Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Is Global Warming A Thing? (Hurricane Sandy Spinoff)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Per Søvik" data-source="post: 67489" data-attributes="member: 1285"><p>Re: Hurricane Sandy</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Funny thing is, once in a while they (the powers that be) actually manages to get it right. Banning CFC-gases caused the kind of mild economic disruption that made whole industries move forward, and beside having a positive end result for a niche of the economy, chances are that the ozone layer actually benefitted.</p><p></p><p>So far, what has been implemented to reduce emission of green-house gases, have been scams with no real effect and rather futile excercises with ill side-effects. Carbon tax and the trade in carbon-equivalents are probebly the best scams since the Y2K scam. While buying a quota or paying tax doesn't reduce the emissions, it makes some people rich, and like any other snake oil scheme, if you market it well and get the right people to take the bait, your fortune is made. While carbon tax in theory might persuade people to choose "greener", the EU and the governments here in Europe are now screwing that up by introducing energy tax on non-polluting energies, making these forms of energies less attractive. The thinking is that any use of energy will ultimately cause carbondioxide to be emitted for various reasons. While this might hold some truth, the end effect is that taxation no longer will be biased towards handicapping carbon emitting energy sources.</p><p></p><p>Using various food crops to produce fuel has hiked food prices and is potentially very close to causing world hunger. </p><p>Turning waste into fuel, waste that might either be burned anyway or decompose fairly quickly, can potentially be beneficial provided that you don't spend too much energy and resources. But the idea that any biofuel is good is flawed, chopping down a tree and burning it releases carbon that might othewise have been stored for a further few decades or longer. The thinking that if it is already in the cycle it is ok to burn fails to recognize the whole dynamic of the carbon cycle, a cycle that also include fossil fuels (which are biofuels that have been stored a little longer).</p><p>Politicians and a large proportion of the general public tend to jump on bandwagons and only focus on one aspect of any issue or idea. </p><p></p><p>Sceptics with a broader view are easily put in the same group as the sceptics that refuse to accept even proven facts, and are therefore too easily dismissed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Per Søvik, post: 67489, member: 1285"] Re: Hurricane Sandy Funny thing is, once in a while they (the powers that be) actually manages to get it right. Banning CFC-gases caused the kind of mild economic disruption that made whole industries move forward, and beside having a positive end result for a niche of the economy, chances are that the ozone layer actually benefitted. So far, what has been implemented to reduce emission of green-house gases, have been scams with no real effect and rather futile excercises with ill side-effects. Carbon tax and the trade in carbon-equivalents are probebly the best scams since the Y2K scam. While buying a quota or paying tax doesn't reduce the emissions, it makes some people rich, and like any other snake oil scheme, if you market it well and get the right people to take the bait, your fortune is made. While carbon tax in theory might persuade people to choose "greener", the EU and the governments here in Europe are now screwing that up by introducing energy tax on non-polluting energies, making these forms of energies less attractive. The thinking is that any use of energy will ultimately cause carbondioxide to be emitted for various reasons. While this might hold some truth, the end effect is that taxation no longer will be biased towards handicapping carbon emitting energy sources. Using various food crops to produce fuel has hiked food prices and is potentially very close to causing world hunger. Turning waste into fuel, waste that might either be burned anyway or decompose fairly quickly, can potentially be beneficial provided that you don't spend too much energy and resources. But the idea that any biofuel is good is flawed, chopping down a tree and burning it releases carbon that might othewise have been stored for a further few decades or longer. The thinking that if it is already in the cycle it is ok to burn fails to recognize the whole dynamic of the carbon cycle, a cycle that also include fossil fuels (which are biofuels that have been stored a little longer). Politicians and a large proportion of the general public tend to jump on bandwagons and only focus on one aspect of any issue or idea. Sceptics with a broader view are easily put in the same group as the sceptics that refuse to accept even proven facts, and are therefore too easily dismissed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Is Global Warming A Thing? (Hurricane Sandy Spinoff)
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
