| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Feel the Heat... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
House's global warming bill: $8B By Traci Watson, USA TODAY It will cost nearly $8 billion over the next decade to pay for the expanded federal bureaucracy needed to combat global warming under a bill passed by the House of Representatives, a report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says. The budget office also found that the House bill would shrink the federal deficit in that 10-year period because it requires businesses to buy permits to emit global-warming pollution. That would add hundreds of billions of dollars to federal coffers. Critics of the House bill that passed in June, such as Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, have seized on the increased size of government to try to stir opposition in the Senate, which is scheduled to consider its climate-change bill in the fall. The bill "is full of regulations, mandates, bureaucracy and big government programs," Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment Committee, said in a speech on the Senate floor in July. The complex bill, which runs more than 1,400 pages, assigns new tasks to at least 21 federal agencies, from the Energy Department to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It also creates new government programs, such as an effort to limit deforestation in developing nations. The overall price tag: $8 billion from 2010 to 2019, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Government agencies would charge fees in some cases, reducing the net cost to taxpayers to $7.8 billion over the 10-year period, the CBO says. The House bill would "significantly expand agencies' workloads" by having them "undertake a variety of rulemakings, conduct studies and assessments, prepare reports, and carry out other activities," the budget office said in a June report. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-08-10-climate_N.htm?obref=obnetwork Welcome to the real reason for the global warming bandwagon. WASHINGTON (AP) — Saying global warming poses unprecedented threats to Americans' way of life, four of President Obama's top environmental and energy officials urged the Senate on Tuesday to pass legislation to reduce the pollution linked to the planet's rising temperature. The heads of the Energy Department, Agriculture Department, Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency told a Senate panel it should pass a bill similar to one the House narrowly cleared late last month. That legislation would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases, eventually leading to an 80% reduction by mid-century by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution. "We will not fully unleash the potential of the clean energy economy unless this committee, and the Senate, put an upper limit on the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are damaging our environment," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in prepared testimony. Salazar acknowledged that another Senate panel has already advanced a bill that would boost the amount of energy generated from renewable sources. Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned that a projected temperature increase would make the world a much different place, and said the only way to avoid that outcome is by enacting legislation. I repeat, welcome to the real reason........... Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the panel, predicted that Americans would feel the pinch of higher energy prices. "You can be sure of this: once the American public realize what this legislation will do to their wallets, they will resoundingly reject it," Inhofe said. "Perhaps that explains why we are rushing cap-and-trade through the Senate." Exactly... |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON — One contributor to global warming — bigger than coal mines, landfills and sewage treatment plants — is being left out of efforts by the Obama administration and Democrats in the House of Representatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Cow burps. Belching from the nation's 170 million cattle, sheep and pigs produces about one-quarter of the methane released in the USA each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That makes the hoofed critters the largest source of the heat-trapping gas. In part because of an adept farm lobby campaign that equates government regulation with a cow tax, the gas that farm animals pass is exempt from legislation being considered by Congress to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA under President Obama has said it has no plans to regulate the gas, even though the agency recently included methane among six greenhouse gases it believes are endangering human health and welfare. Administration officials and House Democratic leaders have tried to assure farm groups that they have no intention of regulating cows. That effort, however, has done little to ease the concern of farmers and their advocates in Congress about the toll that regulating greenhouse gases will have on agriculture. Lawmakers and farm groups are now pressing for the climate legislation to guarantee that farmers will be compensated for taking steps to reduce greenhouse gases. That could lead to farmers getting paid if their cows pass less gas. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-06-22-methane-cows_N.htm?obref=obinsite Anybody need a job? You could always apply for the position as a cow gas-pass checker!  |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Now maybe someone reading that can understand why I won't eat beef or pork - I will send it to them and see  Have you ever seen what those poor things have to eat, like all the unpaid-for pumpkins no one bought? You would belch too! I hate to mention this Michael but not only do we have fabulous health care, but we also have smart scientists up here, see:Canadian Cows By the way, I am not all that smart being blonde, but by helping my grand kids with homework, my diet, the things I do, and what I eat have really changed I tell you. One end of cow gives, the other takes a way, an 8-year old taught me that, and she likes the middle.  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Cow burps. Are they really a problem Mike? I thought that methane contributed as little as 4% to the greenhouse effect. Something to do with tropospheric hydroxyl radicals that naturally scrub methane from the atmosphere as I recall. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Belching from the nation's 170 million cattle, sheep and pigs produces about one-quarter of the methane released in the USA each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Beats me, grinch. You'll have to ask the EPA. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I don't really need to Mike, their figures are consistent with everyone else's - there's a consensus in fact - cow burps produce about 115 teragrams of methane a year. There's also a consensus that tropospheric hydroxyl radicals scrub around 510 teragrams out of the atmosphere, which means that methane, although certainly a greenhouse gas, isn't really a problem. The greenhouse gas you need to worry about is carbon dioxide and cow burps aren't much of a problem in that regard - unless of course the cows are burping while driving a car. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"The EPA under President Obama has said it has no plans to regulate the gas, even though the agency recently included methane among six greenhouse gases it believes are endangering human health and welfare." Again, you'll have to ask the EPA. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
CO2 certainly gets most of the doomsday ink, and for good reason. In terms of sheer weight, it accounts for around 85 percent of America's greenhouse gas emissions, which amounted to 7.074 billion metric tons in 2004; methane accounts for just 8 percent of that frightening total. On top of that, carbon dioxide is often spotlighted because it's so closely linked to the appalling fossil-fuel dependence decried by treehuggers and politicians alike: Ninety-four percent of the nation's anthropogenic CO2 emissions are due to fossil-fuel combustion. The No. 1 source of our nation's anthropogenic methane emissions, by contrast, is the decomposition of garbage in landfills—a situation you can't help ameliorate by buying a Prius or installing solar panels on your roof. Yet methane deserves more attention than it's received so far because, as you note, it's arguably more deleterious to the environment than the widely feared CO2. The Environmental Protection Agency uses a statistic called Global Warming Potential (GWP) to assess the threat posed by various greenhouse gases. GWP measures how much heat one molecule of a gas will trap relative to a molecule of carbon dioxide. Methane has a GWP of 21, which means it's 21 times more effective at preventing infrared radiation from escaping the planet. So, although methane emissions may be relatively piddling, they're definitely a cause for concern. (Their one saving grace is an atmospheric lifetime of just 12 years, versus between 50 and 200 years for carbon dioxide.) http://www.slate.com/id/2178595/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The farm animals produce lots of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that gets far less public attention than carbon dioxide yet is at the heart of efforts to fight climate change. Government policies and a U.N.-backed system of emission credits is proving a money-spinner for investors, farmers and big polluters such as power stations wanting to offset their own emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). The reason is simple: methane is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere and it is relatively simple to capture the gas from animal waste, landfills, coal mines or leaky natural gas pipes. "A fifth of all greenhouse gas-induced global warming has been due to methane since pre-industrial times," said climate scientist Paul Fraser of Australia, where ruminant farm animals belch out vast amounts of the gas. http://www.earthhopenetwork.net/Heat_on_Greenhouse_Gas_Methane.htm Apparently. grinch, there are those who don't feel the cow needs to be behind the wheel to be dangerous (although that WOULD be a dangerous event!)  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It boggles the mind how many ways the politicians can come up with to rob us of our money. A very creative bunch of scoundrels, I must say. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No they're not. Quoting the Global Warming Potential is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard unless you quote the time period it relates to - even then the figures are a bit moot unless you state the expected increase in the gas you're talking about, it's relative abundance and effect in comparison to the cumulative effect of far larger quantities of less efficient reflectors. You'd be better off using the standard radiactive forcing measurement. If you did that the "piddling" amount of methane is factored in and shows that cow burps are a non-issue being 15 times less effective in reflecting heat. You don't even have to get that technical to dismiss methane as an issue - If something is getting warmer (the globe) the chances are that the thing that's increasing is driving that warming. As atmospheric methane has increased almost 0% since the 90's while CO2 has increased by 13% in the same period it's reasonable to say that one of them is having a bigger effect than the other. Now if instead of cow burps you wanted to talk about the methane currently contained by permafrost well that's a different story. There's enough methane in that particular sink to make all the greenhouse gasses currently in the atmosphere look like a gnats fart in a hurricane by comparison. [This message has been edited by Grinch (10-07-2009 05:58 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Fine with me. I don't pretend to be versed in chemistry enough to debate the issue. If you claim that you're right and the EPA and the others are wrong, go for it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
They aren't wrong Mike, they're simply being quoted out of context. Yes methane reflects more radiated heat than CO2 but there's so much CO2 that the actual effect of methane in the atmosphere is miniscule in comparison and it isn't increasing at any significant levels. Think of it this way Mike, a knitting needle will punch a far bigger hole in your inflatable boat than a sewing needle but a million sewing needles will sink your boat far quicker. You're effectively arguing that the knitting needle is the bigger threat based on the fact that it's better at making holes in inflatable boats. It's a good argument as far as it goes, you can probably find some Harvard scientific paper to confirm the superior hole punching capabilities of darning needles to back up the claim. What you won't find is anyone buying the notion that a single darning needle beats the cumulative effect of a million sewing needles. If you do, let me know, if they happen to be the EPA, fine, I've no problem explaining to them why they're wrong. Somehow though I don't think that's likely to happen. Do you? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I know enough about inflatable boats to know that either a knitting needle or a sewing needle will lead to the same unhappy ending for the boat! |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I know the Dem's would be trumpeting these news articles if the CONVERSE of the weather was true, so I'm posting the top 6 stories on Drudge Report today that all have to do with... ... ...wait for it Global Cooling. (for whatever reason) Storms menace CA... Heavy snow expected in PA... Chicago record breaking cold continues... Montana records fall... CHILL MAP... FORECASTS BLOWN: '09 Atlantic hurricane season quietest in decade... I'm currently researching a paper on how Sunspot activity affects Earth warming temperatures. By the way, this season was the lowest sunspot activity in decades, coinciding with the coldest early margins of temperature drops in North America. And it's only October. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I have to agree - any Democrat who trumpeted similar, but converse, headlines as evidence of global warming would deserve the label 'fool'. Local temperature deviations and short-term fluctuations in an otherwise steady trend are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. Every headline announcing record low or high temperatures in one area can be matched by a headline announcing the exact opposite, the only important figure is the global average temperature. Which, according to instrumental measurements, has increased since 1850. . |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Grinch, I personally know two farmers in Kokomo (yeah, like the song), that went broke trying to go green. One used solar power and found it's payback in money was 25 years off! Day to day, solar power cost him 5 times what electric power costs. It was economically unfeasible to point that he had to sell off his farm. The other farmer was in Peru, Indiana, and he tried those stick windmills and went broke because either the wind wouldn't blow or it cost more to RUN them than he got in energy! Let's agree that the Eco-changes needed to replace our dependance on foreign oil will largely benefit Liberal folks and their business ventures into green technology. This is Halliburton in reverse. There is clearly a motivation to empower Liberals thru green-technology even though it's time, technology-wise, isn't here yet. Hybrid cars need to be plugged in to a grid to recharge, 80% of that energy comes from coal. One last factoid: there are 5 humans to every one cow in the world. In the United State there are 230,000,000 cows and 300,000,000 people. For people to claim that farm fertilizer, cowproduced methane and Co2 aren't an issue, is just not true. All I can say it's a damn good thing cows don't drive! (or run for election for that matter, either!!) (er....no pun intended) Take it from me: as a person who grew up on a farm: cows with their 4 digestive compartments and constantly eating of grass - well, if you put wheels on them, they would self-propel themselves around the field. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Co2 is definitely an issue, how much of an issue is certainly debatable - based on the available information though I don't believe that cow produced methane is much of a problem but I'm happy to listen to any evidence to the contrary. Sunspots? They occur in 11 year cycles, alternating from high concentrations to low in each cycle and show seemingly random fluctuations in intensity. Numerous attempts have been made to draw a direct correlation between sunspots and global temperature changes, to date however no conclusive correlation has been found. Granted low sunspot activity such as the Maunder Minimum coincided with the little ice age in Europe but other periods of low activity don't show a similar reduction in temperature. A recent paper I read suggested that sunspots could produce La Niña and El Niño like events over tropical oceans - however such events don't seem to correspond to recorded sunspot activity. That's not to say that sunspots don't affect the weather - it simply means that if they do we can't seem to match the cause and effect. If I were looking for cyclical causes there are better examples. The change in the orbit of earth from elliptical to near circular that occurs every 93,000 years is worth looking at. Then there's precession - the cyclical wobble that affects the earth every 26,000 years, which varies the earths tilt by around 6 degrees. Then again there's the reversal of the earths polarity, which has occurred at least 9 times in the last 3.5 million years. A failure of the Atlantic conveyor is also a good one to look at if global cooling is of interest. Or you could go with the greenhouse effect, there are a few discrepancies in the data but the science is sound. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That, in a nutshell, is THE problem. Digging your energy out of the ground has been, and for a little while longer will continue to be, a lot cheaper than any other known source. People who try to do the responsible thing are facing a typical Tragedy of the Commons dilemma; they can't compete with others who refuse to be similarly responsible. The solution, however, is simple (if perhaps not globally encompassing). Fossil energy has to become more expensive. A lot more expensive. Then, your farmer friends in Kokomo can compete on a level playing field. That can happen now, in a controlled fashion, through increased taxes, or it can happen later, probably to our children, in a less controlled fashion. It will happen, though, as inevitably as entropy. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Grinch, let's clear the air, so to speak: it's the OVERALL effect of farming, the very act of creating food, that increases Co2 levels, in all aspects of it. Tractors, cows, fertilization, chemical sprays, water diversion and rain patterns: they all factor into it. Personally, I have read as much as I can find on the Little Ice Age as you mentioned. Sunspot or solar activity is generally considered to be the main cause of a 450 year climate swing toward coldness. Generally what we call the Medieval period, was a time-frame where climate played a critical part in human quality of life. 450 years. So what? Well the END of the Little Ice Age coincides perfectly with...... ....the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1850-1950. No-one knows what killed the LIA exactly. Somehow the next period of time: 1950-2009 is attributed to C02 levels. I am sure man-made pollutants help to destroy the environment, but I'm not getting the increase in C02 levels being the cause. I don't see a direct cause-and-effect there at all. The WORSE weather years on record directly correspond, if anything, to above-average volcanic activity which spews an impenetrable layer of ash that doesn't dissapate for at least 4 years. Plato writes about Pompeii and how the next few years were plunged into coldness and darkness after Volcano Vesuvius erupted. Do yourself a favor: go onto Ama*on and buy Brian Fagan's "The Little Ice Age" nonfiction book. Honestly, it is one of the coolest books I ever read! haha, right? The EFFECT of the LIA is what I never realized, from the cause of the Black Death, to famine, to the way all paintings were depicted back then (with people in mega-clothes in the summertime, for instance.) Fascinating stuff, even outside the spectrum of weather. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Ron, as you so frequently do: you went for the meat of the subject and nailed it: the cost of ECO-Development is the issue here, and how to get around the huge costs that don't seem to outweigh the immediate benefits. Pretty hard for a company with a 3-4 year payback play for investments to get behind something that MAY pay itself back in 10-20 years. They're just not going to buy into that, easily. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
