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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25900)	11/29/2009 11:44:26 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

"Your credibility is shattered." So I see... From The Sunday (London)Times November 29, 2009 Global warming is real Bryan Appleyard No wonder opinion polls show a majority of the population are sceptical about global warming. Just scanning the papers, the internet or watching TV is enough to convince anyone it’s just the usual apocalyptic hype. And, if they want to dig deeper into their own disbelief, there are shelfloads of books to give them a hand. There’s Nigel Lawson, ex-chancellor of the exchequer, with An Appeal to Reason. There’s Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North. There’s Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. There was even a very serious documentary on Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle with some serious-looking science guys pouring cold water on the warming atmosphere. Just a couple of weeks reading and watching and you can be out there, crushing dinner-party eco-warriors with devastating arguments based on cold, hard facts. You will be a stern, hard-headed denialist, your iron jaw set firmly against the tree-hugging, soft-headed warmists in their irritating hats. That was me, once. I thought global warming was all bog-standard, apocalyptic nonsense when it first emerged in the 1980s. People, I knew, like nothing better than an End-of-the-World story to give their lives meaning. I also knew that science is dynamic. Big ideas rise and fall. Once the Earth was the centre of the universe. Then it wasn’t. Once Isaac Newton had completed physics. Then he hadn’t. Once there was going to be a new ice age. Then there wasn’t. Armed with such historic reversals, I poured scorn on under-educated warmists. Scientists with access to the microphone, I pointed out, had got so much so wrong so often. This was yet another case of clever people, who should have known better, running around screaming, “End of the World! End of the World!” and of less-clever people finding reasons to tell everybody else why they were bad. And then I made a terrible mistake. I started questioning my instinct, which was to disbelieve every scare story on principle. I exposed myself to any journalist’s worst nightmare — very thoughtful, intelligent people. timesonline.co.uk

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25900)	11/29/2009 11:46:51 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

"Copenhagen and cap and trade are dead." So I see. California Takes Step to Limit Emissions By JOHN M. BRODER Published: November 24, 2009 WASHINGTON — California has taken a major step toward creating a broad-based trading system to limit emissions of pollutants blamed for harmful climate change. The California Air Resources Board, often a trailblazer in environmental regulation, released a draft rule on Tuesday establishing a cap-and-trade program that sets a declining ceiling on emissions of greenhouse gases and allows companies to buy and sell permits to meet it. California’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The proposed system would begin in 2012 with 600 major sources of global warming pollutants, including power plants, refineries and concrete factories. Similar proposals to reduce emissions are stalled in Congress with little hope of moving through this year. And next month, world governments will assemble in Copenhagen to discuss the issue but are not expected to produce any binding agreements on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the new rules would help California address a serious environmental problem, while giving companies flexibility in meeting clean-air goals. The proposed rule also includes reductions in emissions from industrial and transportation fuels beginning in 2015. California joins a number of other states and regions, including the 10 states of the Northeast, in moving ahead with programs to address global warming as Congress debates a nationwide program. One point of dispute in the legislation is whether the federal government will pre-empt these local and regional efforts and create a single national cap-and-trade program. California, the world’s eighth-largest economy by some measures, was one of the first states to recognize the potential effects of a changing climate. State scientists have identified reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, prolonged droughts, increasing wildfires and growing infestation of pests as some of the results of the warming. The draft of the California program dodges one of the toughest issues in designing any cap-and-trade system: how to allocate permits that allow companies to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A bill that passed the House in June distributes roughly 85 percent of the permits to various parties and industries free in the early years of the program, with more of them auctioned in later years. Mary D. Nichols, the chairwoman of the Air Resources Board, said her preference was for virtually all of the California permits to be auctioned from the start. “Congress started this, you know, as a political exercise to see how many allowances you had to give out to which groups to get them to buy into the program,” Ms. Nichols said in a briefing for reporters, according to Reuters. “We know how many emissions we have to reduce. The question is how do we do it in a way that costs less.” The resources board has scheduled months of hearings and public comment on the rule before it is to be finalized next October. nytimes.com