Cap and trade - who benefits?

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.

On Oct 8, 8:21*pm, 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

You stupid,stupid creature and many like you,the major element for
habitable existence and the temperature fluctuations at different
latitudes,with the equatorial regions being least affected,is the
length of time a location spends in the orbital shadow/solar radiation
and not inclination to radiation as those who believe 'tilt' causes
the seasons have it.

Not knowing how to organise global temperature with seasonal
hemispherical temperature fluctuations at different orbital points is
a terrible omission for all the inputs are based on planetary dynamics
and not 'tilt' referenced to the Sun.You stupid,stupid people making
reckless conclusions on nothing more than a whim to satisfy a need to
move away from fossil fuels.

'Climate change' is not dangerous,the silly people like yourself
promoting it based on carbon dioxide as a global temperature dial to
the exclusion of all else are.

In
uncarollo wrote:

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

What? Lens caps?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

You ****ing idiot!


"uncarollo" wrote in message
...
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.

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

Gee, such language ;^[[
No civilization in your space, eh?

On Oct 8, 12:31*pm, oriel36 wrote:

You stupid,stupid creature and many like you,the major element for
habitable existence and the temperature fluctuations at different
latitudes,with the equatorial regions being least affected,is the
length of time a location spends in the orbital shadow/solar radiation
and not inclination to radiation as those who believe 'tilt' causes
the seasons have it.

Not knowing how to organise global temperature with *seasonal
hemispherical temperature fluctuations at different orbital points is
a terrible omission for all the inputs are based on planetary dynamics
and not 'tilt' referenced to the Sun.You stupid,stupid people making
reckless conclusions on nothing more than a whim to satisfy a need to
move away from fossil fuels.

'Climate change' is not dangerous,the silly people like yourself
promoting it based on carbon dioxide as a global temperature dial to
the exclusion of all else are.

Feckwit, you are an ignoranus...

Ignoranus (n): A person who's both stupid and an asshole

On Oct 8, 8:59*pm, uncarollo wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:46*pm, "Mike Toms" wrote:

You ****ing idiot!

Gee, such language ;^[[
No civilization in your space, eh?

Tell the man what causes hemispherical temperature fluctuations based
on planetary dynamics and you can't do it -

http://climateprediction.net/images/...ges/annual.gif

Just at a time when modern imaging power can affect the outcome by way
of a major modification to the explanation for the seasons and the
actual role of 'tilt' and a political decision with no astronomical
content will destroy the barest chance this view has of succeeding .

What must go through your minds in this rush to pin global temperature
on carbon dioxide and making sure everything will be shut out for
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

He actually uses the word 'stupid' and this is what can be applied to
you and the reasoning you give for global temperature spikes via
carbon dioxide.

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. 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.

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.

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.