In all the times this has been discussed I have never once seen you offer a soloution except to say there are cheap and easy things we should do and expensive and hard things we should not do.
Ok Once more into the breach.. In the 90's when it was first discussed I was a skeptic about global warming and that it was man made in essence. Those who raised the alarm had minimal data and those who promoted it had agendas that were suspect to say the least. However over the last decade much more data has been aquired, the data has been refined, the tools to predict what is happening have been greatly improved and most of all it has been peer reviewed. The results are that even scientists who have the knowledge and capability to analyse but were skeptical have been won over. I am no climatologist or physicist or mathmitician and have none of the tools required to do the research.....and I suspect no one on this board is either. As with other natural phenomena when there is scienticfic concenncus it is time to accept the conclusion as fact. To me it is now settled that what man has wrought in the last 100 years has pushed the global atmosphere into a warming phase. The evidence also seems to show that CO2 is the leading component of the warming. I also believe that somewhere in a fairly near future if not arrested changes it make to the world's ecology will put a damaging stress on modern civilization. Because of that stress we need to address it beginning now. Now you can hold your breath until your face turns blue but you can't change the facts. By denying the fact you lose a place in the discussion about what to do. Friends it is critical that we don't lose that place. As I said at the top one of my early issues was that many of the Non scientific supporters were AND are not friends of the US and capitalism. They are still there and want to use the issue to hurt us. To have an effect you have to play in the game and standing on the sidelines is a sure way to lose. Many say what can we do it is either too big or too expensive to deal with. Well if we follow the path the socialists and US haters recommend you may be right. I disagree with both the premise and the suggestions they make. In the last century and a half the west has tackled pollution successfully and gained wealth, health and significantly better standard of living. Look in the late 19th century most water was not safe to drink and human waste management left millions dead from cholera and other diseases. Much was handled on a local level but that does not disqualify them as examples because it was national iniatives that set the correction in motion. How many remember when Lake Ponchartrain was often too pollutted to swim in or fish? I remember when Baton Rouge had an orange haze from the chemical plant pollution. Pittsburgh and London were filthy from coal smoke in the 1950's. Rivers in Beaumont and many other places caught on fire. Not only was all of that dealt with but the nation's prosperity grew as did our health. Yes it cost money and much was spent that did not go to increased production so was purely expense to those that had to do it. They did it and those I know who are in leadership positions were/are glad they did. I don't propose to know what needs to be done but there are steps I am convinced we don't do. That includes stopping fossil fuel use for power and transportation. That is what the radicals want and that is suicide. While I understand we and the rest of the advanced world need to take a leadership position we must insist the growing world especially China, India, South America and the far east go with us. If they do nothing it doesn't matter what we do. China produces more CO2 than we do now and India isn't far behind. I believe we should take full advantage of the exploding natural gas supply and use it as much as possible. It alone has changed the curve of CO2 increase in the last 10 years. We should continue to build nuclear power plants and use coal with clean coal technology. We can play with wind and solar and the like and maybe a breakthrough will make one or the other a viable solution to our power needs but I doubt it. I do know our power demands will continue to increase and we need to feed them or we lose. Improving efficiency helps but won't answer the problem. This is an engineering problem and we need to address it as such. Deal with what is possible now and build on it as we get better solutions. That is why I have said we need to do what we can without destroying our way of life. As I have said before I have utter faith in man's genius. I believe given enough time we will find a solution that benefits all. No one knows what the solution will be. Those who say they do either have an agenda or haven't a clue. We may have viable essentially free fusion power tomorrow or something else but don't expect a deus ex machina solution. We don't have the tools to make massive changes today so use what we have and give us the time and wealth to solve it. That is not a suggestion we tax a solution, I mean let the economy grow and the resulting wealth created will provide the means. Folks as with any developing problem if we run from it it will eat us or our children...but if we face it and deal with it we will overcome.
@ Winston We already do more than all of the world. The problem is that as you push coal out of the US, It will get burned dirtier overseas. All you do is increase C02.
You didn't even bother to read my post did you? If think you did, re read what I wrote and try again because you didn't comprehend a thing I said. That means you are either STUPID or don't care what anyone says and write like Johnny One Note. The more I read the more I think it is BOTH. All you take from my post is an incorrect reading of what I posted? No comment on any other part or assertion? Since you are slow 123 READ CAREFULLY. I specifically said COAL was part of the fuel equation for the US. I also specifically said the rest of the world had to do whatever we did ESPECIALLY India & China. Now if you want to contribute fine but if all you want to do is toot your 1 note you won't be worth engaging and you won't learn. As I said before YOU are like the Bourbons Tallyrand described "You learn nothing and forget nothing" Try to forget the way you have been "debating" (NOT) and learn something.
You mentioned coal twice. As seen here: "Pittsburgh and London were filthy from coal smoke in the 1950's." "We should continue to build nuclear power plants and use coal with clean coal technology." What you failed to mention was current US policy with regards to coal being striped in the US for NEW coal plants. You can try to divert and call me stupid, but reality is that you do not understand the current regulations well enough to have a conversation on the future of US energy and global Coal usage. Winston you are right, you did say it was apart of YOUR solutions, however it is becoming less of the US's solution. That's the issue num-nutts. Again, I am talking about US policy, not Winston1's policy... Was that slow enough for you?
Apparently it wasn't slow enough for you sport. First off Lasalle 's posit was after scientific review and conclusion do we the members of the community understand that global warming is happening and man's activities are part of the cause. You avoided the question with a comment about "paid' scientists. Dude data is data...it has been vetted for 20 years by knowledgeable meteroligists , physicists, staticitions and mathamaticians who started out with opinions both pro and con. Guess what there is agreement to as high a percentage as possible that it is as stated. I admit I went off the reservation a little when I expanded on my agreement with my analysis of the best way to deal with the issue. I never claimed they were official policies or that anyone but me stood behind themm. Guess what they were for the purposes of discussion on how we as individuals would deal with it. Sort of like how we would run the LSU football program. If you want to discuss current regulations then acknowledge there nothing in current EPA pollution regulations that deals with CO2. The current regulations deal with sulphur & mercury in flue gas and dust. These have been in development for years and most of the major old and NEW plants are dealing with them. Did it make coal more expensive? Yes but it was solve local issues al la Pittsburgh and London. Are the costs reasonable and justifiable? Well they have been put in place for over 10 years and until gas prices dropped so much in the last 2 years due to exploration of the shale formations coal was still cheaper. So guess what (again) it is private development and free enterprise that has changed the economics NOT government regulation. As I said earlier I have been dealing with the largest coal burning utilities like Southern, and First Energy for 10 years on these projects so I know of what I speak. So NUM NUTTS address the point....Does Global warming exist? Are made made CO2 emmissions the cause of global warming? Don't divert with examples that have nothing to do with CO2, warming or the price of tea in China. Support your conclusions and what would YOU do?
#1 Never denied Global Warming exist #2 C02 is a part of the cause, but not the only cause #3 Not once did I reference Tea in China (and you say I am off track) #4 I said “current” but instead should have said current proposed. It is a fact the proposed regulations (if enacted) will prohibit new coal plants. It is in the news and has been a topic for months now. You should be aware of this. http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/usa-co2-ruling-idINL2E8HQAY620120626 "In the 82-page ruling, the three-judge panel also found that the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is "unambiguously correct." You were saying what again about C02 regulations?
Go back and read my 1st post. Process it and process it one more time. Comprehend what I said. "in before".....
