Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Sounds like a possible situation, but hardly settled science (whatever settled science means anymore). I don't think that's a major factor regarding the power plant emissions blockski is having a fit over, as most power plants, particularly the big coal ones, aren't right in the middle of metro areas. But interesting nonetheless. I'm sure the local geography makes this very site specific to the extent it occurs, as such a dome probably forms more easily over a city in a valley or basin with a lower level of air movement/wind.

I read it as not a refutation of carbon tax but as a mitigating factor. From a total layman's knowledge I thought the idea of pollution "sinks" was amply demonstrated by the Los Angeles basin, or temperature inversions like the Great Smog of 1952.

It brings up some interesting ideas, though, like taxing polluters less for being "downwind," meteorologically, of population centers, aquifers, etc. Or having "carbon zones" where polluters could essentially **** where they work, depressing their own property values with their waste, rather than being free riders.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Woooooosh.

Yes, CO2 is CO2. Right. Got it.

Let's say a natural system, like your body, is a proxy for the earth. So, if I came into your house and increased the concentration 50 fold of something that would be relatively benign otherwise, you don't think that might have an impact on your health?

The earth's ability to capture carbon as part of the carbon cycle is limited. So long as we're breathing and emitting nothing else, this isn't a problem. However, our emissions that are 50x greater than breathing are well beyond the Earth's natural carbon capacity. Is that so hard to understand?

Conservatives think pollution has vitamins. Don't waste your time.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Conservatives think pollution has vitamins. Don't waste your time.

Looks like my day* to be the resident scold. Don't do that! It's like somebody from the other side saying "liberals think business has cooties."

We need solutions that give us clean air and a vibrant economy. Over the long term the two are linked anyway -- an unhealthy population is insanely expensive, and if clean air and no jobs was so attractive I'd be living in Durango, CO.

(*I know. Why should today be any different...)

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I don't know if this is really a good argument. Tax structure is about the overall health of the economy. Revenue has to come from somewhere. The choice is, do you disproportionately burden the middle class or the upper class? Since the upper class has been on holiday since the 80's, I'd vote for burdening them, but you are perfectly free to put your priorities in front of the voters.

I would be willing to make The Great Compromise: restore the tax margins to where they were in the 50's, ranging from a negligible marginal rate for the poorest all the way up to 90% for every dollar of income over, say $1M. In exchange, pass a Balance Budget Amendment that freezes spending at last year's revenue.

One of two things happen. If the tax structure really does impede the economy*, spending will drop like a stone. If OTOH the economy continues to move in its divinely-Brownian ascension, spending will rise more gently and budget deficits will be a thing of the past.

The country wins, but it defuses the false dichotomy that some (I wager, nobody posting here) have feasted off these many years.

* That is if, as in Coriolanus, the 99th percentile are the economy's indispensable stomach, and the rest of us owe all we have to it.

For now lets put aside the fact that taxes are supposed to be about funding the gov't not creating social policy.

Would you work an extra hour of overtime if it meant that you would only get to keep 10% of the effort you put in?

Or this may be a better way to sum it up when you consider there is no guarantee of a profit when you risk your money in a business. Would you make a wager in blackjack if you only got to keep 10% of the winnings?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Woooooosh.

Yes, CO2 is CO2. Right. Got it.

Let's say a natural system, like your body, is a proxy for the earth. So, if I came into your house and increased the concentration 50 fold of something that would be relatively benign otherwise, you don't think that might have an impact on your health?

The earth's ability to capture carbon as part of the carbon cycle is limited. So long as we're breathing and emitting nothing else, this isn't a problem. However, our emissions that are 50x greater than breathing are well beyond the Earth's natural carbon capacity. Is that so hard to understand?

Obviously the natural system can absorb most, if not all, the carbon being produced by power plants, except of course China keeps bringing on power plants that have little or no emission controls like one a week, but we always ignore such inconvenient facts. Tell me, what is the magic number of how much carbon can be absorbed, and how much is produced now that can't be absorbed, if this is some sort of closed, nonflexible system (which it isn't of course).

Your walking into my house and producing 50 times example is poppycock, as power plants don't even remotely increase CO2 levels by 50 times over what would be there otherwise in nature. Gross math error.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I read it as not a refutation of carbon tax but as a mitigating factor. From a total layman's knowledge I thought the idea of pollution "sinks" was amply demonstrated by the Los Angeles basin, or temperature inversions like the Great Smog of 1952.

It brings up some interesting ideas, though, like taxing polluters less for being "downwind," meteorologically, of population centers, aquifers, etc. Or having "carbon zones" where polluters could essentially **** where they work, depressing their own property values with their waste, rather than being free riders.

Interesting thoughts, but to put into practice, it would take a collossal amount of balancing externalities that can't be easily measured or even qualitatively valued, not that we don't have plenty of people around these days who think they can do such assessments. Here in Arizona, we've always been peeved that LA auto pollution gets to float over the Grand Canyon and nothing is done to deal with that problem, but we've had to spend billions on scrubber equipment on coal plants east of the canyon which contribute minimally to any haze over the canyon, as it was the easy political out. Such political shenanigans would make ideas such as you float above into horrible monstrosities that have little scientific basis.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Obviously the natural system can absorb most, if not all, the carbon being produced by power plants, except of course China keeps bringing on power plants that have little or no emission controls like one a week, but we always ignore such inconvenient facts.

Nature can absorb it? Really? Then why are CO2 concentrations rising?

Emissions:

Concentrations:

Sure looks like all those massively increase CO2 emissions in the past 100 years or so haven't been absorbed by the natural system, and instead are lingering in the atmosphere and thus increasing the CO2 concetration from ~280 ppm in pre-industrial times to ~390 ppm now.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I would ask for clarification on the claim that equilibria only exist in simple, fixed systems, and about why production matters, but not consumption (other than the need for China scapegoating), but that's just going to prolong the squabbling.

Probably more efficient just to ask: under what conditions, specifically, would carbon mitigation actually make sense.

If your answer is as I suspect - that there are no such conditions - then there's really nothing to discuss, is there? We can all put that debate to rest, at least on USCHO.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

blockski, it's in the air, air is part of nature....ergo....nature absorbed it.


Problem solved.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I would ask for clarification on the claim that equilibria only exist in simple, fixed systems, and about why production matters, but not consumption (other than the need for China scapegoating), but that's just going to prolong the squabbling.

Probably more efficient just to ask: under what conditions, specifically, would carbon mitigation actually make sense.

If your answer is as I suspect - that there are no such conditions - then there's really nothing to discuss, is there? We can all put that debate to rest, at least on USCHO.

Well, as far as the environmental impacts are concerned, the increase in concentration is what matters. If we can contain that increase either through reduced emissions or through sequestration, that's great - either one would be fine.

That's not to say there wouldn't be issues with either. Reducing emissions has costs, but so to does sequestration. What happens if the sequestration acidifies our oceans? and so on.

That said, the idea of a carbon tax or a cap and trade system is to put a value on the overall target and then use that system to price carbon so that the market decides what the best and most efficient allocation or carbon emissions is.

So, the conditions for 'mitigation' (which I'm assuming you mean to be sequestration) would depend on how cost-effective it is. I think some emissions could and would be easily eliminated through efficiency gains where there are effective substitutes - a short car trip becomes a walking or bike trip, for example. Other emissions that are harder to reduce through conservation would be strong candidates for sequestration (think large-scale power plants).

The idea is to set up a framework and let the market do its thing - allocating those resources efficiently and effectively.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Well, as far as the environmental impacts are concerned, the increase in concentration is what matters. If we can contain that increase either through reduced emissions or through sequestration, that's great - either one would be fine.

That's not to say there wouldn't be issues with either. Reducing emissions has costs, but so to does sequestration. What happens if the sequestration acidifies our oceans? and so on.

That said, the idea of a carbon tax or a cap and trade system is to put a value on the overall target and then use that system to price carbon so that the market decides what the best and most efficient allocation or carbon emissions is.

So, the conditions for 'mitigation' (which I'm assuming you mean to be sequestration) would depend on how cost-effective it is. I think some emissions could and would be easily eliminated through efficiency gains where there are effective substitutes - a short car trip becomes a walking or bike trip, for example. Other emissions that are harder to reduce through conservation would be strong candidates for sequestration (think large-scale power plants).

The idea is to set up a framework and let the market do its thing - allocating those resources efficiently and effectively.

Sorry for the quote fail on my part. My questions were directed at Bob. Your post popped up between the two...

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

What I was trying to get at was this:

Some folks think that climate is a legitimate concern, but are skeptical of poor policy.

Other folks express skepticism of poor policy, but it doesn't really involve policy, per se. When you do a little algebra, the policy problems fall away, leaving just the underlying reality that climate is not a problem, or at least not something worth worrying about or doing anything about.

Building consensus between those positions is a bridge too far, for me. I'll go to the trouble of thinking about policy, but not if the whole exercise is pointless from the get-go.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

blocski,

Glad you've now gone on record as saying nature can't absorb any extra (whatever extra means) CO2 and isn't flexible.

Why levels have increased recently is of course an issue of much debate, and I know what you think, so I won't waste time there. Do you really think that nature doesn't absorb and of the "extra" CO2 that comes out of a power plant? Or that there are both positives and negatives to higher CO2 levels? I such questions are uncomfortable for the "sky is falling" crowd, but some of us are a bit more inquiring.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

blocski,

Glad you've now gone on record as saying nature can't absorb any extra (whatever extra means) CO2 and isn't flexible.

Why levels have increased recently is of course an issue of much debate, and I know what you think, so I won't waste time there. Do you really think that nature doesn't absorb and of the "extra" CO2 that comes out of a power plant? Or that there are both positives and negatives to higher CO2 levels? I such questions are uncomfortable for the "sky is falling" crowd, but some of us are a bit more inquiring.

Like maybe the increase in CO2 production actually helps plant life on the plant? In 50 years we're talking about an increase of 80 ppm, is that really enough to ruin things (and thats based on one source near an extremely active volcano...

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Those arguments cut both ways. Alarmists exaggerate the probability of unlikely outcomes to try to build support for preferred policy. Skeptics play up uncertainties for the same reason.

No sane person would discount the value of good information. But no sane person requires certainty before taking action. Risk is unavoidable in life.

So the question becomes: what policies make sense given existing knowledge? Or are there none?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

blocski,

Glad you've now gone on record as saying nature can't absorb any extra (whatever extra means) CO2 and isn't flexible.

Geezus H. Christ. How about this - can I pick someone else to summarize my posts?

Why levels have increased recently is of course an issue of much debate, and I know what you think, so I won't waste time there. Do you really think that nature doesn't absorb and of the "extra" CO2 that comes out of a power plant? Or that there are both positives and negatives to higher CO2 levels? I such questions are uncomfortable for the "sky is falling" crowd, but some of us are a bit more inquiring.

Ok - let's try this. If the natural carbon cycle were truly absorbing all of our emissions, we'd expect carbon concentrations to be at and remain at some level of equilibrium, correct?

Well, they are not at equilibrium. Concentrations are increasing. This is a fact.

We are also emitting massive amounts of carbon. This is also a fact.

So, humans emit tons and tons of carbon, and we see concentrations rise. Doesn't sound like equilibrium where all that carbon is being absorbed to me.

I could tell you that the sun rises in the East and you'd argue against it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Like maybe the increase in CO2 production actually helps plant life on the plant? In 50 years we're talking about an increase of 80 ppm, is that really enough to ruin things?

The way they graph this stuff makes it look much more dramatic. Classic fiddling with how stuff is shown to make people who don't look closely at the numbers think it's absolutely gone through the roof.

Everything we do ruins the planet. Haven't you learned that yet? If only none of us were around, everything would be great, or so goes the thinking.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Those arguments cut both ways. Alarmists exaggerate the probability of unlikely outcomes to try to build support for preferred policy. Skeptics play up uncertainties for the same reason.

No sane person would discount the value of good information. But no sane person requires certainty before taking action. Risk is unavoidable in life.

So the question becomes: what policies make sense given existing knowledge? Or are there none?

well said.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Geezus H. Christ. How about this - can I pick someone else to summarize my posts?

Ok - let's try this. If the natural carbon cycle were truly absorbing all of our emissions, we'd expect carbon concentrations to be at and remain at some level of equilibrium, correct?

Well, they are not at equilibrium. Concentrations are increasing. This is a fact.

We are also emitting massive amounts of carbon. This is also a fact.

So, humans emit tons and tons of carbon, and we see concentrations rise. Doesn't sound like equilibrium where all that carbon is being absorbed to me.

I could tell you that the sun rises in the East and you'd argue against it.

Where the sun rises depends on the time of year, though it's generally in the east. But, if I watch the sun rise (which I do occasionally) when I hike up a small local mountain here, it's much further south on the horizon in December than it is in June. See how you need me to fill out the facts on your basic statements?

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The way they graph this stuff makes it look much more dramatic. Classic fiddling with how stuff is shown to make people who don't look closely at the numbers think it's absolutely gone through the roof.

Everything we do ruins the planet. Haven't you learned that yet? If only none of us were around, everything would be great, or so goes the thinking.

Yay population control is next...I mean if we're producing 19.1 metric tons of CO2 per capita, we should be extremely happy that there are so many abortions in this country or we'd probably have already ruined the planet and everything on it. Maybe we should just stop allowing people to be born so we can get this global warming stuff under control.