The psychology of climate change
Strabes my friend,
It doesn’t really matter. Our plate runneth over with problems. We’re killing ourselves in more than enough other ways.
What happened to Acid Rain from the coal fired power plants killing the trees, or the hole in the ozone layer from the cfc’s? Here in the south it’s the pine beetle, because the trees are weakened somehow. People who claim they know what’s happening, and that it’s a single easy fix, ie just quit driving cars and turn off the power plants. I just have trouble believing.
I wish the fix was so easy.
Acid rain has been reduced, not eliminated, because discharges from coal power plants in the midwest have been cleaned up by (wait for it) cap and trade. Gasp, the horror, we’ll bankrupt all those poor fossil fuel burners. The ozone hole has been reduced, not eliminated, because CFC’s were banned. Those were relatively easy fixes. Eliminated the CO2 and CH4 we keep injecting into the atmosphere is much much more difficult, particularly because the professional denialists have convinced so many of you that AGW isn’t a problem.
[quote]Meanwhile, in 1990, the US Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of these amendments established the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system designed to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Title IV called for a total reduction of about 10 million tons of SO2 emissions from power plants. It was implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1995, and limited sulfur dioxide emissions from 110 of the largest power plants to a combined total of 8.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide One power plant in New England (Merrimack) was in Phase I. Four other plants (Newington, Mount Tom, Brayton Point, and Salem Harbor) were added under other provisions of the program. Phase II began in 2000, and affects most of the power plants in the country.
During the 1990s, research has continued. On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This rule provides states with a solution to the problem of power plant pollution that drifts from one state to another. CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx in the eastern United States. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by over 70 percent and NOx emissions by over 60 percent from 2003 levels.
Overall, the Program’s cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.
In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program’s long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.
The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.[/quote]
Mike, that’s true. Doesn’t really matter given the profound problems we have across the board. But I’m solidly opposed to the globalist agenda, and since they’re using AGW as one of their key methods to move us toward UN government and lock us down under fines, fees, laws, taxes, inspections while they get even more rich from it, I’m going to fight it. I know a lot of people on CM.com get tired of me and others talking about this, in fact some no doubt support that agenda, so I understand I’m probably in the minority.
Doc, some issues were/are real and I was all for fixing them, but now it’s all ignored and it’s just about Gore’s prophecy…I’m not joining his church.
It is very hard to support climate change policy making when the politicians can’t be trusted, the celebrities can’t be trusted, the media can’t be trusted. and many of the scientist can’t be trusted. The problem is that the result of most policies is that the elite will profit from it, and the average person will lose their way of life.
The mention of Al Gore makes me sick, He is an absolute climate change fraud.
For the record, I’m convinced the climate is changing, convinced man has some negative effect. and convinced that we as humans should make changes to limit the effects and to adapt to the inevitable change already in process.
What I am not convinced by is that taxing the masses and creating a one world government is the solution.
there needs to be a major paradigm shift in global attitudes towards the earth, however, as positive as I would like to be, I just don’t see it happening.
Ditto with the Gore thing. He, of all people, should be watching how he lives, travels and engages with Mother Earth. It’s a “do as I say – and not as I do” thing.
Ditto on the major changes on how we live and the faster the better. The “added benefits” to living in peace and harmony with Mother Earth is multi-fold. Better food, better health, better security. But the huge benefit no one wants to talk about when we transition – we’re not giving up money to the big money players who have created this disaster, make wars, take our hard earned money and lie about it, and on. . . EGP
But, I don’t think any of this matters. We may be warming, we may be cooling, the right question to ask: “Is it caused by man?” and the more important question at the moment is to ask “Is it caused by man-made CO2?” These questions are important because of the potential policy/legal/lifestyle changes we might make based on this data. My take is that since 95% of all GHC (green house gases) are natural, that the far less than 5% we could actually change would have little/no impact. Please see my posts on another forum topic started by DamTheMatrix.
Making the assumption above that 5% of Green House Gasses are human caused.
Given that CO2 concentrations have risen from 280 PPM to 390PPM over the past 150 years and average 2ppm increase per year.
CO2 added to the atmosphere persists of centuries as it is slowly reabsorbed by earth processes.
The addition is small, but persistent, over two centuries ….. it is not turning out to be insignificant.
It is simply another example of an exponential function running up against a physical limit imposed by our planet.
Acid rain has been reduced, not eliminated, because discharges from coal power plants in the midwest have been cleaned up by (wait for it) cap and trade. Gasp, the horror, we’ll bankrupt all those poor fossil fuel burners. The ozone hole has been reduced, not eliminated, because CFC’s were banned. Those were relatively easy fixes.
I think they were easy fixes, because they fixed a problem that was a bit overstated. That being said: I am all for cleaning up the environment and decreasing output of pollutants. However, I think the people running the environmental show have another agenda for political power and environmental issues are just their excuse. I know you are genuinely concerned about the environment, and so am I. But I”m not give up my freedom to algore and the world bank bunch over it. Sorry.
1) Because it’s the one used by the control freaks to push their agenda toward global governance
Strabes, THAT is a load of utter nonsense!!!!!!! I for one am TOTALLY against global governance, and so are all my acquaintances who are scared shiyless about the consequences of what we are doing to the climate. It is the likes of YOU who is fear mongering, making people believe that “fixing” (which now can’t even be done IMO) the problem is somehow going to destroy society and civilisation, when in fact the morons in charge are doing this just fine AND screwing the climate at the same time…….!!!!!!
Then someone else here says 95% of CO2 is natural……. more codswallop! Before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were at 280 ppm, and now they’re at 385 ppm, and simple maths tells me that 28%, (or nearly one third – and going up 0.5% a year, ie EXPONENTIALLY) are NOT natural. And they’re seriously contemplating 450 ppm, making “unnatural” CO2 rise to 38%…..
If in 20 years time, when it will all be too late, we who push this are proved 100% right as I fully expect, will we be allowed/able to line all you deniers up against the wall and get our pound of flesh for the crimes you will have committed against the Earth and all its creatures (including us)?
You’re falling right into the trap…they’ve set it up so their agenda can’t be opposed.
I’m not saying you’re a control freak. I’m saying royal families, bankers, Al Gore are. I’m not saying I’m opposed to fixing our systems. I’m saying I’m opposed to the globalist plan. And I never said I don’t want to fix our problems because it will destroy civilization. I think civilization will be destroyed as we know it regardless given the situation we find ourselves in. I want to shift to local, sustainable community and let the empire die on the vine, as my guess is you do. I don’t want the empire to maintain control and start treating us the same way they treat chickens in corporate farms.
Your last line is nazi-esque. We’re on the same side if you’re opposed to global government and you just want to reinvent our way of life so we don’t destroy the environment we live in, yet because I speak against the folks trying to stay on top and maintain control, you want to shoot me. Sure…feel free to shoot me…if that’s the way humans think nowadays I don’t care to be here.