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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (118764)	8/19/2009 1:16:27 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 541791

I've been playing around with numbers in my head, cuz I'm too lazy to look up the actual values, and I'll estimate that the US makes up maybe 0.8% of the earth, and the MW maybe a generous 0.2%. Now, if this was a homogeneous system, a random 0.2% sample will tell you what is going on with that system; you only need to take a little bit out of the test tube to tell you what's in it. Earth isn't homogeneous, tho.

To: Sam who wrote (118764)	8/19/2009 5:48:04 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 541791

Sam - I agree that there has been a warming trend. My post of the cold data for July was in response to someone using a data point to the favor of warming and asking me to look at what I see. I feel my response was appropriate to the input. This debate is like all others - very digital. Leadership is needed for a balanced debate and the development of balanced policy. I do not see it. I know this is more Obama bashing but - in Kentucky he was for clean coal (with the caveat that non existent CO2 sequestration technology was used). Also during the campaign he was for nuclear power (with the caveat that waste disposal issues be solved - and now he has defunded Yuca Mountain). My understanding that the much hyped low cost option put out by EPA included a large number of nuclear plants. Well we hear all about the low cost option - but nothing about the required number of nuclear plants. Environmental Protection Agency The EPA predicts that the bill would cost households only $140 a year. It predicts that because of new energy efficiency measures, consumer spending on energy bills would be about 7 percent lower in 2020 because of the bill. However, the EPA study significantly biases the cost downward: •It is based on consumption. The EPA's numbers are based on consumption changes, which are typically less than income changes, as families respond to income losses by saving less. •It uses discounting. Discounting is a reasonable approach for comparing costs and benefits that occur at widely different times. However, costs of climate change rarely use a discounted rate this high. For comparison, without discounting, the impact per household is $1,288 in 2050. Adjusting household size to reflect a family of four raises this cost to over $1,900. •It assumes rebates. The EPA assumes that all the allowance proceeds--the money generated by charging businesses to emit CO2--will be rebated directly to consumers. This clearly is not the case, since most of the allowances have been promised to industry.[3] •It assumes a doubling of nuclear power. The EPA assumes a doubling of nuclear energy production in the next 25 years even though Waxman-Markey has no provisions for changing the regulatory roadblocks that would allow for a broad expansion of nuclear power. heritage.org Natural gas has emerged as a huge domestic opportunity to bridge to some new future. So far to the best I can see natural gas as CH4 is doomed by the C molecule. Leadership is laying out the facts. Leadership was promised and voted for. All were to sacrifice. There has been no change in Washington. Obama IMO may or may not know better - but he remains captive of his base groups.