Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (197)	6/6/2008 3:39:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 3816

U.S. climate bill dies Good news. The bill aimed to cut total U.S. global warming emissions by 66 percent by 2050. Very expensive and unrealistic. Also see - Under Lieberman-Warner, carbon-dioxide emissions would have to have been 19-percent below the 2005 U.S. level by 2020, and 71 percent lower by 2050. Since the US currently emits ~19% of total global carbon emissions, a 71% reduction in US emissions would represent a reduction of ~13% of current annual carbon emissions, or ~1 billion metric tons per year. Since atmospheric carbon concentrations began increasing in ~1850, when the annual emissions were ~54 million metric tons, and began increasing more rapidly in ~1950, when annual emissions were ~1.6 billion metric tons, it is extremely unlikely that Lieberman-Warner would have resolved the AGW issue, even assuming no increases in emissions by other countries. However, Lieberman-Warner, as a US law, would have had no impact on the emissions of other nations. China also currently emits ~20% of total global carbon emissions; and, China’s emissions are currently increasing at ~10% per year. If this trend persists, as is currently projected, China’s emissions growth through 2015 would totally offset the US reductions which would have been required by Lieberman-Warner through 2050. Therefore, absent major emissions reductions by other nations, global carbon emissions would have increased in spite of the Lieberman-Warner reductions. Posted by Ed Reid \| June 6, 2008 2:47 PM meganmcardle.theatlantic.com

To: one_less who wrote (197)	6/7/2008 1:39:30 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3816

If Global Warming is as serious as they say it is, then we're just screwed, regardless of what the US. does or not. These higher gas prices are the BEST thing that's ever happened for global warming because they are the FIRST thing that has actually made cleaner fuel technologies viable. India and China aren't going to worry about carbon emissions when they have 200 million unemployed to create jobs for. IF they could create the energy they need and ALSO do it cheaper, THEN they'd change, but not before.