It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Researchers from the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute (NBI) have found that in recent years, atmospheric acidity is back down to the pre-industrial levels. Using a modified version of Continuous Flow Analysis, they were able to determine the fluctuations in air acidity from year to year.
What’s better, is that the new method is able to distinguish between the effects of man-made emissions from those caused by natural phenomena, say volcanic eruptions.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cavtrooper7
The successful reduction of SO2 emissions has more to do with "cap and trade" than with taxes.
voxeu.org...
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy
SO2 emissions:
disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy
The proposals for SRM through aerosols do not involve the lower atmosphere.
I know about that experiment. It did not involve sulphates. They found that smoke blocks sunlight.
"In the past few years Izrael has carried out at least two small geoengineering experiments using trucks and military helicopters to release sulphate aerosols into the skies"
originally posted by: TrueAmerican
What a ploy.
"See? We did it with sulfur, so now we must triple tax you for CO2 output."
I ain't buying it. Phooey.
originally posted by: Phage
originally posted by: TrueAmerican
What a ploy.
"See? We did it with sulfur, so now we must triple tax you for CO2 output."
I ain't buying it. Phooey.
SO2 reduction did not involve taxation. It was mostly "cap and trade". And it led to improved technology without really costing anyone a ton of money.
Both a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system raise the cost of products like electricity and gasoline. These price increases would disproportionately affect lower-income households inasmuch as they spend a larger percentage of their income on energy products than do higher-income households. The way in which the two regulatory systems handle any revenues they raise would determine the extent to which each is able to reduce this disparity.
A carbon tax directly raises substantial revenues. If the revenues were rebated equally to all citizens or used to reduce regressive taxes (e.g., the federal payroll tax), it would return more money (in rebates or tax savings) to lower-income households (and to people who take steps to reduce their energy consumption) than they would pay in carbon taxes. In contrast, wealthier households, which use more energy on average (flying, driving, living in big houses), would pay more in carbon taxes than they would receive in rebates or tax savings.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TrueAmerican
So, you would rather have acid rain than pay a bit more for power?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy
"In the past few years Izrael has carried out at least two small geoengineering experiments using trucks and military helicopters to release sulphate aerosols into the skies"
I know about that experiment. It did not involve sulphates. They found that smoke blocks sunlight.
www.metabunk.org...