Pollution is a risk to unborn children

[billvon 2,471]

>That would be great for driving the world back into the stone age.

Why would you say that? Pick the average level as of today. Allow everyone to emit that amount. No one gets driven back anywhere. People with hybrids end up driving more; people with Hummers end up driving less. Or they get a Ford Escape SUV and drive more.

The EPA didn't drive us back into the stone age. CARB didn't drive us back into the stone age. CAFE didn't drive us back into the stone age. This won't either.

[dorbie 0]

The production of CO2 and the consumption of the products that require the production of CO2 are two different things.

[billvon 2,471]

> The production of CO2 and the consumption of the products that lead
>to the production of CO2 are two different things.

As in personal production vs industrial production? I agree. One way to do this fairly is a carbon tax - tax everything based on how much CO2 the factory/industry/fleet/airline produces, and use the money to fund the enforcement program. Have standardized test methodologies to determine how much CO2 someone is producing. Up the tax if we're not meeting the average target, reduce it if we're doing better than the target. That way capitalism takes care of the details. The clean technologies prosper and the companies associated with them do very well; the dirty technologies either convert to cleaner ones to make more money or they go out of business.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

> The production of CO2 and the consumption of the products that lead
>to the production of CO2 are two different things.

As in personal production vs industrial production? I agree. One way to do this fairly is a carbon tax - tax everything based on how much CO2 the factory/industry/fleet/airline produces, and use the money to fund the enforcement program. Have standardized test methodologies to determine how much CO2 someone is producing. Up the tax if we're not meeting the average target, reduce it if we're doing better than the target. That way capitalism takes care of the details. The clean technologies prosper and the companies associated with them do very well; the dirty technologies either convert to cleaner ones to make more money or they go out of business.

Should I make out the check to the U.N.?

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

>That would be great for driving the world back into the stone age.

Why would you say that? Pick the average level as of today. Allow everyone to emit that amount. No one gets driven back anywhere. People with hybrids end up driving more; people with Hummers end up driving less. Or they get a Ford Escape SUV and drive more.

The EPA didn't drive us back into the stone age. CARB didn't drive us back into the stone age. CAFE didn't drive us back into the stone age. This won't either.

Well then you have the issue of people who have too much sex....or breathe too hard during sexual activity....lol. So you gonna cut out sex next? THINK, billvon....THINK!!!!

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[dorbie 0]

Quote

....... people who have too much sex....

Sorry I don't understand, what does this mean?

[billvon 2,471]

>Should I make out the check to the U.N.?

No, the US government will do nicely. If we agree to do this, enforcement would have to be within the US.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Should I make out the check to the U.N.?

No, the US government will do nicely. If we agree to do this, enforcement would have to be within the US.

Presumably you want the government to simultaneously reduce some other tax proportionately or it will serve to demonstrably stifle the economy.

In reality this would only accelerate the export of manufacturing industry to another nation that does not have the CO2 controls, or any other environmental controls while probably increasing CO2 output due to reduced efficiency/technology.

[billvon 2,471]

>Presumably you want the government to simultaneously reduce
>some other tax proportionately or it will serve to demonstrably stifle
>the economy.

Definitely. Have it pay for its own enforcement, then everything else gets used for the general fund.

>In reality this would only accelerate the export of manufacturing industry
> to another nation that does not have the CO2 controls, or any other
>environmental controls while probably increasing CO2 output due to
>reduced efficiency/technology.

Gotta add import controls as well; a CO2 tariff on good from non-compliant countries would eliminate the tendency to go overseas for CO2 tax relief. (Although imports might increase for other economic reasons, as they are doing now.)

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

....... people who have too much sex....

Sorry I don't understand, what does this mean?

I don't know....but I think that my personal CO2 emissions are highest during sex....

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Pick the average level as of today. Allow everyone to emit that amount. No one gets driven back anywhere.

The "average" level would be someone with a life expectency of about 45 years, hunched over all day ankle deep in mud, planting rice with the help of a water buffalo.

No thanks.

American farmers use CO2-emitting tractors and fertilizers to produce more food per acre than ever before in history, and that food feeds many of the world's hungry. Contrast that with the Chinese farmer who toils all day in backbreaking labor, and can barely feed his own family.

American industry produces more goods, cleaner, using CO2-emitting machinery, making the plight of people around the world better off. Contrast that with the Chinese who work in sweat shops for a dollar a day assembling parts by hand.

And what about modern technology and it's positive effects upon the world, like satellite communications? How many farting Chinese water buffalo does it take to produce the CO2 of one launch of the Space Shuttle?

The world would not be a better place if everyone was reduced to the level of the "average" CO2 producer.

What is best for the world, is not determined by how much CO2 is emitted.

And all of this reminds me of many of Lincoln's "Ten Cannots":

"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative."

[billvon 2,471]

>The "average" level would be someone with a life expectency of about
> 45 years, hunched over all day ankle deep in mud, planting rice with
> the help of a water buffalo.

>No thanks.

So you want to penalize him and allow us to emit more CO2 because we're rich? Remember your earlier statement:

"Make it so that everyone can still compete in the global market on a fair and equal basis."

It sounds like you don't want an equal basis. You want to give the US an advantage over everyone else.

>American farmers use CO2-emitting tractors and fertilizers to produce
> more food per acre than ever before in history, and that food feeds
> many of the world's hungry.

Incorrect. The CO2 from tractors is negligible compared to the rest of the equation in farming. High intensity farming is generally about the same or slightly better, CO2 wise, than say rice paddy farming.

>Contrast that with the Chinese farmer who toils all day in backbreaking
>labor, and can barely feed his own family.

CO2 and methane emissions began rising around the time rice paddy farming came into existence; low tech methods of farming emit a lot of CO2. High tech methods produce less CO2 per pound of food produced; some (like organic soybean crops) are actually CO2 _negative_. The plants absorb more CO2 than is used to fertilize them, primarily because legumes need much less fertilizer.

>And what about modern technology and it's positive effects upon the
> world, like satellite communications? How many farting Chinese water
> buffalo does it take to produce the CO2 of one launch of the Space
> Shuttle?

The Space Shuttle's main engines produce only water as a byproduct. (Hydrogen/oxygen.) If you're worried about the SRB's, switch to the LRB option. They're also hydrogen/oxygen, are more reliable, and will increase the shuttle's payload.

>The world would not be a better place if everyone was reduced to the
>level of the "average" CO2 producer.

Sure it would. Fewer people would die here in the US purely from the reduction of coal fired power plant emissions. And that's just one factor.

>What is best for the world, is not determined by how much CO2 is emitted.

You're changing the argument. The original premise was "any CO2 emission scheme will be unfair!" Now you're changing it to "reducing CO2 will make us all poor!" Neither is true. I've reduced my CO2 emissions by about 20,000 pounds a year; I am not poor or unhappy.

>And all of this reminds me of many of Lincoln's "Ten Cannots"

I think another quote from Lincoln fits well here:

"The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.
The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the
occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew."

And as a general commentary on climate change:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

We seem to be in the second stage now.