Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
This is a great overview article if you want to learn more about carbon trading and how it works. As frequent readers know, I am not a big proponent of these schemes because I think they are ripe for abuse and many of the “improvements” are just part of the standard process for constant economic savings. Also, as fuel prices rise, improvements become much more necessary.
It does seem likely though that some type of system is going to be implemented in the US and in other countries. So we should all learn more about these systems, their weaknesses and their strengths.READ MORE
I found this study by reading the blog at AccuWeather.com. If you are interested in climate, then you should spend time reading what the meteorologists over there have to say.
A study by 3 researchers and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research has concluded that the weather variations (both increases and decreases) are the result of natural climate processes. They find that the Southern Oscillation is a key indicator of changing global atmospheric temperatures seven months later.
The paper is titled “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” and following is the abstract:READ MORE
Treehugger recently did a slideshow on the World’s Dirtiest Rivers and Lakes. While the slideshow doesn’t have anything to do with global warming, it should be important to all and especially the readers that stop by this site each week. If you are concerned with global warming then you should be concerned with most things where we have screwed up the environment to our own detriment.
Recently, there was a rather foolish announcement that said that said global warming kills over 300,000 per year already. I didn’t talk much about this report here, as I thought it didn’t merit my time. However, I do wonder how many real deaths (as opposed to Kofi’s fictitious 300K) are caused by poor drinking water. If you have ever been in a Starbucks, you have likely seen the bottles of Ethos water which donate part of the proceeds to clean drinking water to poor countries. Their site says:READ MORE
I will repeat the title with the full quote:
“Spain’s experience reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created.”
Tony Blankley opines on RealClearPolitics (and elsewhere) that using government funding for creation of “green” jobs will reduce the net number of jobs in the US. If you are not familiar with Mr. Blankley, you can find his editorial work on The Washington Times, hear him occasionally on The MacLaughlin Group and he is the most intelligent voice on the nationally syndicated Left, Right and Center.READ MORE
I don’t typically post news feeds here but I am making an exception in this case. It appears that the House committee has passed the bill to implement the foolish cap and trade (carbon trading) bill. Let’s hope that the larger House is more wise but I have my doubts.
This story is from AP.
By DINA CAPPIELLO and H. JOSEF HEBERT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican opposition.
The Energy and Commerce Committee approved the sweeping climate bill 33-25 after repeatedly turning back GOP attempts to kill or weaken the measure during four days of debate.
I am shocked and dismayed! (Not really – just being a bit sarcastic and melodramatic)
One of the foundations of predicting the climate is that we have some idea of how water moves around the planet. That water can be in the form of water vapor or liquid water that is flowing in streams, lakes and the oceans. Since the Earth is approximately 2/3 water and water vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas, the way it acts is very important for understanding climate and predicting the future of climate.READ MORE
Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charlie Munger tells CNBC’s Becky Quick why a carbon cap and trade system won’t work.
I absolutely agree with Mr. Munger. My rantings on cap and trade (or carbon trading) are almost constant on this site.
I also agree with Senator Gregg that we need to get 100 nuclear plants online as quickly as possible. Nuclear has problems but it is the best and most clean way to generate the amounts of energy that the United States needs.READ MORE
The Wall Street Journal has an opinion on the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia and his failure of imposing cap and trade sanctions to their economy. The political realities of imposing a tax on certain portions of the economy to their detriment and the reward of other industries is difficult to justify. For instance:
Here is an excellent interview with famed scientist James Lovelock. Dr. Lovelock is best known for formulating the controversial Gaia hypothesis in the 1970s, which states that organisms interact with and regulate Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Later this year he will travel to space as Richard Branson’s guest aboard Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo.
If you read this site often, you know that I really don’t like carbon trading. I don’t think it will help solve any problems and it is only a way to tax people and push industries into doom. Dr. Lovelock appears to agree with me and he is a fairly strong supporter of the theory that global warming is man made.READ MORE
Let me start by explaining that I am not a lover of cap and trade. The systems that have been proposed to date are simply taxes on certain types of energy so that other forms seem to be more competitive. They also tend to reward industries that can have a flexibility in energy sources while punishing industries that have to purchase high BTU energy sources. Finally, they can reward industries and organizations that did nothing to improve their energy use – they were just lucky enough to use less carbon. To make cap and trade look better, you may also see it referred to carbon trading or carbon offsets but a rose is a rose, regardless of its name (or in this case – a tax is a tax, regardless of its name).READ MORE