EIN News says, "Environmentalists Slow to Adjust in Climate Debate; Opponents Seize Initiative As Senate Bill Nears. The oil lobby was sponsoring rallies with free lunches, free concerts and speeches warning that a climate-change bill could ravage the U.S. economy. Professional "campaigners" hired by the coal industry were giving away T-shirts praising coal-fired power. But when environmentalists showed up in this college town -- closer than ever to congressional passage of a climate-change bill, in the middle of the green movement's biggest political test in a generation -- they provided . . . a sedate panel discussion. (washingtonpost.com)
This is pure politics to the advantage of a specific group. In this case, it's the oil industry.
They have had mixed feelings on the greenhouse gas fad from its start. They initially supported a climate change bill, because they thought it would be to the their economic advantage . The basis was likely the thought that they could compete better with coal in production of electric power. Use of oil in automotive, home heating, transoceanic shipping, and production of petrochemicals (such as plastics), was not enough. The scientific thought was that burning a pound of gasoline, which is a hydrocarbon, produces less carbon dioxide than coal, which is wholly carbon. They combined this with the carbon dioxide greenhouse fad.
More recently, the public has become more knowledgeable in recognizing that there is no sound scientific basis for considering that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will contribute to global warming through a mythical greenhouse effect. This caused the oil lobbyists to alter their position, but without true conviction. As soon as the environmentalists, who are not scientifically well-informed on atmospheric matters, raised strong objection, the oil lobbyists quickly backed down. They want no fight with anybody on the basis of scientific fact or public benefit. Their main justifiable objective is to make a profit, while giving everybody everything they want.
Because the oil industry and its lobbyists do not have an equitable basis on which to make climate recommendations, it is unjustifiable that Congress should consider their recommendations as advantageous to the public and the country at large.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Carbon Dioxide Involvement
E-mail 7/1/09 Congress:
The White House has recently announced the issuance of a new report, which is now supposed to end all discussions about global warming and the contributions of carbon dioxide. The White House and its various departments completely accept carbon dioxide as a major greenhouse gas contributing to human induced global warming.
I call this to your attention, because it is the basis of the Cap and Trade (carbon dioxide) bill, which recently squeaked through the House and will need to be addressed by the Senate.
I am sure you will not have time to read or even peruse this 191-page report entitled, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US". Because of its importance to our economy, I have taken the time to peruse it and am hereby reporting its contents, from my point of view, which is the complete reverse of the Administration.
The first consideration is legitimacy of the basic intent of those persons who initiated the program and those who have written the report. The initiators were Advisory Committee/Federal Advisory Act/Subcommittee Global Change Research/US Government. Therefore, it is to be expected that the issued report will have a government slant. For further support of this thought, I have also noted 9 members of a Federal Executive Team. The report authors are Karl, Melillo, and Peterson. The first and last are with the Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I suspect that all three are on the government payroll.
The report includes a direct Letter to Congress, which recommends using the report to make policy and decisions. I hope and trust that Congress will think a little deeper concerning the source and basis of the recommendations.
The Executive Summary contains the following points:
1.) Global warming is accepted (why?).
2.) It is human induced (data?).
3.) Reducing CO2 emissions would lessen global warming (basis for this speculation?).
4.) Report "synthesizes" information to summarize what is known about observed and projected consequences of climate change (why synthesize?).
The report lists 10 "Key Findings". One mentions "human induced emissions of heat trapping gases".
The major portion of the report involves the dire consequences of global warming. We are not now interested in these fear promoters. Our major concern is whether there is any justification for being fearful.
The report states that the Earth's temperature is affected by the presence of its atmosphere. This sounds like a good theory, but it is still a theory. However, we will accept it for now. The report goes on to say that the atmosphere is composed of various gases and mini particles. Six gases are mentioned, as being greenhouse gases. There is no information on the qualifications necessary to be classified as a greenhouse gas. There is also no comment on why nitrogen and oxygen, which are the major components of the atmosphere, are ignored.
The report says that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased 35% since the start of the industrial revolution. It does not say that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is now only 0.04%. One must ask the question as to whether a gas concentration of 0.04% is more important than a concentration of 78% (nitrogen), and if so, why? I also saw nothing in the report with respect to continued absorption of carbon dioxide by plant life, which is presently part of our ecosystem.
In summary, I see nothing new about this report. It lacks the same basic information to support any theory that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere should be controlled. It is essentially the same as has been repeated many times by those persons who stand to profit by Cap and Trade, research grants, and any other economic mechanisms. The only difference is that this report is associated with considerably more Administration hoopla, with timing such as to sway Congressional votes to an acceptance of a ridiculous notion.
The White House has recently announced the issuance of a new report, which is now supposed to end all discussions about global warming and the contributions of carbon dioxide. The White House and its various departments completely accept carbon dioxide as a major greenhouse gas contributing to human induced global warming.
I call this to your attention, because it is the basis of the Cap and Trade (carbon dioxide) bill, which recently squeaked through the House and will need to be addressed by the Senate.
I am sure you will not have time to read or even peruse this 191-page report entitled, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US". Because of its importance to our economy, I have taken the time to peruse it and am hereby reporting its contents, from my point of view, which is the complete reverse of the Administration.
The first consideration is legitimacy of the basic intent of those persons who initiated the program and those who have written the report. The initiators were Advisory Committee/Federal Advisory Act/Subcommittee Global Change Research/US Government. Therefore, it is to be expected that the issued report will have a government slant. For further support of this thought, I have also noted 9 members of a Federal Executive Team. The report authors are Karl, Melillo, and Peterson. The first and last are with the Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I suspect that all three are on the government payroll.
The report includes a direct Letter to Congress, which recommends using the report to make policy and decisions. I hope and trust that Congress will think a little deeper concerning the source and basis of the recommendations.
The Executive Summary contains the following points:
1.) Global warming is accepted (why?).
2.) It is human induced (data?).
3.) Reducing CO2 emissions would lessen global warming (basis for this speculation?).
4.) Report "synthesizes" information to summarize what is known about observed and projected consequences of climate change (why synthesize?).
The report lists 10 "Key Findings". One mentions "human induced emissions of heat trapping gases".
The major portion of the report involves the dire consequences of global warming. We are not now interested in these fear promoters. Our major concern is whether there is any justification for being fearful.
The report states that the Earth's temperature is affected by the presence of its atmosphere. This sounds like a good theory, but it is still a theory. However, we will accept it for now. The report goes on to say that the atmosphere is composed of various gases and mini particles. Six gases are mentioned, as being greenhouse gases. There is no information on the qualifications necessary to be classified as a greenhouse gas. There is also no comment on why nitrogen and oxygen, which are the major components of the atmosphere, are ignored.
The report says that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased 35% since the start of the industrial revolution. It does not say that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is now only 0.04%. One must ask the question as to whether a gas concentration of 0.04% is more important than a concentration of 78% (nitrogen), and if so, why? I also saw nothing in the report with respect to continued absorption of carbon dioxide by plant life, which is presently part of our ecosystem.
In summary, I see nothing new about this report. It lacks the same basic information to support any theory that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere should be controlled. It is essentially the same as has been repeated many times by those persons who stand to profit by Cap and Trade, research grants, and any other economic mechanisms. The only difference is that this report is associated with considerably more Administration hoopla, with timing such as to sway Congressional votes to an acceptance of a ridiculous notion.
Cap and Trade
E-mail to Congress:
The House has already passed the Cap and Trade bill, but you can still be instrumental in reducing this to a nonentity during subsequent negotiations with the Senate.
Based on the European program, which is already in effect, here is how it would work in the US. The Federal government would specify a total annual allowable production of carbon dioxide from major carbon dioxide generating sources (total "cap"), such as petrochemical plants, natural gas purification, electric utilities, etc.. This total would then be subdivided to individual generators (individual "cap"). For example, Lubbock Power and Light would be allowed production of a maximum number of tons of carbon dioxide per year. For any excess production of byproduct carbon dioxide associated with the need to produce electricity for their customers, they would have two options.
The first option is to install equipment which would capture (sequester) enough generated CO2, so that they would not exceed their annual "cap". Installation of such equipment would be a significant capital investment. Alternatively, they might contract out the sequestering to another firm, which would capture the CO2 and charge LP&L for the tonnage captured. There are other commercial arrangements possible, but they would all have the same net effect of increasing LP&L's production cost and prices to customers. The commercial advantage would be to companies selling capital equipment for carbon dioxide sequestration or those selling a sequestration service. It has just been reported that Dow Chemical has established a working relationship with the Russian energy company Gazprom. You can be sure that this arrangement is motivated by opportunity for profit, rather than public service. The open question is always, "Is carbon dioxide sequestration necessary?"
The second option that would be available to a CO2 generator, such as LP&L, would be to "trade" rights on carbon dioxide emission. The going rate for a "right" in Europe is now $16 per ton. If LP&L were to generate annually 100,000 tons more CO2 than allowable by their "cap" and they chose to purchase rights rather than use Option 1, they would increase their annual production costs by $1.6 million, which would then have to be allocated to customers as a price increase.
With respect to an understanding of "rights", the basic concept is included in the theory of "Cap and Trade". The "rights" concept is relatively simple. If a producer of byproduct carbon dioxide, such as an electric utility, decides to install capital equipment for carbon dioxide sequestration, he may end up with the ability to sequester somewhat more carbon dioxide than is needed based upon his "cap". Each ton of that excess carbon dioxide sequestration is then available for "trade" (sale) to another company which decided not to sequester and is producing more carbon dioxide than allowable by its "cap". These transfers, which may take place ostensibly at $16 per ton, will proceed through a newly established trading procedure. Energy companies or related financial companies will likely develop these trading organizations, which will take a portion of the "trade" price to cover their costs and profit. In addition, the federal government will establish a significant tax (yet to be determined). The net result of these gyrations is the same as Option 1, namely increased prices to consumers because of costs for an unnecessary system. The advantages will be to the trading organizations and to the Federal government in the form of increased taxes.
As I recall, the original Cap and Trade bill of the House was more than 900 pages and the likelihood is that you did not have an opportunity to read it, although it is said you voted correctly against it. We should eventually address the fact that legislation is confusingly overloaded with excessive verbiage, but that is another matter. Meanwhile, let's kill this Cap and Trade bill by whatever means necessary.
The House has already passed the Cap and Trade bill, but you can still be instrumental in reducing this to a nonentity during subsequent negotiations with the Senate.
Based on the European program, which is already in effect, here is how it would work in the US. The Federal government would specify a total annual allowable production of carbon dioxide from major carbon dioxide generating sources (total "cap"), such as petrochemical plants, natural gas purification, electric utilities, etc.. This total would then be subdivided to individual generators (individual "cap"). For example, Lubbock Power and Light would be allowed production of a maximum number of tons of carbon dioxide per year. For any excess production of byproduct carbon dioxide associated with the need to produce electricity for their customers, they would have two options.
The first option is to install equipment which would capture (sequester) enough generated CO2, so that they would not exceed their annual "cap". Installation of such equipment would be a significant capital investment. Alternatively, they might contract out the sequestering to another firm, which would capture the CO2 and charge LP&L for the tonnage captured. There are other commercial arrangements possible, but they would all have the same net effect of increasing LP&L's production cost and prices to customers. The commercial advantage would be to companies selling capital equipment for carbon dioxide sequestration or those selling a sequestration service. It has just been reported that Dow Chemical has established a working relationship with the Russian energy company Gazprom. You can be sure that this arrangement is motivated by opportunity for profit, rather than public service. The open question is always, "Is carbon dioxide sequestration necessary?"
The second option that would be available to a CO2 generator, such as LP&L, would be to "trade" rights on carbon dioxide emission. The going rate for a "right" in Europe is now $16 per ton. If LP&L were to generate annually 100,000 tons more CO2 than allowable by their "cap" and they chose to purchase rights rather than use Option 1, they would increase their annual production costs by $1.6 million, which would then have to be allocated to customers as a price increase.
With respect to an understanding of "rights", the basic concept is included in the theory of "Cap and Trade". The "rights" concept is relatively simple. If a producer of byproduct carbon dioxide, such as an electric utility, decides to install capital equipment for carbon dioxide sequestration, he may end up with the ability to sequester somewhat more carbon dioxide than is needed based upon his "cap". Each ton of that excess carbon dioxide sequestration is then available for "trade" (sale) to another company which decided not to sequester and is producing more carbon dioxide than allowable by its "cap". These transfers, which may take place ostensibly at $16 per ton, will proceed through a newly established trading procedure. Energy companies or related financial companies will likely develop these trading organizations, which will take a portion of the "trade" price to cover their costs and profit. In addition, the federal government will establish a significant tax (yet to be determined). The net result of these gyrations is the same as Option 1, namely increased prices to consumers because of costs for an unnecessary system. The advantages will be to the trading organizations and to the Federal government in the form of increased taxes.
As I recall, the original Cap and Trade bill of the House was more than 900 pages and the likelihood is that you did not have an opportunity to read it, although it is said you voted correctly against it. We should eventually address the fact that legislation is confusingly overloaded with excessive verbiage, but that is another matter. Meanwhile, let's kill this Cap and Trade bill by whatever means necessary.
Carbon Dioxide
EIN News says: "Climate Impasse at G-8 Summit Leaves Nations
Mired. Developing nations led by China and India refused
Wednesday to back lofty but long-term targets proposed by the
Group of 8 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions,
balking at reluctance by leaders of the world's biggest
economies to move more quickly on their own. (latimes.com)"
It looks like the Chinese and Indians are smarter than US House
Representatives and possibly US Senators.
Mired. Developing nations led by China and India refused
Wednesday to back lofty but long-term targets proposed by the
Group of 8 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions,
balking at reluctance by leaders of the world's biggest
economies to move more quickly on their own. (latimes.com)"
It looks like the Chinese and Indians are smarter than US House
Representatives and possibly US Senators.
Hole Digging for Carbon Dioxide
In the old Army (say World War II vintage), we had a good job
creation technique. Dig a hole and then fill it in.
Is a lot of the government stuff we're doing now in the same
category?
For example, why not spend multibillion of dollars installing
processes and equipment to sequester carbon dioxide (digging a
hole). We then later may say, "Hey! There is new data. We need
more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere". We then dismantle all of
the carbon dioxide sequestering system, because it's in the way
(filling in the hole).
creation technique. Dig a hole and then fill it in.
Is a lot of the government stuff we're doing now in the same
category?
For example, why not spend multibillion of dollars installing
processes and equipment to sequester carbon dioxide (digging a
hole). We then later may say, "Hey! There is new data. We need
more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere". We then dismantle all of
the carbon dioxide sequestering system, because it's in the way
(filling in the hole).
Carbon Dioxide Sequestration
EIN News says, "Democrats Face Uphill Climb on Climate Bill. While President Obama spent part of his week overseas trying to re-engage the United States in global efforts to fight climate change, senators on Capitol Hill got down to business on their own legislation. (npr.org).
Please don't get complacent on this. It is extremely important that we kill this, so that it doesn't raise its ugly head every several months, like the Hydra of Greek mythology. Please take a leadership position in its death. I am sure "your own legislation" is important, but sequestration of carbon dioxide and all its insidious forms must die
Please don't get complacent on this. It is extremely important that we kill this, so that it doesn't raise its ugly head every several months, like the Hydra of Greek mythology. Please take a leadership position in its death. I am sure "your own legislation" is important, but sequestration of carbon dioxide and all its insidious forms must die
Carbon Dioxide Cap And Trade
E-mail to Congress:
EIN news says, "Senate Democrats Prep Team Girds for Climate Battle. When the Senate debated climate change legislation earlier this decade, it generally was understood the bill had no chance of becoming law. (nytimes.com)".
This is the second ball that you should not take your eye off. It differs from socialized healthcare but it's no less significant. Socialized healthcare would push us one step further into a USSR type socialized regime. The "Climate Battle", which is characterized primarily by the Cap and Trade aspect of controlling carbon dioxide production, would push us into being a third world in economy.
As Senate Democrats gear up to push through Cap and Trade, I suggest you and your associates redubbed your efforts to push in the opposite direction. I have seen recently the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" starting to act more like proponents of the Constitution and realism, rather than applying a socialistic agenda. Some significant effort on your part to garner them into a team of non-partisans could be very effective. May I also suggest that we spend little to no time in considering minor matters, such as who will receive a service award, when we have really significant matters on the table.
EIN news says, "Senate Democrats Prep Team Girds for Climate Battle. When the Senate debated climate change legislation earlier this decade, it generally was understood the bill had no chance of becoming law. (nytimes.com)".
This is the second ball that you should not take your eye off. It differs from socialized healthcare but it's no less significant. Socialized healthcare would push us one step further into a USSR type socialized regime. The "Climate Battle", which is characterized primarily by the Cap and Trade aspect of controlling carbon dioxide production, would push us into being a third world in economy.
As Senate Democrats gear up to push through Cap and Trade, I suggest you and your associates redubbed your efforts to push in the opposite direction. I have seen recently the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" starting to act more like proponents of the Constitution and realism, rather than applying a socialistic agenda. Some significant effort on your part to garner them into a team of non-partisans could be very effective. May I also suggest that we spend little to no time in considering minor matters, such as who will receive a service award, when we have really significant matters on the table.
Fear Mongering
8/10/09
EIN News says, "Tuvalu Plots World's First Zero Carbon Output by 2020. At threat from rising sea levels caused by global warming, the low-lying nation plans to swap imported "dirty fuel" for wind and solar power. With no heavy industry, almost no natural resources and very low existing greenhouse gas emissions, Tuvalu could become the first country in the world to realise the zero-carbon dream. Lying halfway between Australia and Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific, the government has been forced to act because the nation stands to lose so much from climate change. (telegraph.co.uk)".
Here we have anecdotal information cited to both arouse your compassion for the Tuvalu people and also arouse your competitive spirit that what these poor underprivileged people can do should certainly be equaled by you.
Here also are some facts, which may help to put this anecdote into the proper perspective. Tuvalu is a 26 mi.² Island in the Polynesian group. It is considered the fourth smallest country in the world. It has a population of 12,000. The economy is mostly dependent on foreign aid, $9 million of which comes from the US ($750 per capita). For comparison, per capita income of the Solomon Islands is $600, Papua New Guinea $510, Congo $100, Ethiopia $90. The only steady work (wage and salary) on Tuvalu is government employment (socialistic?).
Is there really some basis on which we should follow Tuvalu and considering any carbon output control?
If you have compassion for their concern that they may be flooded out, assure them that you will give financial assistance that they can all move to a higher elevation Island. It should cost about the same as a week's salary for a Washington bureaucrat.
I respectfully ask you to kill all aspects of climate control, most of which involve carbon dioxide control. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are already controlled by a combination of naturally instituted processes, including photosynthesis.
EIN News says, "Tuvalu Plots World's First Zero Carbon Output by 2020. At threat from rising sea levels caused by global warming, the low-lying nation plans to swap imported "dirty fuel" for wind and solar power. With no heavy industry, almost no natural resources and very low existing greenhouse gas emissions, Tuvalu could become the first country in the world to realise the zero-carbon dream. Lying halfway between Australia and Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific, the government has been forced to act because the nation stands to lose so much from climate change. (telegraph.co.uk)".
Here we have anecdotal information cited to both arouse your compassion for the Tuvalu people and also arouse your competitive spirit that what these poor underprivileged people can do should certainly be equaled by you.
Here also are some facts, which may help to put this anecdote into the proper perspective. Tuvalu is a 26 mi.² Island in the Polynesian group. It is considered the fourth smallest country in the world. It has a population of 12,000. The economy is mostly dependent on foreign aid, $9 million of which comes from the US ($750 per capita). For comparison, per capita income of the Solomon Islands is $600, Papua New Guinea $510, Congo $100, Ethiopia $90. The only steady work (wage and salary) on Tuvalu is government employment (socialistic?).
Is there really some basis on which we should follow Tuvalu and considering any carbon output control?
If you have compassion for their concern that they may be flooded out, assure them that you will give financial assistance that they can all move to a higher elevation Island. It should cost about the same as a week's salary for a Washington bureaucrat.
I respectfully ask you to kill all aspects of climate control, most of which involve carbon dioxide control. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are already controlled by a combination of naturally instituted processes, including photosynthesis.
Climate Change
Here is one from an associate in New Hampshire:
"Dear Sen. Gregg:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter of July 22. I applaud the change in your views re. (cap and trade". The reasons you stated for not liking H.R. 2454 are all sound and sensible. Your whole letter was excellent, except for two items that I disagree with.
The first is climate change. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence that anything man does has any significant effect on the changes that take place in our climate, and have been taking place since man was on earth. I urge you to seek such evidence before drastically altering our economy through futile attempts to make such changes.
The second is that you apparently have made no effort to learn the science relating to any possible effect of carbon dioxide on global warming (or have done so and ignored it). For example, did you know that burning a fossil fuel generates about as much , or more, water vapor as it does carbon dioxode and that both are essentially equal in thermal conductivity, whch governs how those gasses transmit [heat] through our atmosphere? Ask the climate change fanatics why they aren't concerned about water vapor from fossil fuels or any other source.
I encourage you to consider true science, not just that promulgated by political or financial motives.
Richard C. Mansfield"
"Dear Sen. Gregg:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter of July 22. I applaud the change in your views re. (cap and trade". The reasons you stated for not liking H.R. 2454 are all sound and sensible. Your whole letter was excellent, except for two items that I disagree with.
The first is climate change. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence that anything man does has any significant effect on the changes that take place in our climate, and have been taking place since man was on earth. I urge you to seek such evidence before drastically altering our economy through futile attempts to make such changes.
The second is that you apparently have made no effort to learn the science relating to any possible effect of carbon dioxide on global warming (or have done so and ignored it). For example, did you know that burning a fossil fuel generates about as much , or more, water vapor as it does carbon dioxode and that both are essentially equal in thermal conductivity, whch governs how those gasses transmit [heat] through our atmosphere? Ask the climate change fanatics why they aren't concerned about water vapor from fossil fuels or any other source.
I encourage you to consider true science, not just that promulgated by political or financial motives.
Richard C. Mansfield"
Tariffs Related to Greenhouse Gases
EIN News says, "Senate Democrats Want Climate Bill to Protect Manufacturing. Ten Senate Democrats whose votes are pivotal to the success of climate legislation urged the Obama administration on Thursday to support levying tariffs on goods from countries that don't limit their greenhouse-gas emissions. (wsj.com)".
Congratulations to the Senate Democrats! They are beginning to see some of the disadvantages of unnecessary and futile attempts to control climate.
Tariff eliminations have been a continuing program of the US government, including the Obama Administration. What kind of message do we send internationally if we establish a new tariff on imports into the US?
Consider also that if we do impose such tariff restriction, the egg we will have on our face, when we eventually realize that carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant, anymore than nitrogen, and expenditures of large sums of money for its control had been unnecessary and should be stopped. If we then stop carbon control, would we then be violating our own basis for having imposed the tariff?
The best answer to this dilemma is to stop carbon control now by killing any bills related to it.
Congratulations to the Senate Democrats! They are beginning to see some of the disadvantages of unnecessary and futile attempts to control climate.
Tariff eliminations have been a continuing program of the US government, including the Obama Administration. What kind of message do we send internationally if we establish a new tariff on imports into the US?
Consider also that if we do impose such tariff restriction, the egg we will have on our face, when we eventually realize that carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant, anymore than nitrogen, and expenditures of large sums of money for its control had been unnecessary and should be stopped. If we then stop carbon control, would we then be violating our own basis for having imposed the tariff?
The best answer to this dilemma is to stop carbon control now by killing any bills related to it.
Fear Mongering
EIN News says, "Great Barrier Reef Harm 'Would Put $38 Billion Hole in Tourism'. The bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef caused by climate change would not only destroy one of the world's greatest natural wonders but would cost Australia $37.7 billion over the next century and devastate tourism in the north, a study has found. (smh.com.au)".
Here we have a fine example of fear mongering!
Using the word "bleaching" implies that the coral, which composes the Great Barrier Reef, is dying. This is not necessarily true based on "bleaching" detail from Wikipedia. In addition, I see no reference that the Great Barrier Reef is in fact "bleaching". Parts of many coral growths occasionally "bleach", because of a local condition. This is similar to the fact that you may run a fever now and then, if you have a temporary illness.
The other connection in the fear mongering is that the bleaching is caused by climate change. There is certainly climate change, but no one has been able to show that change in climate is a result of man-made activities. It is obviously ridiculous for us to attempt climate control in order to save $38 billion in tourism revenue for Australia.
While we are on the subject of fear mongering, let us consider the damage that WOULD be done if an asteroid of significant size were to hit the Earth. There would be losses in the neighborhood of gazillions of dollars. Does that mean we should immediately start a program to blow the asteroid belt to smithereens or to tow it further from the Earth?
The byword is, "Watch carefully the fear mongers, in every aspect of society, commerce, natural disasters, and politics"!
Here we have a fine example of fear mongering!
Using the word "bleaching" implies that the coral, which composes the Great Barrier Reef, is dying. This is not necessarily true based on "bleaching" detail from Wikipedia. In addition, I see no reference that the Great Barrier Reef is in fact "bleaching". Parts of many coral growths occasionally "bleach", because of a local condition. This is similar to the fact that you may run a fever now and then, if you have a temporary illness.
The other connection in the fear mongering is that the bleaching is caused by climate change. There is certainly climate change, but no one has been able to show that change in climate is a result of man-made activities. It is obviously ridiculous for us to attempt climate control in order to save $38 billion in tourism revenue for Australia.
While we are on the subject of fear mongering, let us consider the damage that WOULD be done if an asteroid of significant size were to hit the Earth. There would be losses in the neighborhood of gazillions of dollars. Does that mean we should immediately start a program to blow the asteroid belt to smithereens or to tow it further from the Earth?
The byword is, "Watch carefully the fear mongers, in every aspect of society, commerce, natural disasters, and politics"!
Congress is Agent for Consumer
EIN News says, "Lobbyists Elbow for Influence on U.S. Climate Bill. Manufacturers and energy companies sent squads of lobbyists to the U.S. Congress earlier this year to influence the climate bill, an indication the U.S. Senate will face pressure to adjust the legislation ahead of its vote, a nonprofit investigative group said. (reuters.com)".
Many manufacturers and energy companies are not really concerned about whether control of climate is necessary or possible. Their concern is with profit opportunities. They do not question whether there is technical or moral justification for any major project, as long as it may put dollars in their pockets.
These companies and their organizations also recognize that lobbyists are necessary to convince you of the "need" to make those dollars available. Such promotion is in the same category as advertising, which has been found to be effective in increasing sales and profits.
It is the consumer's responsibility to properly judge whether a project or service should be purchased, notwithstanding the advertising. In dealing with lobbyists, you are the purchasing manager for the consuming public. I ask that you take that responsibility seriously.
Many manufacturers and energy companies are not really concerned about whether control of climate is necessary or possible. Their concern is with profit opportunities. They do not question whether there is technical or moral justification for any major project, as long as it may put dollars in their pockets.
These companies and their organizations also recognize that lobbyists are necessary to convince you of the "need" to make those dollars available. Such promotion is in the same category as advertising, which has been found to be effective in increasing sales and profits.
It is the consumer's responsibility to properly judge whether a project or service should be purchased, notwithstanding the advertising. In dealing with lobbyists, you are the purchasing manager for the consuming public. I ask that you take that responsibility seriously.
Cap and Trade
EIN News says, "Cap-and-Trade's Unlikely Critics: Its Creators. In the 1960s, a University of Wisconsin graduate student named Thomas Crocker came up with a novel solution for environmental problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits that allow them to pollute within those limits. Now legislation using cap-and-trade to limit greenhouse gases is working its way through Congress and could become the law of the land. But Mr. Crocker and other pioneers of the concept are doubtful about its chances of success. They aren't abandoning efforts to curb emissions. But they are tiptoeing away from an idea they devised decades ago, doubting it can work on the grand scale now envisioned. (wsj.com)".
This is an interesting historical account of the origin of an idea and its proliferation. It would be interesting to develop similar historical accounts of other myths, such as witchcraft, but that is not our main concern. The question is how to deal with myths. There is a television program known as "Myth Busters", but the "busting" always involves dealing with the hard aspects of science. Intellectual myths are a different matter, and until there is a revolutionary change in busting such myths, we are probably stuck with engaging in sometimes futile argumentation. Attempts to inject the practical aspects of science into the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas myth are many times overshadowed by the emotionally negative attitudes previously established and continued through fear mongering.
Crocker is to be tiptoeing away from the idea of Cap and Trade in carbon dioxide emission control, because the problem is too big to be solved by a Cap and Trade system. I doubt that. I suspect that Crocker more likely recognizes that his original idea did not involve a greenhouse gas myth, which is unresolved as to whether it is fact or whether it continues as myth.
Meanwhile, I urge you and your associates to kill any carbon dioxide Cap and Trade proposals, until such time as the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas myth is confirmed by hard science techniques, rather than an emotional feeling brought on by fear mongering, which may very well have been initiated by opportunities for financial profit.
This is an interesting historical account of the origin of an idea and its proliferation. It would be interesting to develop similar historical accounts of other myths, such as witchcraft, but that is not our main concern. The question is how to deal with myths. There is a television program known as "Myth Busters", but the "busting" always involves dealing with the hard aspects of science. Intellectual myths are a different matter, and until there is a revolutionary change in busting such myths, we are probably stuck with engaging in sometimes futile argumentation. Attempts to inject the practical aspects of science into the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas myth are many times overshadowed by the emotionally negative attitudes previously established and continued through fear mongering.
Crocker is to be tiptoeing away from the idea of Cap and Trade in carbon dioxide emission control, because the problem is too big to be solved by a Cap and Trade system. I doubt that. I suspect that Crocker more likely recognizes that his original idea did not involve a greenhouse gas myth, which is unresolved as to whether it is fact or whether it continues as myth.
Meanwhile, I urge you and your associates to kill any carbon dioxide Cap and Trade proposals, until such time as the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas myth is confirmed by hard science techniques, rather than an emotional feeling brought on by fear mongering, which may very well have been initiated by opportunities for financial profit.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Control
EIN News says, "Energy Giant PetroChina Agrees to Buy $41 Billion Worth of Australian Liquefied Natural Gas. A 50 billion Australian dollar ($41 billion) deal for China to buy Australian natural gas shows current diplomatic tensions between the two countries will not trump their commercial interests, officials said Wednesday. (latimes.com)".
The only reason to buy natural gas is to burn it. This produces large amounts of carbon dioxide.
While we stew about our putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Cap and Trade), others seem to have no hesitation in continuing this on a grand scale.
Do we want to enter the world financial boxing ring with one hand tied behind our back?
The only reason to buy natural gas is to burn it. This produces large amounts of carbon dioxide.
While we stew about our putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Cap and Trade), others seem to have no hesitation in continuing this on a grand scale.
Do we want to enter the world financial boxing ring with one hand tied behind our back?
Climate Bill Exposes Rifts
8/27/09
EIN News says, "Climate Bill Exposes Rifts Within Political Families. The debate over how to curb carbon-dioxide emissions and other gases linked to global climate change is splitting some prominent political families in both parties. (wsj.com)"
This is good news! The more rifts we have, the better are our chances of using some common sense.
There is absolutely no data showing that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels adversely affects climate. It would be ridiculous to spend money on curbing carbon dioxide emissions, when there is no data to show it is necessary.
EIN News says, "Climate Bill Exposes Rifts Within Political Families. The debate over how to curb carbon-dioxide emissions and other gases linked to global climate change is splitting some prominent political families in both parties. (wsj.com)"
This is good news! The more rifts we have, the better are our chances of using some common sense.
There is absolutely no data showing that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels adversely affects climate. It would be ridiculous to spend money on curbing carbon dioxide emissions, when there is no data to show it is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
