Comments on: Democratic divisions stall U.S. cap-and-trade Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: jason Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:10:54 +0000 I sure hope we don’t get any cap and trade crap. It won’t do anything to “CUT” greenhouse gases, just to make them more expensive to the consumers. What’s the real penalty for these corporations who exceed their limits? More campaign funding? It’s amazing how people elect people to screw them.

By: Anubis Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:01:07 +0000 It is always better to fix a leaky roof before the rains come. We knew what was coming and have missed our opportunity. The banks are insolvent, the economy is in shambles and political leadership is as divided and corrupt as ever here in the U.S.. Any solution that involves tax dollars will be coveted by a government that is in debt. The fact remains even the best solutions will bear a cost.

Unfortunately CLN is correct. Conservation and alternative energy use are the only effective solutions at this time. Much can be done to mitigate climate change. However, I don’t know what can be done about a Congress caught up in it’s own vanity. It truly appears as if all of our institutions have failed us. Our nation and it’s leaders suffer from a “Crisis of Character”.

By: Ron Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:54:45 +0000 Nuclear would give co2 free power if it were really a threat to the climate change lobby. The real motivation is another source of taxes for more government programs.

Can someone name all the potential inputs (ie. sunspots, volcanos, etc) that affect climate as well as measure the temperature changes on the moon , planets, stars etc to make sure the climate changing inputs specifically effect earth alone?

What effect does a large number of input variables have on the statistical validity (degrees of freedom)of predictive computer models?

Has anyone been able to test their computer model of future climate in out of sample real tests? ( sea level in Miami one year from today or specific temp changes in the near term, ie. 1 or 5 years)etc.?

costs per KWH ??
solar $.20
wind $.14
coal $.03
nuk $.??

By: B. Free Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:32:44 +0000 I find it amazing that here the comments are clear regarding cap and trade yet the Congress just doesn’t get it.
1. Get the transportation industry off of oil. We can produce cleaner energy than from burning oil based fuels.
2. Ban incandescent lighting. Encourage the production of an affordable LED light bulb. This will take a large burden off the grids and allow for a smoother transition to an electric transportation industry.
3. Encourage distributed power generation to supplement the power companies output. Basically, Self sufficient homes that can produce more energy than they need from wind, solar and geothermal and return that excess back to the grid.
4. Fund the creation of power stations to replace gas stations.
5. Tackle real pollution and let’s not be subject to fear mongering about CO2.
6. My next suggestion is radical. Convert coal burning power plants to natural gas.
Fossil Fuel Emission Levels
– Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input
Pollutant Natural Gas Oil Coal
Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000
Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208
Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457
Sulfur Dioxide 1 1,122 2,591
Particulates 7 84 2,744
Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016
I am not sure about the cost difference but I find it hard to believe it would be much more. Granted there would be conversion costs that should be born by the government.

By: Ray Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:35:25 +0000 And so the arguments go between our elected officials and all the countries of the world. All jockeying for the best payback of one sort or another. For anyone who wonders where we are really headed, I’d suggest reading this article entitled “We Can’t Get There From Here” published by Newsweek in March.

Here’s a snippet from the article that shows the huge problems involved which will not be solved any time soon, if at all. Meanwhile, the population bomb keeps ticking. So suck it up folks and hope for fusion power which is still a dream on the distant horizon.
Lewis’s numbers show the enormous challenge we face. The world used 14 trillion watts (14 terawatts) of power in 2006. Assuming minimal population growth (to 9 billion people), slow economic growth (1.6 percent a year, practically recession level) and – this is key – unprecedented energy efficiency (improvements of 500 percent relative to current U.S. levels, worldwide), it will use 28 terawatts in 2050. (In a business-as-usual scenario, we would need 45 terawatts.) Simple physics shows that in order to keep CO2 to 450 ppm, 26.5 of those terawatts must be zero-carbon. That’s a lot of solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and nuclear, especially since renewables kicked in a measly 0.2 terawatts in 2006 and nuclear provided 0.9 terawatts. Are you a fan of nuclear? To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we’ll need in 2050, Lewis calculates, we’d have to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day starting now. Do you like wind? If you use every single breeze that blows on land, you’ll get 10 or 15 terawatts. Since it’s impossible to capture all the wind, a more realistic number is 3 terawatts, or 1 million state-of-the art turbines, and even that requires storing the energy – something we don’t know how to do – for when the wind doesn’t blow. Solar? To get 10 terawatts by 2050, Lewis calculates, we’d need to cover 1 million roofs with panels every day from now until then. “It would take an army,” he says. Obama promised green jobs, but still…

By: Russ in PA Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:19:23 +0000 S. Hellinger – the EU cap-and-trade system is working exactly as expected… the goal is not to reduce emissions, it is to increase taxes, which has been an overwhelming success. And, the fact that targets have not been reached presents an opportunity for even more success… if the the current system is not reducing enough emissions, obviously they need to increase the price of credits.

By: Russ in PA Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:14:36 +0000 If the government cared about greenhouse gas emission, it would simply try to cap it. In actuality, the government cares only about the extension of its power at the cost of individual prosperity, hence the fact that the solution it comes up with involves more money from you to it. It is the most astounding fraud (like most government “solutions”) and I don’t understand why so many people support it. Doesn’t it ever dawn on some of you how government ideas almost always involve collecting more of your money?

By: S. Hellinger Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:18:37 +0000 On April 1st Bloomberg News carried an article titled “EU 2008 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Exceed Permits by 25 Percent”. According to the article: “Power plants and factories in the European Union’s emissions trading program produced 25 percent more carbon dioxide than the amount of permits they received, according to Bloomberg calculations based on European Commission data”. It appears to this observer that the EU cap-and-trade system is not working as expected.

By: beezer Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:01:30 +0000 Obama will have to conduct a massive public relations campaign directly to the public in order to get this done. Many voters understand the issue and they can be mobilized.

He must frame the problem in the crisis mode he’s used re: Wall Street. But it will be a real challenge of communications and persuasion.

By: Peter Vaz Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:02:44 +0000 I agrees with Mr. John’s headiness and being myself non-American,we are closely monitoring the days after USA election.It’s so interesting to see the new “God and Goddess” is still on the honeymoon kissing campaign trail in Europe. The media like CNN and BBC is so much entangled in their relations that they goes extra length to project the new “Saviour of America”. Mr. Obama must speak from his personal point of view rather than dragging USA for the past undone mistakes.On the economic front, he is loosing every second to India and China and on superpower he is dragging his weakness to the terrorist with his speeches and live executive orders with 10 pens.