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.
originally posted by: Specimen
Does this mean that private and public jets will be taxed when they should of used a bike. What about volcanoes, do we really want to piss it off?
originally posted by: HaiTaiChen
Stone has been used to build houses for thousands of years and stone is still the most valuable material for building houses. Oil powered cars and trucks ain't doing the way of the horse anytime soon, which by the way are still used by Mennonites. Battery cars and oil cars were both invented in the 1800s. There's a reason oil cars dominate sales. Battery cars may be able to compete if they get subsidies. But without subsidies no way. Not convenient. Too long to charge.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
Yes. Glacial and interglacial periods do follow cycles in response to orbital and axial cycles. According to that, things should be cooling slightly (and very slowly). Instead, we see the planet warming (rapidly).
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...
Ocean currents distribute heat so they do have a profound effect on climates. But rising CO2 levels cause more heat to be retained within the entire system. Including oceans. Actually, CO2 matters. A lot.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean but increasing CO2 concentrations increase radiative forcing.
CO2 concentrations do not correlate with temperature in the long term.
Water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas, yes. But, unlike CO2, its concentration is temperature dependent. That's one of the problems. CO2 warms the atmosphere a bit, which means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which warms the atmosphere more. Without the increase in CO2, that would not happen. CO2 doesn't go away if things cool down. Water vapor does.
Water is the greenhouse gas that most affects the climate.
Incorrect.
So far the evil CO2 models haven't done such a good job.
originally posted by: Phage
originally posted by: Specimen
Does this mean that private and public jets will be taxed when they should of used a bike. What about volcanoes, do we really want to piss it off?
Ideally, a carbon tax would be assessed against producers of fossil fuels, not consumers. Of course, some of that tax would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices so, ideally, the government would not spend those revenues but would return them to consumers in the form of tax credits or rebates to offset the price increase. Revenue neutral is the term used.
Yes, it would cost more to fly instead of riding a bike. It already does, but it's also quite a bit faster.
originally posted by: Phage
Yes in 2017 there was a 0.5% decrease in CO2 production (according to BP). That went away in 2018. Working on problems. Yeah, like this:
Deregulation
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
That may be extreme.
On the other hand, SO2 trading seems to have been pretty effective in reducing emissions without affecting consumer costs. But for some reason it seems that if someone profits by it, it must be bad. Strange position for "conservatives" to take, I think.
Innovation often leads to increased efficiency. I think that the government should encourage such things rather than promoting the status quo by reducing emissions regulations.
Likely, the next whine will be that moving to gas power is not enough and CO2 must be captured and sequestered.
Their rate of increase has declined. How did Trump bailing on the accords work out?
China signed the Paris agreement. How did that work out?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: HaiTaiChen
Stone has been used to build houses for thousands of years and stone is still the most valuable material for building houses. Oil powered cars and trucks ain't doing the way of the horse anytime soon, which by the way are still used by Mennonites. Battery cars and oil cars were both invented in the 1800s. There's a reason oil cars dominate sales. Battery cars may be able to compete if they get subsidies. But without subsidies no way. Not convenient. Too long to charge.
Tesla can do 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds, about what a $300k car can do, their roster will be .9 seconds, they can get 300 miles, Tesla 3 will be about $35k...charging is getting better...
"Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 135 kW of power distributed between two cars with a maximum of 120 kW per car. They take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100% on the original 85 kWh Model S."
You talk like someone who sees a Model T and says ya the horse not going to be replaces very soon, but it took about 25 years once the model T was mass produced in 1916. I would bet in 25 years the gas car will not be more more than a collector item.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
Innovation often leads to increased efficiency. I think that the government should encourage such things rather than promoting the status quo by reducing emissions regulations.
Likely, the next whine will be that moving to gas power is not enough and CO2 must be captured and sequestered.
Their rate of increase has declined. How did Trump bailing on the accords work out?
China signed the Paris agreement. How did that work out?
How's that funding look with the adminstration's new budget?
The DOE does R&D for all of this and the Government encourages such by cost sharing on many industrial projects directed toward improving efficiencies and reducing emissions from fossil power plants.
That's what I said.
China has reduced the RATE OF INCREASE.
Not sure it's "unrestricted", but the EPA seems to be moving in the wrong direction as far as that goes.
Visit Beijing to discover what unrestricted emissions is like.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
My nephew's wife charges her Tesla with PV panels.
It's awesome.