wenmmers:What's your point about water vapor? So what if water vapor
is the largest greenhouse gas by volume? It isn't the most persistent. Any heat
energy collected by water vapor is released within 7-10 days because it rains.
Co2 collects in the atmosphere and remains over periods exceeding 100 years all
the while absorbing long-wave radiation and keeping a portion of it from
escaping back into space. We don't see water vapor increasing as a consequence
of man overall whereas we have seen the 'normal' range of co2 increase from the
200-290 range to it's current level of 385ppm since the late 1800's. That makes
humans responsible for at least a 32% increase over an extremely short period of
120+ years. We know humans are responsible because the carbon 12/13 isotope
ratio has also increased in favor of that carbon emitted from burning fuels.The water vapor story is a well known 'dodge' by famous myth makers like
Monckton, watts et al.
Linus | 11:13 p.m. April 4, 2010 I learned in grade school sixty years ago
that humans and animals breathe in air (composed of various gasses) and use some
of the oxygen and breathe out waste gasses (including carbon dioxide). No one
told us that carbon dioxide was poison.We also learned that plants
thrive on carbon dioxide, and increase the percentage of oxygen in the air.
Isn't it obvious to all that an increase in the carbon dioxide content in the
air is a boon to vegetation, including the crops we depend upon?Phony science is being used to impose government control of all aspects of our
lives. I'm getting a little bit tired of it. And I'm getting even more tired of
all you libs who buy into phony science. ------------------And
since you were in grade school -- We've lost over 20% of the planet
to de-forestation and grasses while steadily increasing emitting that CO2.Do yourself a favor and look up the atmostphere of Venus and check out
it's surface temperature due to greehouse effect.
Linus | 11:13 p.m. April 4, 2010:"I learned in grade school sixty years
ago that humans and animals breathe in air (composed of various gasses) and use
some of the oxygen and breathe out waste gasses (including carbon dioxide). No
one told us that carbon dioxide was poison."Context is everything.
Manure is good on strawberries-- in the field, but not at the breakfast table.
Same with CO2. Location and concentration are relevant. CO2 may not be acutely
toxic (as Myopia 7:49 pointed out above), but can have significant effects on
lifestyle and economics nonetheless. Pollutants don't have to be toxic to be
regulated. E.g. sediment in water (total suspended solids) is regulated, but is
not inherently toxic.
Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas (the most prevalent greenhouse gas); Utah
is the second driest state. If we are trying to reduce greenhouse gases,
perhaps we can demand it be a function of water vapor AND carbon dioxide. Since
we have very little water vapor we should be able to emit (or sell the
priviledge to emit) more carbon dioxide than other states (imagine what could
happen if we were to have it indexed to per unit area!). We could even demand a
net carbon credit since we need to pull more water vapor out of the air than we
can contribute. Hawii and Florida won't be able to emit any carbon dioxide
since they have high humidity (because nothing says logical more than taxing
something completely uncontrollable like climate).
I learned in grade school sixty years ago that humans and animals breathe in air
(composed of various gasses) and use some of the oxygen and breathe out waste
gasses (including carbon dioxide). No one told us that carbon dioxide was
poison.We also learned that plants thrive on carbon dioxide, and
increase the percentage of oxygen in the air. Isn't it obvious to all that an
increase in the carbon dioxide content in the air is a boon to vegetation,
including the crops we depend upon?Phony science is being used to
impose government control of all aspects of our lives. I'm getting a little bit
tired of it. And I'm getting even more tired of all you libs who buy into phony
Sending $600 a year for every man woman and child to the middle east oil cartels
that fund terroism is a mistake in policy.Put up some windfarms and
buy the Nissan Leaf. Now that's patriotic. Now if only an American company would
build an all elctric car.
I thought it had to do with Utah's persistant policy of burning cheap dirty
coal,more SUV and trucks than any other State,urban sprawl,the
local's denial of man-made pollution,and last place in the country to
begin recycling.Utah used to be progressive and a national leaderin the pioneer days.Now it's the "me too" state - 30 years behind.
I'm sorry but economic prosperity has always come through growth. There are
industries to be developed and products to be made from new standards. I'm not a fan of bigger government, but it's clear that when faced with issues
of higher priced fuels, environmental impact and the loss of national energy
self-sufficiency, Utahns chose to address these issues by driving bigger cars
and deploying more 1800's technology power plants that use coal.Man-up and take the blame for your own short sightedness.
It typically takes Conservatives about 20 to 40 years to catch on to what is
happening. They were against Civil Rights, but now have a Black leader of the
RNC. Their spokesman in the early '60's, Ronald Reagan, said that Medicare
would be the end of American Democracy, but now they carry signs saying "HANDS
OFF MY MEDICARE". The EPA was going to make industry collapse, but now we all
enjoy cleaner air. So, now Lane says that Carbon legislation is going to be the
end of all of us. Conservatives have a horrendous record on accurately
forecasting the impact of legislation and I think this is another case of being
blind today and loving it tomorrow.
It's pointless for EPA to embark on a huge, costly regulatory program to reduce
US CO2 emissions while "developing" countries like China, Brazil, India, etc are
embarking on development programs that vastly increase their CO2 emissions.
China is already the world's largest producer of CO2 emissions and the largest
automobile market. Autos sold in China face no such CO2 emission limits as
recently enacted by EPA. But that is the nature of government bureaucracy -
useless paper (permits, regulations, etc) always takes precedence over common
sense and reality.
Look out...N is coming, then O, then H2O. Before long, every element will be
deemed a toxin. Regulate, regulate, regulate. Love it. I'm sure that helps
our economy. To you who don't get it...business is people...get it? Hurt
business...hurt people. Its that simple.
Well, having driven almost ALL business out of the country for economic reasons,
and having almost NO industry left in this country, (thanks to the erstwhile
environmentalists and epa), I say let them finish us off. Or perhaps it would
make sense to reign them in before they do, if it isn't too late. Between
climate 'disorder', (rocky's new term), and the epa, we can either wise up or
lose what little is left of our 'economy'. The epa is our own 'hitler'.
All believe that we should be responsible stewards of the environment. Liberals
however are bent on destroying the economy in the process with regulatory
burdens that will put companies out of business. Common sense rather than
political ideology should drive the debate.
EPA is going about greenhouse gas regulation very realistically in its new
"clean cars rule," proposed jointly with the Department of Transportation. It
regulates greenhouse gases and gives us dollar savings at the gas pump by
increasing the fuel economy of cars. The auto industry is supporting it. It
will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by nearly 2 billion barrels just in
vehicles sold in five model years. That's good for Utah's economy.
It's too bad that you simply make things up and use fear tactics (all business
will have to get applications and will cease to operate while they are waiting!)
instead of just dealing with the facts. The facts are that every economy in the
world that has de-carbonized has seen an explosion of growth. You're like a guy
who wants to keep using a typewriter even though a PC is right on your desk.
CO2 is not directly "toxic" to humans until it reaches an atmospheric
concentration of about 5%.For CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas and
affect global climate, however, a much lower concentration is all that's needed.
That's what is happening now.You have to ask yourself a couple of
questions before you can evaluate the financial implications of environmental
regulations:What options are available that make it possible to
comply with the regulations, and,What are the consequences of
non-compliance?In the case of regulating atmospheric CO2, there are
many options available, and the opportunities for technological innovation,
which is always America's greatest economic asset, are substantial.Conversely, failure to act means prolonging our dependence on foreign oil,
foreign credit and military entanglement on foreign soil. It also means that as
our nation's population increases we'll have increasingly more difficulty
ensuring that we have clean air and water - plus rapid global climate change.Given a choice between significant economic stimulation through
technological innovation to reduce CO2 emissions, or the "toxic" downward spiral
of foreign oil dependency, debt, military conflict and environmental damage, I
think our choice is clear.
More coal fired and nuclear power plants. More Ethanol and flex-fuel vehicles.
These should be mandatory... they are in the Republican Party Platform.
This reminds me of some historic blunders of the past -- putting all your
efforts into litigation, or suing to stop the inevitable from happening versus
pursuing innovation to keep a step ahead of trends and competitors.Take the music industry. It saw downloadable MP3s stealing its CD sales. But
instead of jumping on the bandwagon to innovate into MP3s, it chose to litigate
again music file sharing to preserve CDs. While they were busying paying
lawyers instead of engineers, guess who stole their industry? Apple with its
iPod and iTunes. Too bad for Sony and other dominant players in the music
business! They're all suffering, but Apple's doing just fine, thanks!I see the same thing happening to Utah. We'll pour money into useless
attorneys to stop the inevitable of CO2 restrictions when we should be
capitalizing on our rich geothermal resources (some of the best in the nation!)
to generate electricity. We'll fight to preserve our 150-year old coal
industry, which has been losing jobs due to dwindling coal supplies and
automation for decades... while other states like Texas and Wyoming are booming
in renewables. Utah, once again, will be late to the table.
Thanks for your comments. All true. Too bad, the EPA has swung out so far to
the left. It is in the direction of destroying our economy.
Similar complaints were made about the Clean Air Act (probably by this very same
Chamber of Commerce)--the CAA was too expensive, disputed science, won't make
much of a difference, etc.--and yet we know that as a result, Utahns live
significantly longer because of it.The Chamber of Commerce cares about
business interests, not people.And apparently they don't speak for the
Utah ski industry either...
I read a lot of conjecture and speculation but no facts about how regulation
will be handled. It only shows that the autor has a deep seeded fear of change
and a misstrust of government. Well I believe we can govern
ourselves as the founding fathers invisioned. Not a weak government that
crumbles to the individual sqweeky wheels but a good government that allows us
to do more, better and bigger than we can do alone. That's my America, that's
what I swore to defend.