Cap and trade - who benefits?

On Oct 8, 2:46*pm, "Mike Toms" wrote:
You ****ing idiot!

Once again Mike Toms proves how little he understands about science.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:21:39 -0700 (PDT), uncarollo wrote:

Cap and trade, who would it help, how would it work?

Because of world wide industrialization, all manner of pollutants were
concentrated and released into the air and water of our planet. In the
beginning the concentrations were low enough, or people could simply
move away from them so that it did not affect our health and well
being. Always there was an initial resistance by the parties involved
to clean up their messes, but eventually public pressure was brought
to bear, and the pollutant was either restricted, required to be
recycled or cleaned up. The clean air and clean water acts have done
much to make our air breathable again and clean up former sewer pits
like Lake Erie, where the water is so clean that sport fishing and
swimming is again possible. Even the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland,
which was so polluted that it burned when I lived there, now flows
clean into Lake Erie and has a National Park along its shores.

Carbon dioxide is the latest pollutant to enter the world stage. Why
is it a pollutant? the concentration of CO2 affects the net energy
balance of the Earth. It's really quite simple, each day the earth is
irradiated with a certain amount of energy from the sun (approximately
120 watts per square meter average), which heats the atmosphere and
makes it pleasant to live over most of its surface for bipedals like
us humans. At night, this is radiated out into the cold of space via
infrared radiation, in a balanced cycle. The atmosphere allows this
heat to escape, keeping the average temperature over the entire Earth
quite nicely in balance.

When we add CO2 to the atmosphere, we block this night time radiation
more or less. The net result is a warming up of the average air
temperature across the globe (along with all the negative effects this
causes), until a new balance is obtained. There is no runaway heating
effect, simply a new equilibrium at a higher temperature. Scientists
feel that the net effect of this higher average temperature outweigh
the positives, since most industrialized nations will not benefit
(except perhaps Canada and Russia). The question is how to resolve
this and begin to rein in the higher carbon levels to a manageable
level. One of the ways is thru carbon credits. This may have some side
benefits to those who own carbon sinks, such as forest land.

In the latest National Geographic, there is an interesting article on
just how carbon credits helps the forest industry, and how it promotes
sustainable long term health of the wood products industry. Redwood
forests once covered huge swaths of California some 50 miles wide and
400 miles long along the Pacific coast. These giant trees were much
coveted by the building industry and fueled the housing boom in the
West, as well as the rest of the nation. Since the late 1800's
approximately 95% of the old growth Redwood trees have been harvested,
some as much as 2000 years old. Those that were replanted are mere
saplings compared with the original giants, trees that were 300+ ft
high and as big around as a 747 airliner. Those old trees had dense
hardwood, which was much coveted for its rot resistant properties.
Replanted 50 to 100 year old trees have much softer wood and are not
as desirable as the old growth giants.

The timber industry in California has had its boom and bust cycles, so
forest managers and researchers have been looking for ways that make
the industry sustainable as well as profitable. It turns out that
clearcutting replanted 50 year old trees is highly destructive to the
environment, resulting in erosion, stream silting, destruction of
salmon spawning grounds, etc, as well as yielding lower quality wood.
It pits loggers against environmentalists and is not as profitable as
it should be to the land owners. New management practices along with
forest research now makes it clear that a new way of forestry can
result in desirable outcomes for all parties concerned, and at the
same time clean the carbon out of the air. How is this done?

First, only 1/3 of the trees are removed in any one area, leaving
larger trees to grow and giving them more light to grow faster. The
best trees are left in a stand to accumulate denser heart wood, while
mopping up huge quantities of CO2 in the process. Giant Redwoods are
fantastic carbon sinks, and if left standing will earn carbon credits
for the owners for as long as they are growing. The owners of the
forest make short term profits by selling the trees that are culled
while banking the ever increasing value of the largest trees. As the
forest ages, these trees are worth more and more in carbon credits and
in the dense heartwood that they are laying down in each yearly
growing cycle. The forest becomes more valuable over time to the
owner, and he can sell it to the next and the next for generations to
come, always careful to cull only 1/3 of the growth at any given time.
In this way the forest becomes a sustainable entity which has numerous
benefits to the owner, to the surrounding communities, the loggers,
and the environmentalists. It continues to grow and regenerate itself
while continually increasing in value.

Who buys these credits? They can be redeemed by power generating
plants who want to use cheap coal, either here in the US or overseas.
These credits will be tradable like any commodity in the future. It is
a way for the forest owner to make a profit whether he cuts the trees
or not, plus it gives the housing industry another option for
sustainable wood products. It also turns out that older trees in other
areas of the country, like the US south east and north east, also
benefit from similar forest management, and that older pine trees also
develop better quality wood than younger trees. It is also a very
effective way to sequester CO2, which must be done one way or other
for our nation's long term survival.


.. . .and you are probably one of those here that turn there noses up at me
and flip me attitude for posting OT.

Stick to making your overpriced refractors, Roland.


--
Martin R. Howell
The Astro Post
www.theastropost.com/smf
It's ALL there!

On Oct 8, 3:49*pm, "Martin R. Howell"
wrote

Stick to making your overpriced refractors, Roland.

Well, if people keep buying them, and you have to wait months and
months to got one, I don't see how they can be considered to be
overpriced.

I would never be able to afford one myself. I have a 25" dob which
costs much less than just a really good mount for one of those guys,
let alone the OTA itself...

\Paul Alsing

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT), palsing wrote:

On Oct 8, 3:49*pm, "Martin R. Howell"
wrote

Stick to making your overpriced refractors, Roland.

Well, if people keep buying them, and you have to wait months and
months to got one, I don't see how they can be considered to be
overpriced.


Good points. I stand corrected. Apologies on this issue to Roland.


--
Martin R. Howell

On Oct 8, 5:49*pm, "Martin R. Howell"
wrote:

. . .and you are probably one of those here that turn there noses up at me
and flip me attitude for posting OT.

Stick to making your overpriced refractors, Roland.

--
Martin R. Howell

I never have flipped anyone, certainly not you. Why be negative? Do we
not have freedom of speech, and such? Or have we devolved into a
repressive society?

Rolando

On Oct 8, 5:58*pm, palsing wrote:

I would never be able to afford one myself. I have a 25" dob which
costs much less than just a really good mount for one of those guys,
let alone the OTA itself...

\Paul Alsing

I know what you mean about cost for these toys, however, if you want
to compare apples and cranberries.. Back when I was a youth someone
said his Mustang was cheaper to buy than my BMW900RS (motorcycle). I
didn't understand the comparison, as I don't understand yours.

ciao,
Uncarollo

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:46:54 -0700 (PDT), yourmommycalled wrote:

On Oct 8, 2:46*pm, "Mike Toms" wrote:
You ****ing idiot!

Once again Mike Toms proves how little he understands about science.

For those that haven't figured it out yet, Mike Toms is Mick Thomas, alias
"Mick" of days gone by. A not so clever manipulation of his ever morphing
name and a trace of the message ID (edtnps83) both team up to verify this
fact. It is our member, who years ago, called KatrinaX (Cathy S.) almost
every name in the book to the point that he only quit when John Steinberg
threatened to look him up and pay a personal visit.

Truly, MT must be the pride of Medicine Hat.


--
Martin R. Howell

On Oct 9, 11:58*am, palsing wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:49*pm, "Martin R. Howell"
wrote

Stick to making your overpriced refractors, Roland.

Well, if people keep buying them, and you have to wait months and
months to got one, I don't see how they can be considered to be
overpriced.

I would never be able to afford one myself. I have a 25" dob which
costs much less than just a really good mount for one of those guys,
let alone the OTA itself...

\Paul Alsing

In any case what would be the point of downgrading quality to compete
with mass market stuff from China. It would be a sure way to go out of
business.

On Oct 8, 11:11*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:
On 8 Oct, 22:40, oriel36 wrote:





On Oct 8, 10:13*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:

On 8 Oct, 21:21, oriel36 wrote:
(snip)

decades ?,somehow Galileo expressed this awful condition that is now
worse than ever -

"The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill "
Galileo

Who do you think Galileo was referring to here.

"Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion
In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads."

He is describing people like you who only consider their own
subjective views of the universe and ignore any evidence they don't
like instead of examining all the evidence critically and
dispassionately.

I have the time lapse footage from Hubble showing with a 100%
certainty that an additional orbital specific is required to explain
seasonal temperature fluctuations at different latitudes and whatever
you freaks think ,it is a technical certainty that the role of 'tilt'
for any given planet is based on equatorial or polar conditions and
Not the cause of the seasons -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

You stupid creatures cannot even interpret a simple orbital signature
and I have been forced to use childish analogies to explain all this
before.

*Galileo was a scientist. He also enjoyed using a

telescope to look at the night sky. If you met him now you would
dismiss him as an astrologer and empiricist. He, of course would
consider you to be a crank.

Galileo understood the insight of Copernicus and especially
retrogrades while you as an empiricist drone do not -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde . But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

Even when modern imaging allows anyone with a shred of intelligence
and common sense to determine that the resolution ,based on the
Earth's planetary orbital *dynamic, resolves retrogrades,you still
can't anything wrong with that *empirical numbskull -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

Whatever you consider yourselves to be,right at this moment you are
dullards who have become dangerous with these stupid conclusions based
on carbon dioxide and global temperatures to the point that climate
change is not the problem,the decay of human intelligence is.

Are the images from Hubble not spectacular enough for you that you
can't figure out what is going on orbitally with Uranus in order to
make comparisons with the dynamics behind the Earth's global climate
and seasonal hemispherical changes in temperature ?.People who can't
explain the seasons properly should not,should not be dictating
conclusions for temperature spikes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The images from Hubble, placed in orbit using Newtonian physics, are
always spectacular. What is less spectacular is your deliberate folly
in refusing to accept this because you are on of those people who
"reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their
minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their
having received it from some person who has their entire confidence,
impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it
out of their heads."

And how dare you call me a drone. I work for a living while you seem
to spend all your time trying to get even one convert to your cult.

Drones are drones,they are incapable of feeling anything and lack the
normal intuitive intelligence which affirms or rejects ideas and
proposals based on physical considerations,for instance,after
thousands of years where there is no problem knowing what a planet
is,they decide that a planet must be 'defined' out of context of its
original position within astronomy with predictable and catastrophic
results.

Drones can't interpret or discuss anything which is why this pollution
mess dressed up as 'global climate' exists in the first place.With
absolute certainty that 'tilt' does not cause the seasons or effect
variations in the natural noon cycle,it is obligatory for the people
who are making these reckless conclusions based on carbon dioxide as
a global temperature dial to comprehend the basics of global climate
by way of planetary dynamics.

So I have been unkind to the ancient astrologers who created the
magnificent timekeeping systems and first structured the solar system
until Coperncius dramatically introduced planetary dynamics to alter
the picture but you lot are not astrologers but magnification drones
and subsequently have no ability,talent or interest in linking
astronomical causes with terrestrial effects or putting celestial
observations in structural context.This is not an insult but a fair
assessment or this dangerous situation where planetary dynamics is
entirely absent from global climate inputs.

uncarollo wrote:
Cap and trade, who would it help, how would it work?

Sorry Roland but although I do believe that AGW is a real and serious
long term threat I do not think cap and trade is a part of the solution.

At best it will allow polluters to buy the logical equivalence of
medieval "indulgences" for their sins and make the dealers of carbon
credits exceedingly rich in the process. They are the only ones that
benefit.

In the latest National Geographic, there is an interesting article on
just how carbon credits helps the forest industry, and how it promotes
sustainable long term health of the wood products industry. Redwood

Laws to stop them maximising short term profit and wrecking the
environment by clear cutting would be more effective.

Who buys these credits? They can be redeemed by power generating
plants who want to use cheap coal, either here in the US or overseas.

They will be bought and sold by spivs and speculators to create yet
another financial derivative market for bankers to gamble on. Chances
are it will end in tears much like the CDO swaps debacle.

The simplest solution is a carbon tax on all fuels. That will drive
energy efficiency much higher up the list of priorities. It is no
surprise that countries with relatively high fuel tax have much more
efficient cars. The US auto industry with dirt cheap fuel hasn't
noticably improved on the fuel economy of Fords original model T.

Regards,
Martin Brown