It’s not a popular idea with either party, but Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman offers a compelling argument that the most straightforward and cost-effective way to address climate change is a carbon tax.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Chas on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Jed on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Public was correct to be concerned about Kline
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/22
73 Comments
I’m sure Pastor Cosmos, Lord Chaplain of the High Confidence Church of Global Warming will be along to tell us how another tax will help us all.
We are getting ready to pay a big time “Carbon” tax with very large increases in Food Prices. Removing the corn and wheat from the food chain for the Ethanol scam and driving up prices is resulting now in a food price increase bordering on 1.5% per month. That will mean about 20% inflation in food prices. Have not seen those since good ole Jimmy Carter days.
Talked with a US AG dept guy last week about why Gluten was being imported to US and he said that some Ethanol plants were getting ready to come on stream that use WHEAT instead of corn.
Milk is estimated to increase by 60 cents per gallon this summer due to increased milk cow feed prices. And they will get it since it is pretty much a monopoly with price supports etc. as usual.
So Im guessing not only will your meat and milk shoot up, but now your bread will to. Making fuel from your food products is going to be extremely costly and Im not sure the populace will take kindly to such.
Add this to some big time Carbon Taxes on Gasoline to the tune of 10 to 40 cents per gallon…and on Natural Gas for your heating. And likely on the car per se due to it being a carbon source.
What makes the car thing so ironical is that the more efficient you make the car burn all the fuel to make it get better mileage, the more CO2 it makes…so you get to pay more carbon tax. So the cleaner the car is…the more you will be taxed…standard Government program.
Giving CO2 the term “pollutant” is extremely dangerous since it is naturally occurring and can not be gotten rid of. If you burn something, you get it no matter what. Lay People will think of it as some poison as SO2 etc which it is not. Its necessary for life.
Watch out they may start taxing you for breathing….
Shades of the Beatles…Taxman.
mr bill: As you implied, carbon monoxide is the poisonoous gas. Carbon dioxide is the product of plants, trees, etc.
But could you define in as few words as possible, how the “carbon tax” would work?
NOT ANOTHER TAX !!!! I don’t think any one can deny that smog / and carbon based pollutants in large amounts can be bad for you. We need to elect real leaders who are willing to make the tough decisions to create an energy policy that removes our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the impact that carbon based fuels have on our quality of life / health. Start with the energy efficiency of our vehicles — up the requirements of the fuel efficiencies of all vehicles to 25-30 MPG, I believe the technology is there to accomplish that. How about making license plates renewable every 2-3 years instead of every year, and require passing an emissions test as part of the renewal process. Sounds like it could save some money for the state and vehicle owners by extending the renewal time - some of the cost savings are passed on to create an emissions testing system. Several states are doing that (emissions testing) — Illinois comes to mind.,. Any state employees displaced by the extended plate requirement could be absorbed into the emissions testing program? The down side will be the lose of some state revenue? Perhaps a fee for the emissions testing can be part of the cost of renewal to offset some of that loss?
Small steps that seemingly make sense - no new taxes, no one loses a job, and the net effect is good for the environment.
Mr. Bill - I don’t understand this:”What makes the car thing so ironical is that the more efficient you make the car burn all the fuel to make it get better mileage, the more CO2 it makes…”
The object of fuel efficiency is to reduce the total amount of fuel burned, how does that create more CO2 / carbon monoxide ?
Wasn’t a big part of the 20% inflation in the Carter years a matter of OPEC etc …. drastically raising oil prices?
How do we get the SUN to pay this tax?The SUN is the source of nearly all heat on the planet.If you want to stop warming, you have to control the SUN.
Actually,Green plants USE CO2.If we eliminate all CO@, we would all have trouble catching our breath, since CO2 helps regulate human breathing.Also, if we eliminate all CO2, green plants would die, along with algae and plankton and diatoms in the soil.
One reason the libs push “carbon taxes” is because, they say, increasing the cost of carbon based fuels will encourage alternatives.Won’t that happen naturally as supply depletes?(Actually, known reserves are going up, lately, but never mind that issue for now.)Also, the greenies tell us that the carbon tax will be used to fund alternative fuels.Really?I have come to agree with many posters here that say the ethanol fuel craze is overdone right now.The market has been distorted by tax policy and subsidy policy, and now the poor folks in Central America cant afford to buy corn-based tortillas!Let the market work.The sky is not falling.If the sky ever DOES fall, there isnt a darn thing we can do about it.The SUN is the driviing force behind nearly all climate changes on Earth.
It’s amazing what journalists think are “compelling” arguments. The rest of us just see another tax.
“The SUN is the driviing force behind nearly all climate changes on Earth.”
FALSE according to the professional scientists who study it.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
If we are going to depend solely on market forces then we should internalize all costs.
Even generals are seeing this:
US generals urge climate actionFormer US military leaders have called on the Bush administration to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6557803.stm
Democrats never saw a tax they didn;t like. Apparently, Republicans never saw a government dollar (including loans) that shouldn’t be spent.
Ben, your post reminds me of the discussions we had “back then” in Intro to Economics at KU. The argument made by our professor, largely ignored by the students who were just trying to figure out supply and demand, was that there were great costs which were not qualified and quantified, such as those relating to the environmental damage (acid rain, back then) which needed to be identified, a valuation attached thereto, and then internalized within the markets. This has started to make sense to me some 38 years later.
Very true VT. Unfortunately that tends to be a bit beyond freshman econ.
Actually the idea of internalizing costs comes in many places - restoration of land, sewage treatment for factories, traffic impacts for outlying developments, etc.
I remember years ago during a landfill fight in Illinois suggesting that if “CHEAP” is all that mattered I could simply carry my trash with me each morning and toss it out the car window as I drive through Hoffman Estates. The mayor of that city did not like my idea but he got my point.
By the way, the Consensus Scientists don’t use the early Flask Data available because it is inconvenient. The CO2 levels have not reached 400 ppm yet, but in the 1940s it was above 400ppm with lower temperatures. And before Cosmos or anyone says that the data is incorrect. The Consensus Scientists only examined 10 percent of the data and gave it a less than 1 percent on average inaccuracy rate.
That means by looking at the Flask Data prior to 1970, there were 13 occasions were CO2 was as high or higher than it is today with lower temperatures.
The GW Alarmists don’t like using the old Flask Data because they say it was pulled near cities where we live. Yeah okay, I don’t know any size population that lives in Antarctica or on top of a Volcano either. That’s where the Alarmists pull their samples.
Duh, imagine pulling samples where we actually live. (shrugs)
The other thing they don’t tell you is that they use NOAA data from the Government as do all U.S. Scientists for temperatures. From 1970 to 2000, the temperature rose 0.96 F. That’s less than 1 degree F.
That’s 0.032F per year over 30 years. Can you feel the heat? :)
Anyway back to why the Alarmists don’t like using the old Flask data. They found using ice core samples better fit their “theories.” Why? Because ice core samples were lower when the temperatures were lower. So, the lower co2ppm better fits their picture.
Of course, when showing the co2 chart they neglect to tell you that then lower co2 was taken UNDERGROUND and in frozen wasteland, not where you live.
I don’t know why they title it Inconvenient Truth, when all it is a song and dance of snake oil salesmanship.
They are trying to pull a fast one.
I’ve used their numbers folks, not mine nor the numbers from other scientists. I’ve IPCC numbers, but tell you what they actually mean and not the spin they put on it.
Is there Global Warming? Yeah, appears to be, but it is absolutely natural.
Ben, likely beyond Freshman Econ; it happens that KU made an error in judgment and admitted me to the Honors Program, thus an Honors Section taught by a Professor whose specialty was Econometrics was where I was.
It seems to me that “cheap” has always been the mantra regarding trash disposal. Again, if the costs of clean up of water pollution from leakage of harmful chemicals from a landfill, for example, were internalized into the costs of operations, would a landfill locally sited still be the “cheapest” alternative? These are issues that continue with me after all these years….
Rep - can you provide a reference to that? Is it from a “flask” taken directly downwind from a source? If so it is not meaningful to the global discussion. Just like if I took a sample where I am sitting right now (an office full of people) I would get high results.
VT - the ‘cheapest’ would be integrated solid waste management as I have discussed elsewhere. A combination of recycling and waste-to-energy inconeration. Another possible ingredient might be biomass-ethanol.
How does the carbon tax work…
The proposals Ive seen or heard spoken of are just that. They propose an actual TAX on the amount of carbon contained in or released from the fuel or activity. So much money per ton or lb of carbon dioxide. But since it is a normal constituent of our life…remember we are a Carbon based life form. Not Silicon like some in Star Trek.
As for the Cleaner burning car making more CO2, I got that info from an enviro site talking to how the car pollution has been so cleaned up and they are so efficient now that they convert most old style pollutants to CO2 now. The cars today have had close to 98-99% of the old style pollution creating stuff removed. Carbon Monoxide (CO) SO2, NOx, etc. So the only thing left is CO2 which is normal part of burning. Even the CO has been cleaned up to the point that several people have tried to commit suicide with these new vehicles in their garage with the enginre running. But only woke up the next morning with a bad headache. They dont put out enough CO to kill you it seems.
But it will present an intersting conundrum for the policians et al, drive up gas and heat prices or drive up the food prices astronomically.
Not choices politicians will make with any good outcome.
If these Ethanol plants are seen to drive food out of the hands of kids , babies. The local peasants will rise up with their pitchforks and either burn them down or put them in the same shape as the old Derby Refinery.
Republican,
“I’m sure Pastor Cosmos, Lord Chaplain of the High Confidence Church of Global Warming will be along to tell us how another tax will help us all.”
Thank you for AGAIN proving that you do NOT read my posts.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/economists_back.html#comment-60562738“Re the 40 economists saying the “most effective way to boost new energy alternatives is a tax on fossil fuels”.
They should consult the energy experts at OilEndgame, who point out that taxes are a weak way.
Main points of page 174 (PDF pg 198) at http://www.oilendgame.com/* U.S. gasoline is only about 1/8th of the total cost of owning and running a car, and further reduced by discounts.
* Even countries with $5/gallon gasoline have not caused production of “State-of-Art” cars.
* There are much better incentives, such as feebates, federal guaranteed loans to U.S. automakers for re-tooling costs, “Platinum” and “Golden” “Carrots”, etc.
But I do agree with carbon taxes like Boulder CO is using, to fund energy audits and reduce electricity demand from coal-fired plants.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/open_thread_20.html#comment-63983374 “And I do NOT consider carbon taxes the ONLY, or best way to cut emissions. Feebates, “carrots”, loan guarantees. etc would work better/faster.
I’ve posted that many times before.http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
But I guess Republican also likes to lie about me.”
Republican, does your hatred of the U.N. and carbon taxes make you UNABLE to understand the economics and science of global warming?
Dr. Huie,
Republican (like JM) believes the brain-dead, totally idiotic nonsense from E.G. Beck and/or Jaworowski.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
More details, http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/“The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million. It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year—the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world.”
That page explains the procedure used to discard the inaccurate measurements.
Can we do a little out-of-the-box thinking?Let’s but aside causality for a bit - it is not really that important why the climate is changing.I think we can all agree that long-erm climate change is happening. It always has; it always will. The global climate cycles through highs and lows. Our emissions may have some affect to speed or slow climate changes but with or without humans the climate changes.
How about we focus our limited resources on something productive, like how to deal with climate change? Are we ready for a shift of longer, colder winters deeper into the midwest? Can we deal with more extremes in summer temperatures? What affect will climate change have on our food sources, can those effects be mitigated? etc
Beck - that explains a lot. I have read his stuff - very bogus. Taking samples downwind from power plants etc.
How about a carbon tax on motor vehicles. Those who drive fuel efficient vehicles would get a break while those who drive the guzzlers would have to pay? Seems perfectly fine with me since I wouldn’t have to pay it (50+ mpg).
Those denyasaurs who still believe climate change is a myth are just a fringe element of society. Perhaps we can place them on an island that will drown as the sea level rises. They’ll deny it’s really happening and we’ll be dry pondering how long they can tread water. Tegua has space, the people had to leave because of rising sea levels (don’t tell the science deniers, facts just frustrate them).
brian - we need to look at both causality and also how to deal with the consequencies.
“It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year—the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world.”Posted by: cosmos | April 16, 2007 at 12:40 PM
You mean like CO2 from Volcanoes or from the many burning fires during WWII? Or from huge fires like that in Yellowstone or the Amazonian Forest?
Ask yourself this question Cosmos. Why hasn’t data for CO2 changed that much at that Volcano site in Hawaii, when a Volcano next to it has erupted several times during the time measurements were being taken.
I mean there was CO2 being pushed out by the neighbor Volcano all over the place.
And Mr. Conspiracy Cosmos, I’m not this guy JM. But I forgot, you like conspiracies don’t you?
Dr. Huie,
The page Cosmos gave me at:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.phpshows the CO2 data and by IPCC admission there is only a 1-3 percent inaccuracy in the data. I have since found other papers that confirm this inaccuracy.
One has to ask themselves what does that mean. It means at 500ppm only 15ppm could be bad data. Even if the error rate was 10 percent, the co2ppm would be 450ppm and the temperatures were lower during that time. The 450ppm would be way higher than it is now.
The much revered French Coastal CO2 sampling approved by the GW Alarmist is at its lowest 12ppm higher than ice core samples and as much as 100ppm higher when all range data is considered.
I’m not making this stuff up, it’s right there for everyone to see and it has been examined by experts. They even assign it an error rate.
Yet even with the error rate, co2 levels still fall above current co2 levels at lower temperatures.
What it means is that if they say 400 ppm it means 392-408 ppm. (+/- 2%)
However, if I take a stack sample in a power plant I can get 200,000 ppm CO2. That, obviously, would NOT be representative of the planet.
And yes, I mean all the volcanoes etc etc.
Paul F. ROSELL,
“The SUN is the source of nearly all heat on the planet.If you want to stop warming, you have to control the SUN.”
Would you like it to be MINUS 15 degrees F outside, instead of + 70? Earth’s greenhouse gases keep us about 86 deg F warmer, plus prevent huge changes between day/night.
Humans ARE increasing the amount of GHG’s.If the sun’s energy IS increasing, that’s a STRONGER need to reduce our GHG’s.More sun + more GHG’s = FASTER warming.
Paul F. ROSELL: “Also, if we eliminate all CO2, green plants would die, along with algae and plankton and diatoms in the soil.”
AGW reduces phytoplankton,’Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html
A DROP in CO2 below normal could trigger an ice age,http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect….It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
ROSELL, you seem to be very confused re climate, and science.
Dr. Huie,
Btw, I read the all the papers I could find about the early flask samples and its critics, and no where could I find that samples were taken downwind of a smoke stack.
Even the scientific critical assessments of the data did not state that co2 sampling was compromised by “smoke stack” data.
I found some journalistic pieces that said that, but nothing by scientific critics of the early flask data.
I don’t use journalistic pieces in my determination as it cannot be verified under scientific methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Republican claims that he “doesn’t make this stuff up.”
No, he has other idiots to make the stuff up.
Look at the graphs from Wikipedia. Since 1960, the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 37 percent.
This correlates directly with amount of fossil fuel burned to produce energy.
Republican uses archaic 19th century science metodology in a lame attempt to confound the obvious: burning carbon creates CO2. CO2 increases the well-known and clearly observed greenhouse effect.
With conservation, we can easily cut 30 percent of our energy needs. Substituting “green” energy like wind and solar could provide another 50 percent. That leaves only 20 some percent fossil fuel use.
With advances in nuclear fusion, we could eliminate even that.
A European consortium is building a fusion reactor in southern France.
For the cost of two months in Iraq, we could build one here.
Problem is Rep, they were taken near urban areas. I used by stack as an extreme; my point is that if you are NEAR my fireplace chimney you will get unreliable data. That is why, for global data, we prefer remote locations.
Let us consider a sample that is 99% “Background” (380 PPM) and 1% “stack”. That would blend to 2380 ppm CO2. If it were just 0.1% “stack” you would get 580 ppm. That is the problem with Beck’s data.
I deal a lot with groundwater sampling; these can become seriously contaminated if you sample after filling you gas tank just from what might be on your hands. In many ways environmental sampling is the most difficult task.
Capn - I would add fission power using currently available technology (but better QC than we often see)
Watched some interesting discussion the other day on the CO2 vs Global Warming stuff.
They were debating an issue I had not seen before.
That being perhaps the warming was the CAUSE of the CO2 increase….rather than the CO2 increase being the driving for the warming….
Perhaps the natural warming cycle we have seen before, drives up the natural CO2 emissions from natural sources such as forests etc.
Plus this same warming is being seen on Mars and the melting of its polar ice caps. So something else may be ongoing.
Dont know but its a different take on this issue. No one was advocating there was not a warming, the discussion was to what was the apparatus at work.
But it was the type of work and thought that should be going on…not just some “belief” system that enviro is dangerously close to becoming.
In fact I’ve seem some pushing to have Environmentalism moved to be labeled either a Religion or Political system since seemingly all the Left has glommed onto it after the fall of the Soviets and Socialism and Communism were finally outed. They seem to have an affinity for a lot of odd “isms” that entail command driven policies. The usual Tyrannical left… we will do it for the good of…something….kids, goats, 3rd worlders or whatever.
And this carbon tax will be a VERY LARGE deal on everything you touch. Even the EU can not and has NEVER met their Kyoto goals. It is likely impossible without shutting down parts of industry or society.
If you were to outlaw driving tomorrow in the US and ban ALL cars. The CO2 level would only be affected a few %. No where near the 20% some are calling for.
To point out what Im talking of, just in time, Mr Carroll of the Boston Globe spells it out for you in their thinking…Nationhood is a 19th century anachronism..http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/16/new_thinking_to_save_the_earth/
1. Get rid of Private property so enviros and governments can control it easier.
2. Get rid of the idea of a NATION..”A 19th-century notion of national sovereignty allows sub groups to pursue agendas..”
So now you understand the real show to come.
Whats mine is mine , and whats Yours is MINE.
mrbill - there is something called a ‘positive feedback loop’ where CO2-induced warming then creates more CO2 etc. For example, as noted above, reduction in phytoplankton productivity will cause that. Also things like ice-albedo feedback.
I don’t know that Mr. Carroll represents us scientists.
Dr. Huie,
Excellent explanation on CO2 sampling effects with background contamination.
One thing that is troubling me though is the Mauna Lo data taken on top of a Volcano. That volcano is inactive, but there is an nearby volcano that has been active several times during the sampling since 1957.
Why has there been no significant increases in the CO2 sampling at Manua Lo during the times of eruption at a nearby Volcano?
oops forgot to ask a question
How many ppm of CO2 does it take to affect a temperature rise? Or does anyone know?
Let’s say I build a computer model of the climate. I have 300ppm as a baseline CO2.
Now I bilge out another 100ppm through man made and natural co2.
What would be the temperature increase in my computer model?
Also, if the co2 is climbing 1.67ppm/year what does that mean in temperature rise?
Or does anyone really know exactly the relation between temperature rise and CO2 increase?
I read from the EPA website that man made CO2 is 5billion metric tons and CO2 from natural sources is 150 billion metric tons.
I also read that the recycling by the ocean sink cycle is 50 billion metric tons. To me that seems more than sufficient to absorb the man made co2.
You guys can bicker all you want about what it is that is causing global warming but if the bickering is not providing an action, then your arguments is moot.I am working on building my second electric bike.I am not waiting for the rest of the world to come up with a solution to a problem; also I have been making it my own practice to avoid driving the car as much as possible.Maybe it would be better to mandate a “No driving your Vehicle Holiday once a month” then to make a carbon tax.
Republican,
“Why hasn’t data for CO2 changed that much at that Volcano site in Hawaii, when a Volcano next to it has erupted several times during the time measurements were being taken.”
Because Mauna Loa measures GLOBAL CO2 levels, and has procedures to avoid errors from the volcano. They’re sited upwind, make multiple measurments, etc.
There are many sites — Barrow, American Samoa, South Pole, Alert, Cape Kumukahi, Christmas Island, Baring Head, Kermadec Island, La Jolla Pier, etc,http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
“Or from huge fires like that in Yellowstone or the Amazonian Forest?”
The seasonal swing at Mauna Loa is only a few ppm. Fires, etc would NOT cause a 260 ppm shift.
Rep - for an answer to your questions I suggest you go to the sites that have been linked.
Yes I understand about Mauna Lo Cosmos.
But taking CO2 measurements on one side of the island and ignoring co2 measurements on the other side of the island doesn’t make sense.
Taking CO2 measurements in places where no one lives doesn’t make sense to me.
It may be reflective of that small area, but it is certainly not reflective of an across the board co2 measurement.
Let’s say I take a co2 measurement 5 miles from an Oil Refinery Upwind and I get 390 ppm co2.
I go out another 15 miles for a 20 mile radius and take another sample. The sample taken reveals a 385ppm. I repeat this every day for 5 years.
The final results shows 397ppm mean for both sites after 5 years.
I also note the temperature rise during that time and the temperature rise is 0.032F per year.
I do the same downwind of the refinery with much higher CO2 readings, but the temperature rise is still 0.032F per year after 5 years.
Now I do this for 100 other sites near cities all across North America and get similar results.
That is, the temperature rise for 100 cities is 0.021F rise on average.
What would one conclude?
That Latitude can give different temperature results?
That averaging temperatures from the Southwest U.S. with Goosebay Labrador Canada is not a very good idea because the latitude spread is so far apart?
Republican,
“Or does anyone really know exactly the relation between temperature rise and CO2 increase?”
CO2’s effect is not linear. The climate scientists have the #’s for different levels of CO2 in the future.
“To me that seems more than sufficient to absorb the man made co2.”
Data from CO2 sites says you’re wrong. Humans have upset the natural carbon equilibrium — and CO2 has a lifetime of a century of more.
Fill a bathroom sink, and adjust the faucet so the water level stays at the top of the overflow hole(s)That’s equilibrium.Then increase the water flow by 3% — it’ll overflow.
I’m not sure about the bathroom sink analogy Cosmos.
Why do scientists say there are hundreds of years lag in temperature rise and CO2 then?
I know if you heat up a coke bottle, a closed system, it will heat up and the co2 will bubble out.
If you cool the coke bottle, co2 will remain in place or at least less diffusion.
Now our atmosphere and the carbon cycle is not a closed system. This is the reason that scientists say it takes a huge amount of years for co2 to take affect.
In other words temperature will rise first, then hundreds of years later co2 will rise.
So you’re saying Cosmos that the equilibrium has been upset and we no longer see a multiple hundreds of year turnover before there is a co2 increase?
Republican,
“Taking CO2 measurements in places where no one lives doesn’t make sense to me.”
CO2 has a lifetime of over a century, and spreads globally. The only sensible way to measure it is in uninhabited and/or high-altitude sites, were it’s been well mixed.
Scattered, short-lived areas of higher CO2 probably have neglible global effect.
“That averaging temperatures … is not a very good idea because the latitude spread is so far apart?”
Again, they do NOT average temperatures… they use anomalies.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
So if 100 sites of scattered higher CO2 have negligible effect, then how about 1000 sites or 10,000 sites?
I looked at the nasa page which I have seen before and they show a 0.2 C per decade. I think this works out to 0.32F per decade. That is 0.032F per year.
Explain to me how 3/100th of a degree F increase per year affects the planet’s safety?
And in regards to the Southern Hemisphere which I believe is part of the Globe is showing lower temperature increases and sometimes falling temperature increases.
Is the Northern Hemisphere data increase in temperature being focused in on for anomaly readings along with Southern Hemisphere readings? If not, why not?
Republican,
My bathroom sink analogy is accurate. Nature’s carbon cycle was fairly stable, until humans messed it up.
“In other words temperature will rise first, then hundreds of years later co2 will rise.”
In the PAST, changes in the sun, orbit, etc triggered warming. That warming gradually caused a rise in CO2 hundreds of years later. The rise in CO2 AMPLIFIED the warming trigggered by other factors.
THIS time, humans are CAUSING the rise in CO2, and other GHG’s.
I already pointed that out to you. You refused to answer.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/open_thread_12.html#comment-66391144
Dr. Huie answered that Cosmos, here:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/open_thread_12.html#comment-66402206
Republican,
“Dr. Huie answered that Cosmos, here:”
Read his post. He gave 2 examples of rapid climate change, caused by continent/volcanes and bolide impact.
Are you claiming those natural events = what humans have caused since the 1800’s?
“… the Southern Hemisphere which I believe is part of the Globe is showing lower temperature increases and sometimes falling temperature increases.”
You answered your own question re “planet’s safety”.
The Northern latitudes are warming the fastest.
Melt the Arctic ice cap, the warming speeds up.Less snow and ice cover, the warming speeds up.Thaw the permafrost, more GHG’s, the warming speeds up.Less phytoplankton in oceans, the warming speeds up.
And humans will NOT be able to stop it.
CO2 at “10,000 sites”? Prove that higher CO2 near its source has more impact than the effect of rising CO2 globally.
Square miles of sites compared to entire Earth? Height of local CO2 increase compared to height of atmosphere, etc.?
Well Cosmos if there is nothing we can do to stop it, why are we going to tax it?
So we can feel better about ourselves with higher taxes?
Reducing the CO2 should be the prime. The problem Repub and his mentors miss is the earth can only handle so much, and the ocean can only absorb so much and keep functioning as the oxygen generator for this planet.
Right now the ocean is becoming more acidic. And it’s due to CO2. The more acidic it becomes, the less it’s able to support the massive amounts of life that feed off the nutrients in the ocean.
Lets say the sun is causing the build up of CO2 due to a hotter earth for whatever reason. It would stand to reason reducing man’s part in CO2 generation should help in lowering the amount of acid level increase. Man does have a say in whether this planet survives as we know it.
It is pure arrogance to say we have no effect on the planet: there is smog, polluted rivers, overfishing (interrupting the food chain) and don’t forget the Peregrine falcon and DDT.
If global warming is solar cyclical, and the planet is in danger of going into a meltdown mode, what are the naysayers going to do?
J M,
I’m all for doing something about it. I just disagree on what is causing it.
What I’m against is taxes in which will have no control of because they will be part of a treaty base controlled by the U.N.
If there is to be a tax increase let’s debate it in Congress with our elected officials, not in the General Assembly of the U.N. who can ignore any requests the U.S. has.
REpub,Son of a gun, I agree with you for a change. This should be done here, but it should also be part of the world solution.
Republican,
You seem to have severe reading comprehension problems.
My section “Melt the Arctic ice cap…” referred to a hypothetical, future situation if humans do not take action.
We can avoid going past the “tipping point”.
Republican: “What I’m against is taxes in which will have no control of because they will be part of a treaty base controlled by the U.N.”
The Kyoto treaty is based on the ‘cap and trade’ system, not on “carbon taxes”. The government does not receive payments, and the price/unit is set by the market, not the government.
By the way Cosmos, do you live in Wichita or even Kansas?
I’ve read the Impact of the Kyoto Treaty Protocol and can confidently described your assessment as a simple cap and trade system not only in error, but a sure way to kill a free market economy.
Republican,
Just like they predicted that sulfur caps would destroy the economy? They actually cost much less than predicted, were profitable for some, and were effective.
Check your sources… they’re probably the same groups lying about humans not causing GW.
Cosmos, do you live in Wichita or even Kansas?
Back in the 50s and 60s they said any sort of emission controls on cars to control smog would destroy the auto industry. I knew some of the pioneers in that field ‘way back when’
We can start by taxing consumers. If you have a 6 cylinder car or truck, you should pay like a $500 a year carbon tax.
If you have a gasoline power lawn mower, start with $100 a year for push style and up to $500 a year for a riding lawn mower.
$50 a year for gas power weed eaters and chainsaws.
Taxing companies isn’t going to do squat, because they’ll just pass that tax to the consumers. Hit the consumers and then you can reduce the polluting greenhouse gases.
Go Green! I do! Don’t be a hypocrite!
Dr. Huie,
Catalytic converters were cursed too when they first came out.
But do you know what our Green European friends thought of our catalytic converters?
They charged each car that entered European soil a fee for removing the pellets and generally disabling the catalytic converter before it was allowed to enter any European country.
Republican, as one of those who helped develop catalytic converters it is my memory that the reason for that was that the Brown Europeans were sticking with leaded gasoline. It had nothing to do with neing Green; quite the opposite.
Ahh…Dr.Huie, interesting.
Then you would be the perfect person to answer the premise of this statement. It looks suspicious to me, but I’m not the scientist.
“Catalytic converters are estimated to account for 50% of total nitrous oxide (dinitrogen oxide, ‘laughing gas’) emissions to atmosphere. While N2O emissions in these concentrations are not harmful to human health, it is a potent greenhouse gas, accounting for around 7% of the overall greenhouse effect despite its small concentration in the atmosphere.”
Now Ben makes catalytic converters.
I actually did a speech on catalytic converters back in Communications Class.
It was back in 1996, so it was awhile ago. Cannot remember the details, but do remember thatit quite ironic that the greenhouse gas that will be the death of us all, CO2 is the by product of what catalytic converters do by converting 2CO (carbon monoxide), which isn’t a greenhouse gas.
So basically did the end justify the means? Did we kill ourselves in order to justify the pollution of that day?
Or maybe it helped stop the hole in the ozone or elimiate acid rain.
I guess there is good in it.
I can’t remember if Al Gore touched on catalytic converters or not.
I don’t know Joe, I just know it cost $50.00 to take the pellets out and $300.00 to put them back in. :)
Joe, the amount of CO2 produced by completion of oxidation of PICs is miniscule and irrelevant anyway. The CO emitted is converted in days to CO2 by reacion with OH radical in the atmosphere. Try taking a little atmospheric chemistry, you might learn something. Who knows, you might even learn more about catalytic converters then you did in communication class!
And yes, I did work with their development back in the 80s. That is when I met one of the “grandfathers” of their development; he was a “senior” when I was a “newbie” in the field. By the way; it is not 2CO to CO2 it is one; also CO also absorbs IR radiation. Go back to spectroscopy class.
If all PICs in auto exhaust are converted to CO2 that would increase the CO2 concentration in the exhaust from 20% to 20.0002%.
Republican - it may well be that converters are a source of N2O; that would come from the incomplete reduction of NOx. NOx reduction has always been the hardest part of exhaust cleanup. Oxidation of PICs is the easy part.
With all the N2O that comes from agricultural sources i would doubt that converters are that great a fraction but cannot really say for sure. I’ll have to check a source tomorrow; a few old textbooks I have.
An interesting question - definitely one to consider.
A point there though - NOx’s are also greenhouse gases; however they are washed out faster by rainfall. An irony with NOx - it is created by lightning and most then washed out in rain. That small amount of nitrite/nitrate is then a fertilyzer.
An interesting footnote to cat conv history. Before they were introduced the method used to attempt to meet standards was spark retard, EGR and all sorts of other horrible (to the engine) things. The catalyst then freed the auto engineers to inprove performance with the catalyst to take care of emissions.
However, “Ford had a better idea”: they figured if they only put the catalyst on one side of a V-8 and leave all the “doo-dads” in place they could (barely) meet standards. Meanwhile GM and Chrysler went full catalyst. So, the fords still had the performance problems while the other two had improvements. The following year Ford abandoned that approach.
some history:
http://www.nacatsoc.org/history.asp?HistoryID=5
Joe - FYI - CalTech is one of the places they did pioneering research on what makes up smog. My connection to that place is illustrated here:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/1978/100/i16/f-pdf/f_ja00484a025.pdf
While I did not work on the smog research it was two floors up from where I did the work in the link.
Dr. Huie,
I had a 79 Chevy that I imported into Europe. It ran okay without the catalytic converter. We had like 90 days as I recall to make the Catalytic Converter back to shape. I even saved my old pellets. The mechanic looked me and said “Those are no good, but thanks I needed some oil absorbent for the floor.” :)
The thought of NO2/laughing gas being expelled out of the tailpipes of cars makes me wonder about clown cars and parades…but never mind that.
You are correct Rep; the converter does not in and of itself help the operation of the engine but its presence allowed for compliance with smog standards without spark retard, EGR and the rest of that garbage.
Maybe if we could get enough N2O in the air of our highways it would help eliminate road rage …
By the way, in response to an earlier question about mercury in flourescent lights and other solid waste issues:
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/countyclerk/1996/regular/reg09-04.pdf
It’s a bit dated (1996) but is still valid.
Rep - if I forget to look up that N2O stuff - remind me. G’night …
Republican,
” “Catalytic converters are estimated to account for 50% of total nitrous oxide (dinitrogen oxide, ‘laughing gas’) emissions to atmosphere.” ”
That’s from Wiki…
http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/scientific.html“Nitrous oxide has both natural and human-related sources, and is removed from the atmosphere mainly by photolysis (i.e., breakdown by sunlight) in the stratosphere.In the United States, the main human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water. On a global basis, it is estimated that natural sources account for over 60% of the total N2O emissions (IPCC, 2001c)”
So there’s about 40% from MULTIPLE, “human-related” sources, and agriculture is the “main” source in the U.S.
Almost a decade ago,http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg99rpt/nitrous.html“Emissions of nitrous oxide from mobile combustion stabilized from 1995 through 1998, as growth in the light-duty truck fleet slowed and the next generation of lower-emitting catalytic converters was introduced. These trends in emissions from mobile combustion can be expected to lead to lower emissions from this source over the next few years.”
Dr Huie,
Thanks for the info on the mercury.
Whoops I wrote Nitrite didn’t I (NO2.)
Ah, there it is Cosmos. That will save Dr. Huie the time looking up the N20 emission.
Wondering why sense N2O is an emission, why it couldn’t be stored, recycled and used as a booster for gasoline based engines. It is the same thing a Nitrous they use in performance cars I believe.
I guess that would cause the gasoline to burn faster and therefore use more. Bad idea..thinking out loud…
Rep - it is always tempting to think about separation and storage. If we could pull all of the NOx from all emission sources and then convert to fertilyzer … Problem is, we are looking at ppm amounts so the separation becomes pretty much impossible. That is why we went to catalytic clean-up. Run the exhaust through a catalyst bed that ‘finishes the job’ of combustion of carbon-containing PISc and reduce NOx back to N2 and O2. The desired products here are thermodynamically favored over the ‘classical’ pollutants.
An aside - I don’t think the pellets you refer to are used anywhere today - the systems I was familiar with all used honeycomb substrates. That reduces back-pressure a lot. Another comment - after the first few years of use and engineering newer car designs do not improve performance by removing the converter. The engine is designed to run bast with a certain amount of back-pressure; removing that can lead to burned valves.
Another aside - similar technology has been applied to a military application. Air contaminated with various ‘agents’ can be treated catalytically to remove those agents. However, this is difficult with organo-phosphorous (nerve) and sulpher (blister) compounds.
I guess I can say that one man’s pollutant is another man’s fertilizer.
Yeah ppm… having a particle that displaces a millionth of a fraction of a whole part is not much to deal with for productive purposes.
I recall of making a solution for decontaminating with Hypochlorite (bleach) It was about one tablespoon per gallon of water, but it worked out to be about 150 or 300ppm in a gallon of water. Don’t recall exactly. Good for sanitizing dishes too. :)
Yeah…those gas mask filters we used in the military. We were only allowed on occasion to use the real filters in practicing for Chemical Warfare defense as the filters get “clogged” quite rapidly from normal exhalation.
Stabbing oneself in the thigh with that giant auto syringe was the least favorite part of the practice. Only did it a couple of times, but I remember not liking it. :)
The catalysts we worked on were to be put on air intake for ships and other similar applications. Rather than absorbing the agents they were designed to destroy them.