Should the Copenhagen deal fail?, page 1

reply to post by melatonin

Originally posted by melatonin
...
Yeah, but no point going down the route of IMF scaremongering. It's barely a brainfart of Soros' at this point.

Soros' fart seemed pretty powerful when he and Jim Rogers crashed pound sterling as quantum fund partners in September 16, 1992. I am not saying that whatever he says happens, but man’s talk can give an idea of man’s mind, and minds of others like him.

Originally posted by melatonin
... I don't envision jack-booted thugs taking out people for using incandescent light bulbs. I don't recall anything like that happening for the SO2/NO2 C&T system that you've had running for years.

Good point. People just will roll over for the new tax. Besides, in the UK they practically give the fluorescent mercury bulbs away. Yesterday I got yet another free pack of 5 from my electricity supplier. When I say free I mean collected from taxes of course, which probably cost us more than the market price. But what if people refuse to pay the tax or use incandescent bulbs for sentimental reasons? According to article from greenwise :

Any individual found breaking the new rules and importing traditional 100W incandescent bulbs after September 1 faces a fine of £5,000, with potentially unlimited fines for breaches by large companies.

As you know tax gang can be quite scary, these are not your usual police

Originally posted by melatonin
We need some action to mitigate our emissions. At this point, to me, C&T appears the best option. It has a cap that should enable constriction of emissions over time...

Sure. The only thing that confuses me (well one of many) is that this initiative looks like "bring your pans to melt into guns" initiative in the UK during the war. As it appeared later, most of those pans were not the right metal anyways, but it boosted moral. Was the loss of property an acceptable price to pay then? Perhaps. Is the price acceptable now? Perhaps. Isn't what we have now with AWG a moral boosting exercise on one hand and using legitimate concern to progress sinister agenda on the other? Say we drop CO2 production completely, apart from breathing and farting

what will the reduction of CO2 be in percentages of current amount of gas in the atmosphere? Do we have that data?

Originally posted by melatonin
The problem is that we don't have the balls to make the changes we need. We need to be moving to a focus like was found during WWII and the space-race. We should be focusing a lot of time and energy on this issue.

Yes, I think I see what you mean. Like in China. They showed what can be done by central control during the Olympic Games. Cheap labour for the higher cause or simply out of fear. We'd certainly achieve much more and probably be flying outside the solar system by now, providing the central control is a smart bunch of guys. Not sure it's the right approach though, humans are hard to tame. Common enemy idea definitely worked in the past as you pointed out. What do you think will be next common enemy if AGW will not work (whether it's real or not is not the point here). Alien invasion

sorry couldn't resist.