US shuts down EU Carbon Tax for US Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this is about is another way for financial markets to make money for themselves. Golden Sacks and all the other players (Barclays) are just salivating at the prospect of running up artificial profits on the commodity of - thin air. Talk about money growing on trees, this is money floating through the atmosphere.
* yawn * 6% is 6%, whether it is anually or over 100 years. I see the dumbing down of the education system is working.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You quoted me, and I'm from the UK actually.
The quote was that we are responsible for 6% of the total release annually. There is no discussion of whether the total annual release or our 6% of that total annual release is changing or static, so your comment is inaccurate in the absence of additional information.
I suggest you forget the 3R's, and study mathematics/statistics instead.
The quote was that we are responsible for 6% of the total release annually. There is no discussion of whether the total annual release or our 6% of that total annual release is changing or static, so your comment is inaccurate in the absence of additional information.
I suggest you forget the 3R's, and study mathematics/statistics instead.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 2nd Oct 2012 at 11:29.
Apologies to Arizonans.
You selectively quoted me. The additional information was included - some 60% of our emissions remain in the atmosphere long term. You chose to ignore it.
You selectively quoted me. The additional information was included - some 60% of our emissions remain in the atmosphere long term. You chose to ignore it.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: twilightzone
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do hope that the US does stick 2 fingers up at Brussels and the leeches contained therein.I would like to think that the UK govt might just grow a pair and join in............oh my....was that a flight of 6 pigs I just saw fly by????
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The additional information was included - some 60% of our emissions remain in the atmosphere long term. You chose to ignore it.
Besides - the 6% shows what a load of baloney it is anyway. Then they worry about the 2% of 6% of some other figure causing "catastrophic climate change". I think what is really going on is a catastrophic failure by the general population of the planet to recognize the manipulation that is being perpetrated against them.
If you want to really worry about the planet, go visit Fukushima and the North Pacific. I'm sure as hell not eating tuna from there! In case people forgot already, that is where no less than 4 nuclear reactors exploded, spewing radiation all over the planet, but largely into the Pacific Ocean. Interesting they didn't introduce an anti- radiation tax yet.... I can't imagine why not!
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 2nd Oct 2012 at 13:08.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eunochs, all of them?
Throb@30wCPDLC Quotes:-" I would like to think that the UK govt might just grow a pair and join in."
Can't see that happening, apart from the women the rest appear to be eunochs.
"...........oh my....was that a flight of 6 pigs I just saw fly by????
"
I'm afraid so and in tighter formation than the Red Arrows.
Can't see that happening, apart from the women the rest appear to be eunochs.
"...........oh my....was that a flight of 6 pigs I just saw fly by????
"I'm afraid so and in tighter formation than the Red Arrows.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me post again a poser from the past re: simple maths.
CO2 is expressed, for convenience' sake, as Parts per Million of mixed atmosphere.
That value is currently at around 380 ppm. This portion of the total atmosphere is rising, at 2ppm/year, or so it is said.
Once again, since the proportion of CO2 is increasing, what are some other components doing? Either the atmosphere can be measured that finely, or it cannot.
What other gas is losing ground? If that cannot be answered, then no attention can be wasted on CO2 alone. Is it Oxygen? Water? Nitrogen? Unimportant?
Once known, I would lke to see that poor gas get some attention, perhaps some massive grants, or at least a heads up to AlGore, Junior.
CO2, not only a pollutant, but a rude one, at that.
CO2 is expressed, for convenience' sake, as Parts per Million of mixed atmosphere.
That value is currently at around 380 ppm. This portion of the total atmosphere is rising, at 2ppm/year, or so it is said.
Once again, since the proportion of CO2 is increasing, what are some other components doing? Either the atmosphere can be measured that finely, or it cannot.
What other gas is losing ground? If that cannot be answered, then no attention can be wasted on CO2 alone. Is it Oxygen? Water? Nitrogen? Unimportant?
Once known, I would lke to see that poor gas get some attention, perhaps some massive grants, or at least a heads up to AlGore, Junior.
CO2, not only a pollutant, but a rude one, at that.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The elephant in the room.
As far as I am concerned, the whole question of global warming or Anthropogenic Climate Change - or whatever the current phrase to scare the troops is - is more or less a complete waste of media space. Until the elephant in the room is acknowledged. By someone, anyone.
The elephant is, of course, the uncontrolled, unregulated and virtually un-noticed rise in global population. The seven billionth person was born this year and we will make another billion in a handful of years. How much CO2 do a billion people expire every year?
Another billion people is an arrogance the planet simply cannot afford, a fact of which many, even most of our political and religious leaders are aware, but who refuse to even acknowledge the elephant. Let alone do something about it. Indeed, we have come so far that it may be beyond not only our Leaders political and spiritual, it may be beyond humanity itself.
I have been saying, for more than thirty years, that there is not a country, nor any nation in it, that would not ultimately benefit by having thirty percent fewer people. Actually the global number for sustainability is about two billion I believe so, we need to get rid of five billion people in the next few hundred years.
The answer is not, as some invariably suggest in these arguments, 'Logan's Run.' You simply cannot kill enough people for long enough. The only way is to reduce the number of new people. I am no mathematician so I cannot figure out if one child per couple or two children per couple is the right way to go, but unless and until we make a very big hole - right across all races and all religions - in the birthrate, then we are right royally skrewed.
The amount of CO2 my Land Rover produces is completely irrelevant.
Roger. And I don't have a Trabant, check my user name for a good guess.
The elephant is, of course, the uncontrolled, unregulated and virtually un-noticed rise in global population. The seven billionth person was born this year and we will make another billion in a handful of years. How much CO2 do a billion people expire every year?
Another billion people is an arrogance the planet simply cannot afford, a fact of which many, even most of our political and religious leaders are aware, but who refuse to even acknowledge the elephant. Let alone do something about it. Indeed, we have come so far that it may be beyond not only our Leaders political and spiritual, it may be beyond humanity itself.
I have been saying, for more than thirty years, that there is not a country, nor any nation in it, that would not ultimately benefit by having thirty percent fewer people. Actually the global number for sustainability is about two billion I believe so, we need to get rid of five billion people in the next few hundred years.
The answer is not, as some invariably suggest in these arguments, 'Logan's Run.' You simply cannot kill enough people for long enough. The only way is to reduce the number of new people. I am no mathematician so I cannot figure out if one child per couple or two children per couple is the right way to go, but unless and until we make a very big hole - right across all races and all religions - in the birthrate, then we are right royally skrewed.
The amount of CO2 my Land Rover produces is completely irrelevant.
Roger. And I don't have a Trabant, check my user name for a good guess.
Last edited by Landroger; 2nd Oct 2012 at 18:21.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birth Control
Landroger Quote "The elephant is, of course, the uncontrolled, unregulated and virtually un-noticed rise in global population."
You are, of course, absolutely correct. But when is the elephant going to be tamed.
Nightly on our television screens are to be seen appeals from various aid organisations for money to provide clean water, mosquito nets, food, shelter etc. etc.
When did you ever see an appeal for a family planning or birth control scheme - never?
We are informed that 20,000 children die needlessly every day.
But how many are born needlessly every day?
The solution is simple, but who will act?
Standing by for the inevitable incoming human rights/PC response - which is also part of the problem.
You are, of course, absolutely correct. But when is the elephant going to be tamed.
Nightly on our television screens are to be seen appeals from various aid organisations for money to provide clean water, mosquito nets, food, shelter etc. etc.
When did you ever see an appeal for a family planning or birth control scheme - never?
We are informed that 20,000 children die needlessly every day.
But how many are born needlessly every day?
The solution is simple, but who will act?
Standing by for the inevitable incoming human rights/PC response - which is also part of the problem.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every single hour, 24hrs a day, people (mostly US citizens) are shot (mostly by US Citizens) in their own country , due to strange gun control law.
Why should the US care about "EU CARBON TAX"?
Their lobbyism is, IMHO, without limits.
Why should the US care about "EU CARBON TAX"?
Their lobbyism is, IMHO, without limits.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hetfield, you ask "Why should the US care about "EU CARBON TAX"?
The opening post of this thread stated that:-
"Senate votes to shield U.S. airlines from EU's carbon scheme | Reuters"
So it would seem that regardless of who is shooting whom and where, the U.S. actually do care quite strongly about the scheme and are rejecting it (at the moment).
The opening post of this thread stated that:-
"Senate votes to shield U.S. airlines from EU's carbon scheme | Reuters"
So it would seem that regardless of who is shooting whom and where, the U.S. actually do care quite strongly about the scheme and are rejecting it (at the moment).
Last edited by FERetd; 3rd Oct 2012 at 19:41.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Here today, elsewhere tomorrow
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Science has nothing to do with it
Arguing over whether the Senate made the right call based on the soundness of the science behind ETS denotes a complete misunderstanding of the politics behind the vote...
One of the two main sponsors hasn't met a tax he likes, let alone a foreign tax!
The other is a Democrat, until recently in a losing battle to win re-election next month against a very conservative Republican. What better way to enhance your patriotic standing against a Republican than to sponsor a law opposing something foreign?
As for the rest of the Senators, pick your poison:
-Some are up for re-election. Who in their right mind would take that opportunity to support a tax that doesn't even benefit a campaign donor or two?
-We're God's gift to man-kind (the white Christian God of course), the world's super power, we're better than everyone else, we give orders, we don't take lessons from foreigners. USA #1. Europe? Bunch of lazy welfare-addicted do-nothing tax-and-spend Communists, sorry Socialists. Best to oppose anything they come up with to reinforce our sense of superiority, even if it is the best thing since sliced bread. After all, no one's ever won an election by saying someone else might have a better idea...
-The ETS has no valuable constituency in the US (green-minded voters will vote for the Democrats no matter what because, seriously, what's the alternative). So why go on a limb and stand in favor? Taking a risk for nothing? What politician does that?
And science in all of this? Please! Where do you think you are? Europe?!? Since when do scientists have a say?
One of the two main sponsors hasn't met a tax he likes, let alone a foreign tax!
The other is a Democrat, until recently in a losing battle to win re-election next month against a very conservative Republican. What better way to enhance your patriotic standing against a Republican than to sponsor a law opposing something foreign?
As for the rest of the Senators, pick your poison:
-Some are up for re-election. Who in their right mind would take that opportunity to support a tax that doesn't even benefit a campaign donor or two?
-We're God's gift to man-kind (the white Christian God of course), the world's super power, we're better than everyone else, we give orders, we don't take lessons from foreigners. USA #1. Europe? Bunch of lazy welfare-addicted do-nothing tax-and-spend Communists, sorry Socialists. Best to oppose anything they come up with to reinforce our sense of superiority, even if it is the best thing since sliced bread. After all, no one's ever won an election by saying someone else might have a better idea...
-The ETS has no valuable constituency in the US (green-minded voters will vote for the Democrats no matter what because, seriously, what's the alternative). So why go on a limb and stand in favor? Taking a risk for nothing? What politician does that?
And science in all of this? Please! Where do you think you are? Europe?!? Since when do scientists have a say?
Last edited by gtf; 3rd Oct 2012 at 09:20.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every single hour, 24hrs a day, people (mostly US citizens) are shot (mostly by US Citizens) in their own country , due to strange gun control law.
Why should the US care about "EU CARBON TAX"?
Why should the US care about "EU CARBON TAX"?
Back to the thread..
Can anyone, anyone at all provide any empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change ?
No ?
Then why is this industry (and others) being damaged by punitive actions over a falsehood.
I support the US 100% in this.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Warwick
Age: 58
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Can anyone, anyone at all provide any empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change?" Nope, and one of the main places over here (England) that is over the voice of global warming, the University of East Anglia, has been caught out lying and falsifying the data. Carbon credits are just a way of transferring the wealth from the public to the elites and corporations, under the guise of saving the planet.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@stuckgear
I feel sorry, if US Citizens kill eachother day by day.
But that's not my business.
Global warming affects me and my children and the US are, like others, responsible.
IT'S NOT YOUR PLANET!
I feel sorry, if US Citizens kill eachother day by day.
But that's not my business.
Global warming affects me and my children and the US are, like others, responsible.
IT'S NOT YOUR PLANET!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@con-pilot
With that kind of attitude/arrogance this global problem will definitlely not be solved.
Take a look who, behind China, is the worst air poluter!!!
Like I said, feel free to kill yourself, but not me.
With that kind of attitude/arrogance this global problem will definitlely not be solved.
Take a look who, behind China, is the worst air poluter!!!
Like I said, feel free to kill yourself, but not me.
Last edited by hetfield; 3rd Oct 2012 at 15:23.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be wary of "global problems" hetfield. Especially the passionate ones. These are generally the class of "issue" that has an agenda behind it that does not serve the people.
Something that gets my attention is the struggle with hunger, disease, and oppression, not to mention political tyranny and genocide.
If one thinks for a simple minute, and takes an objective and longish view, there are things we should be doing that we are not.
The Planet is warming? Worth a look? Certainly, but realize that we have disaster in our laps, and should be addressing these, prior to increasing harvests, improved comfort in the upper latitudes, etyc, if these even arrive in the next hundred years.
Hysteria is an unacceptable replacement for resolve.
Be Well.
Something that gets my attention is the struggle with hunger, disease, and oppression, not to mention political tyranny and genocide.
If one thinks for a simple minute, and takes an objective and longish view, there are things we should be doing that we are not.
The Planet is warming? Worth a look? Certainly, but realize that we have disaster in our laps, and should be addressing these, prior to increasing harvests, improved comfort in the upper latitudes, etyc, if these even arrive in the next hundred years.
Hysteria is an unacceptable replacement for resolve.
Be Well.