The carbon tax

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
Don't believe I ever said that. I will state that anyone that listens to only Fox News is missing out on a lot of factual information.

If you actually read my postings I tend to agree with quite a few things that are not liberal. I'm actually a little left of center. Of course if you classify Obama as a liberal which you probably do then I am a serious lefty looney by your standards.

If you're just referring to my opinion on climate change aka global warming, you're right. The sky is blue, water is wet and the ice caps and glaciers are melting. Ice that has been frozen since man started keeping records that starts melting indicates it is a little warmer than it used to be. So I will agree that there is not absolute proof on the cause, but climate change is a fact. I disagree that 80% of the worlds literate people are liberal though.

As for where I get my info from. Anywhere but radical web sites, blogs and Fox News. Yes I do read things like the Washington Post although I try to stay away from anything that is associated with Rupert Murdoch.

 

[chickened]

Don't forget Cracker Jacks... I am just kidding. You know "where did you get your license to drive"
Quote:
Don't believe I ever said that. I will state that anyone that listens to only Fox News is missing out on a lot of factual information.

If you actually read my postings I tend to agree with quite a few things that are not liberal. I'm actually a little left of center. Of course if you classify Obama as a liberal which you probably do then I am a serious lefty looney by your standards.

If you're just referring to my opinion on climate change aka global warming, you're right. The sky is blue, water is wet and the ice caps and glaciers are melting. Ice that has been frozen since man started keeping records that starts melting indicates it is a little warmer than it used to be. So I will agree that there is not absolute proof on the cause, but climate change is a fact. I disagree that 80% of the worlds literate people are liberal though.

As for where I get my info from. Anywhere but radical web sites, blogs and Fox News. Yes I do read things like the Washington Post although I try to stay away from anything that is associated with Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
what trees do you replant. do you replant the diverse native hard woods including the slow growing ones?


So what is your opinion on thinning of forest? I've heard both sides. I'm kind of OCD so all the dead stuff and undergrowth kind of annoys me. Here in Colorado they talk a lot about thinning to reduce the chance of fires. Lot of passion on both sides of the issue. we have a serious problem with the Pine Beetle here.

Glad to hear you do restoration stuff. I know it takes forever to grow back, but don't they leave a percentage of trees standing and let the new stuff fill in what was logged? I will admit that because of government intervention the wood industry and mining industry is getting better about destroying the landscape. Particularly the wood industry. Mining still has quite a way to go.

 

[chickened]

Thinning is good, I leave all options on the table though, pretty much what the science says. My attitude is probably a bit off center but if you lock it up and do nothing then I have no problem letting it burn but if utilization is your goal then it can be done and everyone benefits from the timber industry. On another note the unhealthiest streams in Amerca are urban streams. They test the waters before they enter the urban areas and then downstream again below metro areas and the worst offenders are urbanites with chemicals mostly from runoff. The fish never make through those urban streams to spawn for this reason. We get the blame though but that is even turning around with education campaigns supported by the timber industry.

 

[Dunkopf]

I could see blaming a mining or drilling operation. What does timber do that would pollute streams.

When I was a kid we dumped oil in the sewer drain. Really didn't know what we were doing. I know everyone thinks the EPA is very onerous but I was alive when they were created. One of the best things Nixon ever did. Of course some rivers are beyond saving. Those rivers in NYC are scary.

 

[chickened]

We get blamed for silting the salmon spawning beds that's about it. We cannot log near streams anymore anyhow. Our industry is very big on soil preservation and clean water as we learned our lessons in the 80's. Managed forest do not burn data backs that up the worst offenders out west for neglecting the forest health is the USFS. It has become bogged down in litigation and I think that consumes over 40% of their budget or it used to.

 

[australorpchick]

Quote:
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."9 s

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.

Pot, have you met Kettle?

I know I'm older than Q9 and pretty sure I'm older than you and I take Q9 seriously. I find what he has to say interesting. I disagree with you and Dunkopf on just about everything, but I read it nonetheless. Maybe I'll learn something new, maybe you'll sway my opinion. Hasn't happened yet, but I still see some value in other peoples perspectives.

P.S. - Condescension is also unbecoming.

 

[Delta2 23]

Quote:

Well, the details are out, although they were pretty much all leaked several weeks ago

It's $23 a ton, industries like steel and aluminium are being given 94.5% of their permits for free (I don't see the point of that, anyone care to explain??) and they've cut fuel out of the equation, which means the general public won't be paying extra to fill up their cars, at least.

 

[gamebirdsonly]

Quote:
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.

Pot, have you met Kettle?

I know I'm older than Q9 and pretty sure I'm older than you and I take Q9 seriously. I find what he has to say interesting. I disagree with you and Dunkopf on just about everything, but I read it nonetheless. Maybe I'll learn something new, maybe you'll sway my opinion. Hasn't happened yet, but I still see some value in other peoples perspectives.

P.S. - Condescension is also unbecoming.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

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.?

Yes, just as we have an appreciable effect on many things such as rapidly declining biodiversity in recent decades despite populations that are also influenced by natural disasters, predation, and disease. I'm really not sure how a population as large as ours (not that it is purely the numbers that matter...a million ants is quite different that a million elephants for example) could not have appreciable effects of many kinds.

As far as a carbon tax goes, I'd have to read into it before forming an opinion of any kind. Really though, the way I see it is that nothing is sustainable ultimately if your population keeps expanding past a certain point.

x

=