Quote:
..... chickened you make a living cutting trees DOWN
HEs no dummy!!
..... chickened you make a living cutting trees DOWN
The carbon tax
- Thread starter Delta2 23
- Start date
Quote:
..... chickened you make a living cutting trees DOWN
HEs no dummy!!
it's just job insurance on his part
..... chickened you make a living cutting trees DOWN
it's just job insurance on his part
Quote:
I can agree that we don't know if the global warming is man made or not. Fact is that it IS warming. Anyone that's been alive more than 2 or 3 years and is able to read can figure that one out. Rising oceans and melting ice caps and glaciers disappearing is the first clue. We have known for many years that the Earth was warmer in the past. The theory is that dinosaurs lived in sub tropical conditions and of course their bones have been found just about everywhere.
Now weather or not it is caused by man can be debated. Man and nature lived just fine before industry and automobiles with a little overpopulation thrown in came along. So cutting back on carbon emissions can't do anything but help. It's funny we are the biggest polluter on the face of the earth and are one of the only countries that has a significant number of people that refuse to acknowledge that the sky is blue and water is wet. Kind of scary in my opinion.
As China takes the number one spot away from us they will become the largest polluter. Since they have no regulations they are already putting a lot more garbage in the air than we do. Maybe we should take carbon credits off the debt we owe to them. Good way to trim the deficit.
I can agree that we don't know if the global warming is man made or not. Fact is that it IS warming. Anyone that's been alive more than 2 or 3 years and is able to read can figure that one out. Rising oceans and melting ice caps and glaciers disappearing is the first clue. We have known for many years that the Earth was warmer in the past. The theory is that dinosaurs lived in sub tropical conditions and of course their bones have been found just about everywhere.
Now weather or not it is caused by man can be debated. Man and nature lived just fine before industry and automobiles with a little overpopulation thrown in came along. So cutting back on carbon emissions can't do anything but help. It's funny we are the biggest polluter on the face of the earth and are one of the only countries that has a significant number of people that refuse to acknowledge that the sky is blue and water is wet. Kind of scary in my opinion.
As China takes the number one spot away from us they will become the largest polluter. Since they have no regulations they are already putting a lot more garbage in the air than we do. Maybe we should take carbon credits off the debt we owe to them. Good way to trim the deficit.
Quote:
It can't be undone. We're too late for that. It can only be slowed.
What people don't understand is that what is happening now is a result to what we did about 30 years ago. I really fear for the future.
It can't be undone. We're too late for that. It can only be slowed.
What people don't understand is that what is happening now is a result to what we did about 30 years ago. I really fear for the future.
I do reforestation also and a growing young forest converts more carbon to oxygen per acre than a mature forest.jfyi. Volcanos emit carbon shall we tax them?
Carbon dioxide (CO2)Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death. USGS provided this.
Carbon dioxide (CO2)Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death. USGS provided this.
Quote:
Basically everybody's getting taxed on the carbon they produce. Which makes big companies as well as everyday people drive less, use less water, less electricity and finding more sustainable ways of doing things. all that sort of stuff.
Most people don't care about much but money. So now the people that just don't give a s**t are being forced to care about the environment. Which I love because it's my future everybody's playing with.
that sounds like a good idea
how will they monitor the usage?
You guys will also want to regulate methane as well, I guess, since it's a more potent GHG. Oh, and how do you plan on regulating water vapor, which is by far the most potent and significant GHG? I guess we'll also have to pay an extra tax on cows and sheep due to their tendency to emit lots of methane via farting and belching. Oh, and extra taxes on any crops, since they emit GHGs when their leftovers decompose. A baby tax, too, while you're at it, since the addition of another person will result in even MORE GHGs.
All the while ignoring the fact that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, meaning that each unit of GHGs introduced into the atmosphere causes less warming than the previous unit.
Better forget, too, about the fact that humans account for only about 3% of CO2 emissions and about 5% of nitrous oxide. We account for about 18% of methane emissions, a fact that is bizarrely ignored - why is CO2, one of the most important gases on Earth, the target of the environmentalist left rather than methane? Oh, wait, CO2 is produced by anything and everything we do, which means they theoretically need to REGULATE anything and everything we do. How convenient.
You really think that mankind can have anything resembling an appreciable effect on the climate of a planet that is also influenced by the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc.? I'm sorry, I have difficulty believing that. Also, note the trend of climate over the 20th century. Warming occurred at the beginning, then it cooled about halfway through despite significant emissions increases. Then it started warming again, and slowed down after the '90s. We're currently in a moderate warming trend, and this type of period is known as an interglacial period. Let me see... global warming or ice age? What a choice. I think I'll take the warming. Russians and North Dakotans certainly aren't complaining. Sea level rise, if it even becomes noticeable, is so freaking slow that by the time this lovely interglacial period ends, MAYBE some exceptionally low-lying islands and coastal areas would be flooded. The real rise, despite the Goracle's ravings, if it happened at all, would be measured in centimeters. The northern ice certainly won't have any effect - the majority of Greenland's ice, if it melted, would become a giant lake in a massive depression in the middle of Greenland caused by its own sheer weight. Oh, and then Greenland would be habitable as well. Sea ice would obviously have no effect on sea levels. The majority of Antarctica is cooling, however there is a certain infamous peninsula that IS losing ice. There's your "massive sea level rise."
Did I mention that, thanks to the warming, the Sahara desert has been retreating?
Guinea fowl galore, the above is a truly annoying comment.
Anything less than loads of facts dripping with sarcasm isn't anywhere close to annoying.
Basically everybody's getting taxed on the carbon they produce. Which makes big companies as well as everyday people drive less, use less water, less electricity and finding more sustainable ways of doing things. all that sort of stuff.
Most people don't care about much but money. So now the people that just don't give a s**t are being forced to care about the environment. Which I love because it's my future everybody's playing with.
that sounds like a good idea
how will they monitor the usage?
You guys will also want to regulate methane as well, I guess, since it's a more potent GHG. Oh, and how do you plan on regulating water vapor, which is by far the most potent and significant GHG? I guess we'll also have to pay an extra tax on cows and sheep due to their tendency to emit lots of methane via farting and belching. Oh, and extra taxes on any crops, since they emit GHGs when their leftovers decompose. A baby tax, too, while you're at it, since the addition of another person will result in even MORE GHGs.
All the while ignoring the fact that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, meaning that each unit of GHGs introduced into the atmosphere causes less warming than the previous unit.
Better forget, too, about the fact that humans account for only about 3% of CO2 emissions and about 5% of nitrous oxide. We account for about 18% of methane emissions, a fact that is bizarrely ignored - why is CO2, one of the most important gases on Earth, the target of the environmentalist left rather than methane? Oh, wait, CO2 is produced by anything and everything we do, which means they theoretically need to REGULATE anything and everything we do. How convenient.
You really think that mankind can have anything resembling an appreciable effect on the climate of a planet that is also influenced by the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc.? I'm sorry, I have difficulty believing that. Also, note the trend of climate over the 20th century. Warming occurred at the beginning, then it cooled about halfway through despite significant emissions increases. Then it started warming again, and slowed down after the '90s. We're currently in a moderate warming trend, and this type of period is known as an interglacial period. Let me see... global warming or ice age? What a choice. I think I'll take the warming. Russians and North Dakotans certainly aren't complaining. Sea level rise, if it even becomes noticeable, is so freaking slow that by the time this lovely interglacial period ends, MAYBE some exceptionally low-lying islands and coastal areas would be flooded. The real rise, despite the Goracle's ravings, if it happened at all, would be measured in centimeters. The northern ice certainly won't have any effect - the majority of Greenland's ice, if it melted, would become a giant lake in a massive depression in the middle of Greenland caused by its own sheer weight. Oh, and then Greenland would be habitable as well. Sea ice would obviously have no effect on sea levels. The majority of Antarctica is cooling, however there is a certain infamous peninsula that IS losing ice. There's your "massive sea level rise."
Did I mention that, thanks to the warming, the Sahara desert has been retreating?
Guinea fowl galore, the above is a truly annoying comment.
Quote:
what trees do you replant. do you replant the diverse native hard woods including the slow growing ones?
what trees do you replant. do you replant the diverse native hard woods including the slow growing ones?
Quote:
that sounds like a good idea
how will they monitor the usage?
You guys will also want to regulate methane as well, I guess, since it's a more potent GHG. Oh, and how do you plan on regulating water vapor, which is by far the most potent and significant GHG? I guess we'll also have to pay an extra tax on cows and sheep due to their tendency to emit lots of methane via farting and belching. Oh, and extra taxes on any crops, since they emit GHGs when their leftovers decompose. A baby tax, too, while you're at it, since the addition of another person will result in even MORE GHGs.
All the while ignoring the fact that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, meaning that each unit of GHGs introduced into the atmosphere causes less warming than the previous unit.
Better forget, too, about the fact that humans account for only about 3% of CO2 emissions and about 5% of nitrous oxide. We account for about 18% of methane emissions, a fact that is bizarrely ignored - why is CO2, one of the most important gases on Earth, the target of the environmentalist left rather than methane? Oh, wait, CO2 is produced by anything and everything we do, which means they theoretically need to REGULATE anything and everything we do. How convenient.
You really think that mankind can have anything resembling an appreciable effect on the climate of a planet that is also influenced by the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc.? I'm sorry, I have difficulty believing that. Also, note the trend of climate over the 20th century. Warming occurred at the beginning, then it cooled about halfway through despite significant emissions increases. Then it started warming again, and slowed down after the '90s. We're currently in a moderate warming trend, and this type of period is known as an interglacial period. Let me see... global warming or ice age? What a choice. I think I'll take the warming. Russians and North Dakotans certainly aren't complaining. Sea level rise, if it even becomes noticeable, is so freaking slow that by the time this lovely interglacial period ends, MAYBE some exceptionally low-lying islands and coastal areas would be flooded. The real rise, despite the Goracle's ravings, if it happened at all, would be measured in centimeters. The northern ice certainly won't have any effect - the majority of Greenland's ice, if it melted, would become a giant lake in a massive depression in the middle of Greenland caused by its own sheer weight. Oh, and then Greenland would be habitable as well. Sea ice would obviously have no effect on sea levels. The majority of Antarctica is cooling, however there is a certain infamous peninsula that IS losing ice. There's your "massive sea level rise."
Did I mention that, thanks to the warming, the Sahara desert has been retreating?
Guinea fowl galore, the above is a truly annoying comment.
Anything less than loads of facts dripping with sarcasm isn't anywhere close to annoying.
you know people would take you more seriously if you weren't so sarcastic, belittling and extreme. It is unbecoming on anyone but especially on a young person.
that sounds like a good idea
how will they monitor the usage?
You guys will also want to regulate methane as well, I guess, since it's a more potent GHG. Oh, and how do you plan on regulating water vapor, which is by far the most potent and significant GHG? I guess we'll also have to pay an extra tax on cows and sheep due to their tendency to emit lots of methane via farting and belching. Oh, and extra taxes on any crops, since they emit GHGs when their leftovers decompose. A baby tax, too, while you're at it, since the addition of another person will result in even MORE GHGs.
All the while ignoring the fact that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, meaning that each unit of GHGs introduced into the atmosphere causes less warming than the previous unit.
Better forget, too, about the fact that humans account for only about 3% of CO2 emissions and about 5% of nitrous oxide. We account for about 18% of methane emissions, a fact that is bizarrely ignored - why is CO2, one of the most important gases on Earth, the target of the environmentalist left rather than methane? Oh, wait, CO2 is produced by anything and everything we do, which means they theoretically need to REGULATE anything and everything we do. How convenient.
You really think that mankind can have anything resembling an appreciable effect on the climate of a planet that is also influenced by the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc.? I'm sorry, I have difficulty believing that. Also, note the trend of climate over the 20th century. Warming occurred at the beginning, then it cooled about halfway through despite significant emissions increases. Then it started warming again, and slowed down after the '90s. We're currently in a moderate warming trend, and this type of period is known as an interglacial period. Let me see... global warming or ice age? What a choice. I think I'll take the warming. Russians and North Dakotans certainly aren't complaining. Sea level rise, if it even becomes noticeable, is so freaking slow that by the time this lovely interglacial period ends, MAYBE some exceptionally low-lying islands and coastal areas would be flooded. The real rise, despite the Goracle's ravings, if it happened at all, would be measured in centimeters. The northern ice certainly won't have any effect - the majority of Greenland's ice, if it melted, would become a giant lake in a massive depression in the middle of Greenland caused by its own sheer weight. Oh, and then Greenland would be habitable as well. Sea ice would obviously have no effect on sea levels. The majority of Antarctica is cooling, however there is a certain infamous peninsula that IS losing ice. There's your "massive sea level rise."
Did I mention that, thanks to the warming, the Sahara desert has been retreating?
Guinea fowl galore, the above is a truly annoying comment.
you know people would take you more seriously if you weren't so sarcastic, belittling and extreme. It is unbecoming on anyone but especially on a young person.
Personally I think it's pretty dumb. Just another way to find money to waste. The people it targets will find a way out and the average person will suffer as usual. What isn't taxable anymore? Ya know, I'll go plant a pine tree and sell the carbon offset rights for 20 years.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
Which rooster to keep for sex linked offspring.
- Started by Vkamiko
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Question of the Day - Thursday, August 14th, 2025- Started by casportpony
- Replies: 75
-
-
-
-
