Under Water by 2015 - DPChallenge Forums

08/15/2007 02:15:21 PM · #176

Originally posted by RayEthier:

...if you include the comments made by Mattew

I made no referernce to those at all and think that things should be SIMPLE. Quit dissing my plan because of what he said ;) ;) ;)

sailracer_98

Canon EOS-6D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/15/2007 02:18:21 PM · #177

Originally posted by RayEthier:

The abridged version of all this... The consumer will get hosed again.

Ray

The consumer is already getting hosed, just indirectly. How much of the cost of the Iraq war should be applied to gas prices? You aren't paying for it at the pump, but you are with your taxes. How much of the medical bills for people with lung disorders related to poor air quality should be applied to our energy costs? Right now it is 0, but you are paying for it with your medical insurance premiums. Apparently we are paying 16 Billion in tax incentives to oil companies to subsidize drilling. It doesn't show up at the pump where the heaviest users or abusers would pay their fair share, but it does show up in our taxes.

I'll use the Hummer to emphasize my point. I wouldn't say Hummer's should be outlawed. People should be allowed to buy them if they want. I'm just saying I shouldn't have to pay for someone else to drive one.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/15/2007 02:18:35 PM · #178

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
The abridged version of all this... The consumer will get hosed again.

Ray

I disagree. The abridged version would be...Don't buy a unless you actually have a reason to.

That would hold true if all that was involved were "!@#$ing Hummers".

However, if you include the comments made by Mattew, you will note that he made reference to "carbon tax", and that would include a myriad of mechanisms currently in place, such as heating, air travel, and the list goes on.

Invariably, when these things are tended to, guess who will get hosed? ... no, not only the proud owners of "!@#$ing Hummers", but just about everyone.

Ray

Right, but I was more referring towards vehicle gas guzzler taxes. Things such as heating, air travel and all that are MUCH harder to avoid. While there are new technologies in place for heat and electricity generation, they are slowly but steadily developing. And if there is a new, cheap method of getting these things I'd bet that many electric companies would switch very quickly.

When it comes down to vehicles, people actually have a choice. Do you need that gigantic SUV to ferry yourself from home to work and back? Probably not. If you have a boat, do lots of construction work, carry cargo, move stuff around, etc you probably have a good reason to have that full size truck. For larger families (5 or 6 people), automatically jumping to a Suburban (unless the above about the truck is true) isn't really a very good choice when a minivan or something similar can accomplish the same job while consuming much less fuel. Now if you have a legit reason for having that Hummer, and I don't know what one would be, then by all means get one. If there's a tax on large SUV's and large vehicles then the customer base will be more restricted to those who actually have a purpose for having one other than "it looks cool."

Natural gas, jet fuel, and all those other things you mentioned are a whole different subject from vehicles.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/15/2007 02:35:54 PM · #179

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

... Natural gas, jet fuel, and all those other things you mentioned are a whole different subject from vehicles.

Yes Sam, I do believe I am aware of the distinction to be made. What I would point out is that one cannot and should not look at the vehicle in isolation when trying to address the issue of pollution.

In any event, we both share a concern about pollution, albeit we are looking at different things. :O)

Ray

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/15/2007 02:44:30 PM · #180

$6/gallon gas prices would go a long way in solving the problem. I'm a big fan of higher gas prices. Not because I enjoy paying for it, but it's the quickest way to get out of dependency, which solves several problems.

And, with my new carbon credit business getting off the groung (thanks Chip!) I'll be able to afford lots of gas, and I can burn it guilt free!

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

08/15/2007 02:55:22 PM · #181

Originally posted by LoudDog:

I agree that higher gasoline prices will help, my idea with the GG Tax and the incentives is that these influence long-term purchases. Once you've purchased a car that gets 40 mpg, it's going to save on emissions for 5 years. Also, I think it's politically more palatable; anyone implementing a $3 gasoline tax would be lynched.

Do I get to visit my trees???

Edit: I can spell but I can't type.

Message edited by author 2007-08-15 14:56:11.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

08/15/2007 03:01:13 PM · #182

Now that you fine folks are well on the way to solving the issue, I can breathe easily as I fly off to vacation. :)

But I can't leave without one last response to Ray: why, exactly, shouldn't the consumer pay? It's the consumers (i.e., all of us) who are causing the problems.

"Hosed" implies some unfairness that just isn't there.

We've got a somewhat progressive tax system in the US now, at least as far as income taxes. There are plenty of ways to ease the burden on the poorest folks so they can get to work and feed their families.

08/15/2007 05:06:04 PM · #183

I am not surprised to see more scams about with "Carbon Offsets." Send me money and you get a carbon offsett. Meanwhile I use the money to landscape my yard. LOL It is planting trees.
Or you could be like Big Al and start your own investment company that sells "carbon credits" to himself and RICH PEOPLE ((RIGHT HERE) for your gigantous homes that suck more energy then 12 of us. (That's Here)

Send me $20.00 and I will send you 20 Carbon Credits. hehehehehe
Send to...555 Sookerfish Drive

08/15/2007 05:37:07 PM · #184

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Are you telling me that LoudDog isn't really going to plant trees for me with the check I sent him? Say it isn't so!

08/15/2007 05:38:40 PM · #185

Yeah! He is! But they are those cute little banzai trees that lead up to his front door. :)
And done by a Landscaping Company. LOL

Message edited by author 2007-08-15 17:39:26.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/15/2007 05:50:27 PM · #186

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Just in case you haven't been following along, none of us have recommended carbon offsets as a solution. I agree that they're totally BS.

meyers

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

08/15/2007 06:39:15 PM · #187

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Did you read the part in the second URL which debunks the "12 of us" claim? Al Gore pays extra money to get his electricity from green sources (defined in the article), his home is in a region that typically consumes more energy than average, and the "average" includes trailer homes and other small buildings. A better comparison would be to look at his usage per square foot, if you wanted to go that way.

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

08/15/2007 08:53:24 PM · #188

Originally posted by LoudDog:

You and I are very alike. I too want high gas prices for the same reasons. Maybe I will partner with you in this carbon credit business. I could have the sight online in a day or so. :)

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/15/2007 10:04:21 PM · #189

According to Berkeley I am emitting almost half of what others in the US do. 2.6 times the world. So I feel I am doing good (enough) for now. I want to build an off the grid home...someday.
And that is with driving a 2004 Ford F-150 in the cold months here in Colorado. Motorcycle most of the other time.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/15/2007 10:34:36 PM · #190

Originally posted by levyj413:

But I can't leave without one last response to Ray: why, exactly, shouldn't the consumer pay? It's the consumers (i.e., all of us) who are causing the problems.

One could argue that consumers come in varying shapes and sizes and that the biggest offenders do not necessarily pay their fair share. You seem to be a big fan of Al Gore, so explain to me why he needs to traipse around around the globe to tell us to conserve energy... or why do we need government representative to travel when they could do a lot of their work via conference calls.

Originally posted by levyj413:

"Hosed" implies some unfairness that just isn't there.

We've got a somewhat progressive tax system in the US now, at least as far as income taxes. There are plenty of ways to ease the burden on the poorest folks so they can get to work and feed their families.

I won't even begin to discuss the issue of taxes and fairness... the subject is laughable at best. Sadly, if all you consider is how to help the poor get to work... then I fear that your understanding of the whole issue of energy consumption is not in keeping with reality.

Ray

08/15/2007 10:44:55 PM · #191

Originally posted by RayEthier:

so explain to me why he needs to traipse around around the globe to tell us to conserve energy... or why do we need government representative to travel when they could do a lot of their work via conference calls.
Ray

HA! I never thought of that. He has the money to have a HUGE'OL GIANT screen LCD with Web cams all over to make his presentations and conferences. No need to even think of flying.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/16/2007 01:42:19 AM · #192

Ha! Just had the best anti-Climate-Change idea EVER! We have a national No-Call list, how about creating a national No-Junk-Mail list. Think of the trees and gas that would be saved by completely doing away with that stuff.

And, besides mass-marketers, who would be opposed to that? Oh yeah, Bush would claim it would hurt the economy and blame CC on the Democrats in Congress that HE got voted into office by being the least popular president since Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal. And, an Eye-D-10-T President.

Not that I'm cutting Big Al any slack, but, I'm pretty sure that he offsets his jet-setting by turning off the lights in his house when he's gone.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/16/2007 02:01:13 AM · #193

Originally posted by chip_k:

There's a link to do that at The Direct Marketing Association. It won't stop all junk mail, but it's supposed to stop mail from members of the association, which is a lot of companies.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/16/2007 04:45:17 AM · #194

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

The abridged version would be...Don't buy a Hummer unless you actually have a reason to.

While vehicles and personal vehicle choice are a high profile example of a choice that can be more or less environmentally conscious, I agree with Ray that the issue is much bigger than this. Carbon cost infiltrates pretty much everything you buy â�� the costs are in production and transport.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

if you include the comments made by Mattew, you will note that he made reference to "carbon tax", and that would include a myriad of mechanisms currently in place, such as heating, air travel, and the list goes on â�¦ The abridged version of all this... The consumer will get hosed again.

There is no reason why it should result in the consumer being â��hosedâ��. There is no need for the overall level of taxation to be increased as a consequence of incorporating a carbon tax: the overall amount collected would be the same, but tax will be applied in a different manner. People who lead a low carbon lifestyle will have a lower tax burden, and people who lead a high carbon lifestyle will have a higher tax burden â�� encouraging a shift in behaviour.

The relevant taxes would have to be applied at a business level â�� and yes, heating, car fuel, flights, probably would proportionally go up in price. But other taxes could go down as a consequence â�� sales tax, income tax, corporation tax, excise duties.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/16/2007 05:03:58 AM · #195

NO, they will just add these NEW taxes (for BS!) and everything else will stay the same and/or increase anyway. Taxes don't go away, the politicians just add more and more to supply them with more money to waste on SHIiiiiiiiiTE! they want and for their agendas.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/16/2007 12:16:27 PM · #196

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by SamDoe1:
The abridged version would be...Don't buy a Hummer unless you actually have a reason to.

While vehicles and personal vehicle choice are a high profile example of a choice that can be more or less environmentally conscious, I agree with Ray that the issue is much bigger than this. Carbon cost infiltrates pretty much everything you buy â�� the costs are in production and transport.

I completely agree with you and Ray on this. There is a much bigger issue than just vehicles but this is a problem that can start to be solved right now and for much cheaper than converting all of our coal and natural gas plants to something more efficient. As far as produciton costs go (for cars, not everything) it's still cheaper to produce things and transport things other than Hummers. Think it's cheaper to build and move a Ford Festiva (extreme example) than an H2? You bet.

Now with the conversation on other sources of power, I put my vote towards nuclear and hydroelectric sources especially tidal and current generators. All of those options are VERY expensive, but more efficient than things used now. While hydroelectric plants are definitely being used, and they should be, they aren't all that widespread. Moving water is something that will always be there and won't ever go away. Why waste that energy? Now on to nuclear. Everyone is so afraid of nuclear power because of chernobyl and three mile island. Here's the thing with that. Chernobyl was the one and only true meltdown in history and it was caused by failure to reactivate the safety systems. In today's age of computer controlled everything, this isn't nearly as likely to happen as it was (and did happen) then. Three mile island was an immeninent meltdown and the reactor was contained without releasing any significant amount of radioactivity into the environment. With the new technology we have today, the possibility of a reactor failure is very VERY low. Nuclear power is clean and efficient with the only trouble is where to store spent radioactive fuel. There are many ideas floating around on how to deal with this issue right now and I hope one of them gets picked soon. Maybe just shoot it into the sun? I don't know, but I am a big fan and supporter of nuclear energy.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/16/2007 12:27:31 PM · #197

I agree with

dacrazyrn about "going off the grid." As solar gets more and more efficient. Who needs power lines, radioactive waste in their back yard, carbon dioxide pupmed into the atmosphere and rising bills from the power company?

"The only trouble is where to store spent radioactive fuel."

That's kinda like saying, "The only prolem with having a pet tiger is that it might eat you."

;)

Message edited by author 2007-08-16 12:28:11.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

08/16/2007 01:04:05 PM · #198

A Y2K Bug in the Climate Data???

08/16/2007 01:17:37 PM · #199

Originally posted by dwterry:

A Y2K Bug in the Climate Data???

1934 And All That:

"For climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ÂºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ÂºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ÂºC)."

"Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends)."