AGX-17 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 U.S. Carbon Emissions Lowest Since 1994. The invisible hand wins again. CHECK AND MATE, ENVIROTERRORISTS. Now let's cut down some mother****ing trees, America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga C Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 The invisible hand wins again. CHECK AND MATE, ENVIROTERRORISTS. Now let's cut down some mother****ing trees, America. Indeed, we do...and then plant yet more by a ratio of 7 or 8 to 1. Contrary to ill-informed popular opinion, we've been doing a fine job of reforesting the nation for quite some time. http://cbrrescue.org/ Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear http://michigansaf.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I suspect the lower emissions aren't driven by economics (higher energy prices) rather than a conscious effort to improve the environment? More efficient cars with lower fuel consumption, outsourcing of labour intensive/wasteful manufacturing overseas etc. Not scientifically proven in any way, just a thought. Applies to more than the US though. Probably most "western" countries. “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Yes, higher energy prices, fuel mileage standards, and greater use of natural gas due to fracking probably more than anything. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
licketysplit Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Habitat shmabitat. We got some politicking to do here in Merica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Yes, higher energy prices, fuel mileage standards, and greater use of natural gas due to fracking probably more than anything. Mileage standards haven't moved much in a while, but the price of gasoline has changed rather a lot in the last decade or so. And, yes, the decline in domestic natural gas prices due to the fracking boom has had a huge impact-- it's fairly easy to switch a coal-fired electrical power plant over to burning natural gas instead, and natural gas burns far cleaner than coal does. Frankly, it's a competitive advantage for the U.S. Due to transportation difficulties, natural gas is not the global market that petroleum is. (I.e., there are huge variations in the price depending on where you're buying, which isn't nearly as true for a barrel of Crude.) And cheaper domestic access to NG and related products produced through fracking spills over into other industries, like chemicals production. It may come with some longer-term environmental costs of its own, but it's not like we were using North Dakota for anything else of note... Edited October 23, 2013 by Enoch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 U.S. Crude Oil Output Topped Imports in October For 1st Time in 18 Years - EIA. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadySands Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 Is that a good thing or bad thing? 1 Free games updated 3/4/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Good for Texas anyway. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I understand that it happens and whatnot, but in a vacuum I always enjoy the thought of oil both being imported and exported haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Rise! Rise from the dead... Australia Scrapping Pollution Levy Marks First U-Turn on Climate. Why does Australia hate our planet so much? smh "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsuelm Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Why does Australia hate our planet so much? smh Gosh, I hope you're being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Lol, I am being sarcastic. I just enjoy poking the OP in the eye. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barothmuk Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I agree with the notion that Tony Abbot is basically a Captain Planet villain. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Never trust a man who likes being photographed in budgie smugglers. Funny thing is that if the repeal had been blocked in the senate there's no guarantee Abbot would have won a double dissolution despite winning the last election in a landslide, and recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I remember this thread. Did the Carbon Tax actually do anything with Climate Change in the last two years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadySands Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Dunno, seems probable they just passed on the tax to the consumer as they went on about their business as usual I'm not familiar with the situation but that's just my pessimistic uninformed take Free games updated 3/4/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Dunno, seems probable they just passed on the tax to the consumer as they went on about their business as usual Correct. Just like I said they would in the first page of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Since this thread has been resurrected, I've been wanting to post this : http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/10/Dr-Roy-Spencer-Science-Knows-Almost-Nothing-About-Global-Warming "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadySands Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Honestly, I can't say that I'm surprised that something coming out of "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change" is casting doubt on global warming/climate change/whatever we are calling it now BUT really.. I mean, come on. Even if the scientists are wrong about it being bad/existing, what's wrong with investing in alternative fuels, making things more energy efficient and reducing pollution? I don't think anyone is going to argue that pollution is good or claim they like getting gallons per mile (hyperbole!) instead of the other way around. IF we can do better, then why not? Disclaimer- that doesn't mean I think any and everything is a good idea like the above mentioned carbon tax which just gets handed down to the consumer or the opposite of that, paying the companies for voluntarily reducing emissions (though I did like the tax break I got for buying a hybrid and the MPG is great but the downside is that sometimes I'm not sure if my car is even on because it's so quiet) I guess I'm just missing why it's so important for some for it to be wrong Free games updated 3/4/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 OK, so you've got both an ad hominem and a strawman argument all in the same post. Dr Spencer is a well respected climate authority, so if you're going to cast aspersions you need to challenge something he's actually said. As far as energy efficiency, reducing pollution, almost no one is against that. What reasonable people are against is the idea that fossil fuels must be eliminated as soon as possible, regardless of the cost, else the world will end. 1 "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadySands Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Thanks Just so I'm clear then, the desire for the prevalent belief to be wrong is fear of poor transition to and implementation of new fuel sources and not the belief itself? Free games updated 3/4/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmp10 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 BUT really.. I mean, come on. Even if the scientists are wrong about it being bad/existing, what's wrong with investing in alternative fuels, making things more energy efficient and reducing pollution? I don't think anyone is going to argue that pollution is good or claim they like getting gallons per mile (hyperbole!) instead of the other way around. IF we can do better, then why not?The problem lies with efficiency of alternative technologies. Investment return on them is unlikely to reach the same level as fossil fuel burning. If you refuse to believe in global warming then logically renewables are simply a waste of money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoonDing Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 it's 30+ degrees today, global warming sure isn't fake The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azdeus Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) OK, so you've got both an ad hominem and a strawman argument all in the same post. Dr Spencer is a well respected climate authority, so if you're going to cast aspersions you need to challenge something he's actually said. As far as energy efficiency, reducing pollution, almost no one is against that. What reasonable people are against is the idea that fossil fuels must be eliminated as soon as possible, regardless of the cost, else the world will end. No, he's not a respected climate authority, he's a creationist & a crank. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/ But for me his credibility as a climate scientist was most compromised with his assertion that “it would take only one research study to cause the global warming house of cards to collapse.” So much for weighing the evidence. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious. Edited July 18, 2014 by Azdeus 1 Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now