Cap and Trade

[usactionnewsdotcom]

Legislators that are pushing cap and trade, also known as the American Power Act, should be run out of office, tarred and feathered and imprisoned for fraud. Mr. Al, sex crazed poodle, Gore should be first in line.

[DeliriousProductions]

Don't you think that if businesses and communities were to use renewable energy it would be for the better?

I think cap and trade is trying to push consumers toward using renewable energy, but it is not the right approach.

There are too many excuses for not using renewable resources. We have become dependent on products that are detrimental to our surroundings.

I don't favor cap and trade, but i do believe we should use the tools we have to change the way we live.

[1psuchris]

The first slide titled "Cardon Dioxide in Earth's Atmosphere" is labeled wrong. The blue should be carbon dioxide and the red should be all other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Good video though.

[slessar]

Alvin691 ; Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.

[rbratdad]

This is very misleading and fake the would the makers of this move to mars and leave earth breathable

[Alvin691]

@rbratdad Not misleading. Maybe you should listen more closely, or ask for a transcript.

[sknelptx]

good video, solid common sense at work However this video seems thrown together, and not well thought out. (constructice critisism)

[nevermindedness]

Very misleading and inaccurate!

[drlax15m]

@nevermindedness explain

[nevermindedness]

@drlax15m The video says that CO2 represents only a small part fraction of greenhouse gases. Of course, they did not offer any references. Scientists who actually conduct the measurements have reported, summarized in Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), that water vapor represents approximately 60% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 represents about 26%.

[nevermindedness]

@drlax15m However, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is virtually unchanged, and has therefore, had no effect on global climate change. Whereas, the concentration of CO2 has changed by about 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

[nevermindedness]

@drlax15m The video says that humans produce a miniscule amount of CO2 that is barely enough to measure. However, the amount is measured annually by environmental agencies around the world, such as the EPA. Humanity produces about 29 gigatons of CO2 annually with about half of that reabsorbed. The natural production is about 771 gigatons per year.

[nevermindedness]

@drlax15m However, before the industrial revolution, the natural production of CO2 was equaled by the natural absorption of CO2. Currently, for every 100% of natural absorption, there is about 100% natural production, plus 2% manmade production, or 102% natural plus manmade production of CO2 every year. Over the last 150 years that has built up to about a 40% increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2.

[nevermindedness]

@drlax15m So, in summary, CO2 represents about 26% of the greenhouse effect. The concentration of water vapor is virtually unchanged since the industrial revolution, but CO2 has increased by about 40%.

[nevermindedness]

@nevermindedness I should mention that the percentages I gave does not include cloud cover. However, different types of clouds have different radiative effects. Low cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds reflect incoming insolation for a cooling effect. But high cirrus and stratus clouds allow ultraviolet radiation to pass through, but absorb out going infrared radiation. So the effect of clouds is much more difficult to determine.

[nevermindedness]

@drlax15m The video makes statements about the cost of cap and trade, but provide no references for these statements. There is a wide variety of predictions as to the effect of cap and trade. The fact is, nobody knows who is right. They also did not mention that the era of cheap oil is over. The IEA has estimated the petroleum decline rate to be 6.7%. Their study suggests peak oil by 2020, meaning the price of oil will skyrocket as demand rises and supply rapidly declines.

[nevermindedness]

@drlax15m In addition, the western world shells out hundreds of billions of dollars annually to OPEC countries. Many of the OPEC countries are not really friendly to the West; it is possible that terrorist organizations could be funded by oil money. It is really not in our best interest to strengthen them as we weaken economically.

[drlax15m]

@nevermindedness very good, if peak oil estimates are accurate though, then we don't need the government to force the market to change over and destroy the economy, it will progress on its own, we can't even drill our own domestic resources which would also help alleviate giving wealth to unfriendly countries, i've seen much better videos that do deal with the flaws of "cap and trade" as a solution, which is not

[nevermindedness]

@drlax15m That's an excellent point. It is possible that peak oil could exact a de facto carbon tax all on its own, and provide plenty of incentive to make the change to alternative fuels. However, that would not affect the price of coal (the worst polluter) nearly as much. Jim Hansen described a fee/dividend method for increasing the price of coal to pay for its environmental pollution.

[nevermindedness]

@nevermindedness From Hansen: Is it feasible to phase out coal and avoid use of unconventional fossil fuels? Yes, but only if governments face up to the truth: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, their use will continue and even increase on a global basis. Fossil fuels are cheapest because they are not made to pay for their effects on human health, the environment, and future climate.

[nevermindedness]

@nevermindedness Hansen: Governments must place a uniform rising price on carbon, collected at the fossil fuel source -- the mine or port of entry. The fee should be given to the public in toto, as a uniform dividend, payroll tax deduction, or both. Such a tax is progressive -- the dividend exceeds added energy costs for 60 percent of the public. Fee-and-dividend stimulates the economy, providing the public the means to adjust lifestyles and energy infrastructure.

[nevermindedness]

@nevermindedness Hansen continued: Fee-and-dividend can begin with the countries now considering cap-and-trade. Other countries will either agree to a carbon fee or have duties placed on their products that are made with fossil fuels. As the carbon price rises, most coal, tar sands and oil shale will be left in the ground. The market place will determine the roles of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear power in our clean energy future.

[nevermindedness]

@nevermindedness Hansen continued: Cap-and-trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to the Kyoto Protocol, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy. Cap-and-trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests. It must be replaced with an honest approach, raising the price of carbon emissions, and leaving the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground.

[eezyone]

Too bad not more people are paying attention and the misinformed have the political power.