you can’t seem to take it very well. Dish it out sure, but never take it. You make for a good rightwing foot soldier, that’s for sure. What say you about the elections? Wow, huh? Sore subject? Off-the-subject? (now that it’s over that is)… Oh well, another 4 years of that darn Kenyan. After that maybe, just maybe, a true blue (white) American can be voted back in. In the meantime maybe just maybe that moderate conservative (Obama) can attack and invade a country (Iran). That would be great huh? (you don’t need to respond to any of this, just more non-AGW blather…)

    • NEILIO November 19, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

      Do you deny that you post things that are intentionally provocative?
      And as far as the election goes, I can’t say that I’m happy about that. But your characterization of how I must feel is not even close to being accurate. I know you said I don’t have to respond to that but it is certainly illustrative of what kind of sick twisted view that hold of Conservatives. “Oh well, another 4 years of that darn Kenyan.”? Really? Is that what you think I think? Name one person who has said that. I most certainly never would, and it offends me to no end that you, or anyone else, believes I would. It saddens me that anyone believes that about me. Have I ever once, ever, said anything derogatory about anyone’s race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation? See this is the problem with you. You have these preconcieved notions about Conservatives that are just absurd! What is your evidence that the reason I’m unhappy about the election has anything to do with what color President Obama is? Well I’ll clue you in Jack! It has no bearing whatsoever on it!
      I don’t like him for other resons. But, of course, me being a Conservative means that I couldn’t possibly have reasoned, principled reasons to desire his defeat. Now could I?
      Your problem is that you think you understand how I and other Conservatives think, but you really don’t. And I don’t believe you ever will.

  7. Rob N Hood November 18, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    Thanks for another lecture- but I do recall you attempting an off-the-subject conversation at one time. It probably occurred more than once actually, but whatever, at least you aren’t being hypocritical about it- oh wait, you are. Silly me. And actually I was attempting to make a point related to the conversation, but I know you either simply deny such things outright, or choose to avoid it due to realizing it is a trap of sorts. That’s ok, though. I have denied you that pleasure in the past- not very often though because I enjoy a challenge.

    • NEILIO November 18, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

      I may stray occasionally. But you do not stray, you intentionally post provocative, politically charged things against Republicans and Conservatives that have nothing whatsoever to do with AGW. You can not compare that to me occasionally straying off subject. It’s not even close to the same thing, and it does not justify your actions.

  8. Rob N Hood November 17, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Generalized statements are just that. It’s not all about you. And I KNOW what this site is- thanks mainly to you repeating it everytime you want to avoid something. I would and could only put you personally in a little box if you responded honestly and in a certain way of course. Which as i’ve said before you don’t need to do, per your right. Again-try to avoid the hypocrisy- you also place Liberals in a box and make assumptions about me that are sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect. I have admitted both, whereas you clam up conveniently. But nevermind- this is old news and an old path we’ve been down before.

    • NEILIO November 17, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

      I’m not avoiding the subject to avoid it. I’m avoiding it because it is not what this site is for. Something that you have proven time and time again that you don’t understand, or just don’t care about. And I remind you of that often because you often go off the rails and talk about whatever you want to talk about. It’s not all about you either.

  9. Rob N Hood November 17, 2012 at 9:57 am #

    I remain against cap and trade, for carbon dioxide, as stated previously several times, in other related posts. YOu dodged posting your own opinion about DDT, which is your right, but lame nevertheless.

    The polling data show overwhelming that conservatives, much more than liberals, deny global warming, deny evolution, think Obama wasn’t born in the U.S., think Saddam was collaborating with Al Qaeda, and so on. Tea Partiers tend to be the worst on a lot of these.

    Conservatives argue back against the scientists’ polling data – they say that they’re right to question global warming because it’s phony science, and so on.

    There is also a separate body of data showing that Fox News viewers tend to be more misinformed about these issues – call it the Fox “effect.” Here, there has been some response, with Fox trying to critique and dismantle the various studies involved. But it just doesn’t hold up. You might be able to undermine one such study, but seven of them? I don’t think so. There’s too much data. Toss out one study, it doesn’t change the big picture.

    • NEILIO November 17, 2012 at 10:55 am #

      Well RNH, this isn’t global DDT scam . com.
      For the record I don’t deny evolution. I think there are some unanswered questions about Obama’s birth documents but have not concluded that he wasn’t born where he says he was. And I never thought Saddam was collaberating with Al Qaeda. So don’t go putting us all in a little box. Even though I know you will…… and do.

    • Frank Lee November 22, 2012 at 12:41 am #

      Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.
      On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”
      http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/

      The Global Warming Potential of manmade GHG is 0.28% and of CO2 0.117%; the US emits 17% of manmade global GHG; the US proposed to reduce manmade GHG by 17%; and the global temperature is forecast to rise by 2C by 2100. Should we spend hundreds of billions to reduce global temperature by about 72 millionths of a degree C by 2100?
      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

      The atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2C colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.
      In the current interglacial Temperature increased until about 8,000 years ago while CO2 declined. Then Temperatures declined while CO2 increased.
      http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Comparing global temperature estimates

  10. Rob N Hood November 17, 2012 at 8:32 am #

    Gosh if you say so Neil. I realize your views on reality are somewhat selective, and not to mention biased, but I would think an occasional bit ot reality would creep in from time to time. For example, grace us won’t you, with your wisdom re: DDT…

    • Neilio November 17, 2012 at 9:41 am #

      I don’t have to say anything about DDT, but since you asked you can just read this and form your own opinion. Oops… sorry. You have already formed your opinion on it. But you can read it if you like.

      http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

      Icarus62
      I ran out of reply space above so I will respond here.

      From: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/04/how-does-cap-and-trade-work/

      Cap-and-trade is the structure of most of the global warming bills being considered by Congress.

      The “cap” is the cornerstone of the policy. It is an absolute, nationwide limit on global warming pollution. Congress would most likely establish a cap measured as billions of tons of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) released into the atmosphere each year. Over time, the cap would be lowered to cut emissions enough to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. (See our earlier series for more on how much we need to cut.)

      The “trade” part is a market that creates powerful incentives for companies to reduce pollution, and provides flexibility in how companies can meet the limits.

      Here’s how it works:

      •The government will create “allowances” that add up to the total emissions allowed under the cap.
      •Every year, those subject to the cap must turn in allowances equal to their emissions for that year. These entities include power plants, manufacturers, and others who release large amounts of carbon dioxide. For the nation to meet the cap, entities will have to reduce emissions.
      •If an entity reduces its emissions enough that it has more allowances than it needs, it can profit by selling the extra allowances. This gives them the incentive to reduce below what’s mandated by the cap.
      •If an entity finds it expensive to reduce its emissions, it can buy more allowances from those with extra ones. It can choose the cheapest way to comply with the limits.

      Now, when you are talking about a carbon tax, and this is the part that I was wrong about, that is just how you describe it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
      A carbon tax is a Pigovian tax levied on the carbon content of fuels.[1] It is a form of carbon pricing. Carbon is present in every hydrocarbon fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and is released as carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are burnt.

      I apologise. You were correct when you described the carbon tax. And I do see the difference now. I thought cap and trade, and the carbon tax, were both about the amount of CO2 emissions in total, and not the fuels themselves. I was only half right. Thanks for pointing that out.
      But, I still disagree with you that CO2 is damaging the atmosphere. What I stated above:

      “No one has ever claimed that CO2 is damaging the atmosphere. The claim is that CO2 is trapping heat and causing global temperatures to rise. No one disputes that CO2 is a so called “greenhouse” gas that is an integral part of Earth’s climate system. I say “so called” because the way “greenhouse” gases trap heat is is not even similar to the way an actual greenhouse traps heat. So the name is inapt.
      Also, no one disputes that there is a rise in temperatures from CO2. What is disputed is the amount of the rise caused by CO2, and how the other positive and negative feedbacks from other components of the atmosphere act to amplify or counteract that warming.”

      I still stand by that.

      • Icarus62 November 17, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

        @Neilio: Yes, thanks for your good-natured response – that’s the kind of tax I was talking about. It’s proposed to levy it at the mine or well or port of entry – something along those lines. That seems a lot easier than trying to tax all the people and organisations which then use that fuel.

        When we talk about ‘damage’ to the climate, that’s a subjective judgment. Perhaps cockroaches and jellyfish would view a hotter world as very desirable, but I think most people would agree that for humans the consequences will be overwhelmingly negative.

        You’re right about CO2 – no-one disagrees with the basic warming potential of CO2, which is about 1C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560ppm. So, it all comes down to the natural feedbacks, which the entire scientific community of the planet (except two people) agree are large and positive. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (aka Earth system sensitivity) is thought to be 6C per doubling of CO2 – we won’t see that in our lifetimes but we are well on the way to raising CO2 enough to get there. Considering that global temperature over the entire Holocene has varied by no more than a few tenths of a degree, this is likely to be catastrophic for humanity.

        • NEILIO November 17, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

          In my defense you did say that it was carbon doing damage to the atmosphere, and that is to what I initially reacted.
          About the warming potential of CO2, are you not aware of the properties of CO2 concerning heat absorbtion? What you are describing is a linear effect. And if it were a linear effect then what you said would be correct, but the effect is not linear. It is logarithmic. I have a limited understanding of how it works, but I do know that there are only three wavelengths of IR radiation that can be absorbed by CO2. I found a paper that has a great explaination of all this here:

          http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

          You might think that this editorial was written by some hack, but if you take a look at the bio you will see that he is eminently qualified.

          • Icarus62 November 18, 2012 at 3:53 am #

            Yes, the CO2 forcing relationship is logarithmic – that’s a given. It means that an increase from 280ppm to 560ppm is a forcing of very nearly 4W/m^2, which (with no feedbacks) gives warming of around 1C. This is all undisputed even by the ‘skeptics’. What matters is how much the natural feedbacks are going to amplify that warming, and the evidence all says that fast feedbacks constitute about 300%, and subsequent slow feedbacks raise that to about 600%, meaning 6C of warming at equilibrium (i.e. after centuries) from that doubling of CO2.

          • Icarus62 November 18, 2012 at 4:01 am #

            Perhaps I should point out that since the CO2 forcing relationship is logarithmic, as you say, raising CO2 by 280ppm now has a far greater effect than if you raised it by 280ppm from, say, the point where it’s already 1000ppm. In other words, from our point of view the fact that atmospheric CO2 is so low in the Pleistocene (last 2 million years or so) is unfortunate for us, because it means that our carbon emissions are having a much larger effect on global climate than they would have done, say, in the early Cenozoic 60 million years ago.

          • Icarus62 November 18, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

            {eyeroll}… you should know that there has been no reduction in the rate of global warming, as evidenced by undiminished 30-year trends in surface and lower troposphere temperature series, accelerating decline of Arctic sea ice, accelerating decline of the Greenland ice sheet, accelerating decline of the Antarctic ice sheet, accelerating decline of mountain ice caps and glaciers worldwide, accelerating warming of the world’s oceans, shifting climate zones, rising global sea level, increasingly extreme weather and literally tens of thousands of other physical and biological metrics which indicate a warming climate. The warming is exactly in line with predictions made over 30 years ago by NASA which lead to global temperature rise of between 4 and 5C by the end of this century. If we continue as we are without huge efforts to slow down global warming, we will reach 2C above mid-20th Century temperature before 2050. Many experts now think that we will completely lose the Arctic sea ice by 2030 or even earlier – perhaps within the current decade. That will be a huge blow to our chances of averting the coming climate catastrophe, as it constitutes a significant positive climate feedback. Cryosphere scientists find that an ice-free Arctic probably leads inesorably to an ice-free Greenland and thousands of square miles of thawing permafrost all over the high northern latitudes, releasing gigatons of methane and thus further amplifying our global warming influence. We really need to put the brakes on right now – to carry on as we are is practically suicidal.

          • NEILIO November 19, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

            I don’t know how you can call half of the past 30 years that have shown no warming to be an undiminished trend. How do you explain the fact that the CO2 level has steadily risen to 390 or so ppmv, yet global temps have not risin for 15 years? If AGW theory was correct would it not show a steady rise in global average temperatures along with a steady rise in CO2?
            You have an impressive list of RealClimate.org talking points there but they are all false. There is no empirical data anywhere that shows that any of those things are true. I don’t have time to go through them all, but let’s pick a few and take a look. Shall we?

            A. Accelerating decline of the Greenland ice sheet
            http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/idINIndia-59432720110920
            “We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading,” said Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge.

            “We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered.”

            Other scientists agreed.

            “These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland,” said Jeffrey S. Kargel, senior research scientist at the University of Arizona.

            The Times Atlas suggested the Greenland ice sheet has lost 300,000 square kilometres in the past 12 years, at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.

            However, measurements suggest this rate is at least 10 times faster than in reality, added J. Graham Cogley, Professor of Geography at Trent University, Ontario, Canada.

            “It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast,” he added.

            B. Rising global sea level.
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
            But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

            Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
            Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

            The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

            C. Accelerating decline of mountain ice caps and glaciers worldwide.
            http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

            I could go on, but this is redundant because all of this stuff has been discussed here before. The bottom line is that 90% of what you think you know is directly or indirectly derived from computer models, or extrapolated directly or indirectly from computer models. And computer models can’t predict how a fart diffuses through a crowded room, let alone accurately describe how the Earth’s climate will behave 10, 20, 30, or 100 years from now.

  11. Rob N. Hood November 16, 2012 at 6:33 am #

    Oh I see. Just another hoax, that ended rather than continuing it’s evil scam, which it could have done supposedly if in fact it was a hoax. Much like the DDT hoax, although granted DDT remains illegal in the US at least. I didn’t realize the famed NAPAP (giggle) finally put that insanity to rest. Thank you Neil for once again setting the record straight.

    • NEILIO November 16, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

      Giggle if you must but acid rain was never a real problem. It was hyped because it was sensational and sold newspapers. There was never anything to it. So the cap and trade legislation you so fondly speak of really accomplished nothing. It was all smoke and mirrors.

  12. Peter A. November 16, 2012 at 6:27 am #

    How, exactly, will the introduction of a carbon-dioxide tax discourage people from using the energy they need for the basic necessities of life? The only result from the introduction of such a scheme is that the energy companies will pass on this extra cost to their consumers, which will in turn drive more people into poverty because they won’t be able to afford electricity or petrol any more.

    ‘The most direct policy solution to the climate crisis is a carbon tax, offset by reductions in taxes on wages,” Gore said. “By including the carbon tax in the solution to the fiscal cliff we can [get] away from the climate cliff.’

    What ‘climate crisis’? There isn’t one. Why is it the case these days that the solution to a problem, even an imaginary one like ‘global warming’, is almost always the introduction of a new tax? Is this all that people like Alphonse Gore can come up with? Where are the imaginative and creative solutions to challenges and/or problems? The introduction of a scheme to trade ‘carbon credits’ is pure gimmickry, it is like a bizarre version of musical chairs where people’s consciences are assuaged because they convince themselves that they are actually doing ‘something for the environment’, but in reality all they are accomplishing is the redistribution of the responsibility for the emission of industrial CO2 into the atmosphere.

    How will the introduction of any scheme to reduce industrial CO2 by any one nation, or even grouping of nations, achieve anything of substance whilst the largest and fastest-growing economies (China and India) carry on as before? Are these people under the impression that we do not share the same atmosphere, that it magically stops at the border?

    Why won’t people like Al Gore address any of these issues?

    • Frank Lee November 21, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

      Right on! The purpose of the carbon-dioxide tax is Redistribution of Wealth. They goal is to get as much money as possible and redistribute it to the poorer people as subsidies to buy their vote and stay in power and continue to scare people. Many international leaders have stated this more than once. They have also admitted that they don’t know if AGW is true or not, but they will use it as a common cause to Redistribute Wealth, for Global Government, Social Justice and Population Control.

  13. Rob N. Hood November 14, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    Agreed. It’s a old idea. It was successful in reducing acid rain, but that was a different issue and a different time. To people like Gore it’s a win/win proposition, i.e. he believes it will work, and make him and others money at the same time, uncluding BTW anyone (those wealthy in the first place able to play the game) who wanted to get involved with it, again not unlike the acid rain reduction cap and trade scheme.

    • Neilio November 15, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

      The NAPAP (National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project) study published in 1989 – which took ten years and cost $500 million, the most comprehensive federal study ever undertaken — proved that acid rain was a minor nuisance and that passing expensive regulation would do little to address the supposed problem.

  14. Icarus62 November 14, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    ‘Cap and trade’ is not the answer. We need a price on carbon to reflect the damage it’s doing to the global climate, but cap and trade is a businessman’s solution, designed to benefit business. not to solve the problem.

    • NEILIO November 15, 2012 at 6:56 am #

      It is funny that you have such a strong opinion on something you obviously have no real knowledge about. And I say that because you think “carbon” is doing damage to our atmosphere. I’m not saying that you are dumb, I am saying that you are misinformed. Here are some facts.

      Carbon: A naturally abundant nonmetallic element that occurs in many inorganic and in all organic compounds, exists freely as graphite and diamond and as a constituent of coal, limestone, and petroleum, and is capable of chemical self-bonding to form an enormous number of chemically, biologically, and commercially important molecules.

      It is a misnomer to say “carbon” is doing damage to the atmosphere. What the issue is about is carbon dioxide.

      Carbon dioxide: A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, formed during respiration, combustion, and organic decomposition and used in food refrigeration, carbonated beverages, inert atmospheres, fire extinguishers, and aerosols.

      This compound is what the issue of anthropogenic global warming is centered upon. Not carbon.

      The other issue is that you think that it is causing damage to our atmosphere. No one has ever claimed that CO2 is damaging the atmosphere. The claim is that CO2 is trapping heat and causing global temperatures to rise. No one disputes that CO2 is a so called “greenhouse” gas that is an integral part of Earth’s climate system. I say “so called” because the way “greenhouse” gases trap heat is is not even similar to the way an actual greenhouse traps heat. So the name is inapt.
      Also, no one disputes that there is a rise in temperatures from CO2. What is disputed is the amount of the rise caused by CO2, and how the other positive and negative feedbacks from other components of the atmosphere act to amplify or counteract that warming.

      It sounds like you are critically uninformed, or misinformed. Regardless, the result is the same.

      • Rob N. Hood November 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

        The “rusult” ??!!

        Note to Neil: The above was just a little childish payback for you doing similarly to me, once upon a time. Anyway, when people say or type “carbon” they are referring to carbon dioxide, obviously and using a short cut in the language as is a common human trait.

        • Neilio November 15, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

          Nice to know I can give you licence to be childish.
          And I totally disagree with you on this. It is not a “shortcut” in the language. Carbon, and carbon dioxide are two very different things. Carbon is a solid, carbon dioxide is a gas. Carbon dioxide is 1 atom of carbon chemically bonded to 2 atoms of oxygen. The words have specific meanings. Carbon is coal, diamonds, and the stuff in the middle of a pencil. Carbon dioxide is what we exhale, what makes your soda pop fizzy, and is absorbed into plants and trees and stuff.
          There are many compounds that contain carbon:

          There are many oxides of carbon (oxocarbons), of which the most common are carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO). Other less known oxides include carbon suboxide (C3O2) and mellitic anhydride (C12O9). There are also numerous unstable or elusive oxides, such as dicarbon monoxide (C2O), oxalic anhydride (C2O4), and carbon trioxide (CO3).
          There are several oxocarbon anions, negative ions that consist solely of oxygen and carbon. The most common are the carbonate (CO32?) and oxalate (C2O42?). The corresponding acids are the highly unstable carbonic acid (H2CO3) and the quite stable oxalic acid (H2C2O4), respectively. These anions can be partially deprotonated to give the bicarbonate (HCO3?) and hydrogenoxalate (HC2O4?). Other more exotic carbon–oxygen anions exist, such as acetylenedicarboxylate (O2C–C?C–CO22?), mellitate (C12O96?), squarate (C4O42?), and rhodizonate (C6O62?). The anhydrides of some of these acids are oxides of carbon; carbon dioxide, for instance, can be seen as the anhydride of carbonic acid.
          Some important carbonates are Ag2CO3, BaCO3, CaCO3, CdCO3, Ce2(CO3)3, CoCO3, Cs2CO3, CuCO3, FeCO3, K2CO3, La2(CO3)3, Li2CO3, MgCO3, MnCO3, (NH4)2CO3, Na2CO3, NiCO3, PbCO3, SrCO3, and ZnCO3.
          The most important bicarbonates include NH4HCO3, Ca(HCO3)3, KHCO3, and NaHCO3.
          The most important oxalates include Ag2C2O4, BaC2O4, CaC2O4, Ce2(C2O4)3, K2C2O4, and Na2C2O4.
          Carbonyls are coordination complexes between transition metals and carbonyl ligands. Metal carbonyls are complexes that are formed with the neutral ligand CO. These complexes are covalent. Here is a list of some carbonyls: Cr(CO)6, Co2(CO)8, Fe(CO)5, Mn2(CO)10, Mo(CO)6, Ni(CO)4, W(CO)6. -Wikipedia

          Does anybody refer to any of these compounds as carbon? No, they do not. I contend that when someone says or types carbon to refer to CO2, that they have no idea what they are talking about.

          Note: All the question marks in the chemical formulas above are actually powers notations that did not translate from being copied and pasted. If you really want to see what those notations are go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounds_of_carbon

          • Rob N. Hood November 16, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

            awaa awaaa… yes well it takes one to know one. oh wait, that backfired on me. Wow, all the fancy chemistry… impressive. All that facinating stuff notwithstanding, you missed my point, Poindexter.

      • Icarus62 November 16, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

        @NEILIO: People talk about putting a price on carbon because they’re talking about the carbon content of fossil fuels, pre-combustion (before it reacts with oxygen to form CO?). We’re not talking about putting a price on CO?, because fossil fuels don’t *contain* CO?, they produce it upon combustion. Do you see the difference?

        • NEILIO November 16, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

          Sorry, you’re wrong. They are talking about CO2 specifically. What is “CO?”? CO is carbon monoxide. I don’t know what you mean by CO?. If you are getting that from the portion of my post above that I copied from wikipedia I did put a note at the end saying those were powers notations, like “to the negative 5th power” or “to the 10th power” that did not translate to being copied and pasted.
          Anyway, all cap and trade schemes, and other carbon tax schemes, put a price on the amount of carbon dioxide produced, regardless of the precombustion source. Look at cement makers. There is no combustion involved in producing cement. There is ash that is mixed in, but that ash does not produce CO2 until it is mixed with the other components. Also, different fuels release different amounts of CO2 when burned. For example, coal releases a lot more CO2 per pound than natural gas does. You would have to set up different teirs of taxes, or credits, or whatever for the different fuels which would make things way more complicated than they have to be. It’s illogical. No, it is the amount of CO2 produced. Period. Besides, CO2 is THE substance that is alegedly causing global warming. That is where the focus is.
          There are virtually an endless number of things that contain carbon. Not all of them are combustable, and not all that are combustable produce CO2 when burned. Can you burn a diamond? What is a diamond? It’s carbon! No, I’m sorry, but your theory does not stand up.

          • Icarus62 November 17, 2012 at 3:03 am #

            As you say, different fuels release different amounts of CO2 when burned. So, if you were going to put a tax on the amount of CO2 produced by fossil fuel production, would you do it by trying to measure the emission from every vehicle exhaust pipe, every fossil-fueled electricity generating station etc? No, you would do it by taxing the fuels going into those processes according to their carbon content.

    • Rob N Hood November 17, 2012 at 11:13 am #

      What is needed is real taxes and/or penalties for pollution on the creators of it. For several reasons.

    • RMG! December 8, 2012 at 11:54 am #

      The Earth has frozen, and thawed numerous times, BEFORE mankind got here. WE, do NOT control the Earth’s natural climate cycles. STEALING money from people, to throw it AT something, is just a waste of resources. Besides, given a choice, which climate would you prefer to try and grow FOOD in?
      The dinosaurs had their day, now they are gone. Someday, it will be OUR turn. Worrying over stuff you can’t control, is just a waste of emotion, and time. No sense to throw-away your hard-EARNED money, too.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes