"In the US, there is still deep mistrust and suspicion over climate change."

NO, there is not. Climate would not be climate if it was forever stable, we live in a dynamic system.

There is rejection of the usual suspects attempts to link it to Transportation, and a fat payday for criminals who are out on bail.

That is for another thread. To hobble a struggling industry with a skim off the top for well clad thieves is insane.

Though entirely predictable given the morality of the usual suspects.

There is a tree to hug, Dannyboy.
 

Ahh, Dannyboy, an EU scaremongerer!

Justify your statement "2 million jobs in the UK would go overnight if we left the EU."

If the U.K left the EU, I believe that trade agreements would be left in place, as a condition of becoming a member of the EU in the first place.

On the other hand the U.K. would save +/- £35 million (net) per day and we would be governed by our own elected representatives.

Then OUR government would decide on any ETS scheme.

Anyone for a "British Spring"?

Whether in government or business, it is the rare case where consolidation and absorption benefit the client.

Eliminating one's own power over the immediate territory enriches the receiver, and ultimately bankrupts the donor.

The EU, if it were an honest endeavour, had a shot at some benefits for the citizens, though at great cost to their respective and local freedoms.

But the EU is corrupt, rotting from the inside. Good luck with that....

jcjeant . . .
 

...the late George Carlin reflected that our planet has been around 4.5 billion years; been through multiple ice ages, climate changes, bombarded with asteroids, subjected to cataclysmic volcanoes, tectonic shifts, floods, fires, earthquakes, reversal of the poles; ...and you think that our internal combustion engines and gas turbines are a threat to this planet?

Did you know that when Mount St. Helen's had blown its top in 1980, that it had spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than that of all the world's automobiles from day one?

To be sure, the planet doesn't need us to "save itself." :ooh:

I am sorry - I am no tree hugger, but when total nonsense is spouted it sometimes has to be challenged. It is certainly true that volcanoes emit Co2, but all the world's volcanoes put together emit fewer "greenhouse" gases anually than does cement production - never mind other human activities including vehicle emissions.

Conservative estimates, based on real science (not wishful thinking) put mankind's Co2 emissions at over 100 times that from all geological events combined on an annual basis. I have no idea whether this is having a marked effect on our climate, but lets stick to facts please.

Whole heartedly agreed! Well said Sir. Then there Mount Pinatubo, and its 1991 eruption. More sulphur dioxide in one day than we as humans have released in the last 200 years. Can someone remind me when the Industrial revolution began?
Retrosgone, Dude, you went to school yes? Get your facts straight mate.

Facts eh,
Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Yeah, debate because anyone with a geology degree will tell you that it is not Carbon Dioxide that is the danger, it is Sulphur Dioxide. Unfortunately, the truth as so often is pulled over our eyes in the quest for power and financial gain.

We shouldn't get too hot under the collar on this one as it seems that the estimates come from papers that make gross assumptions about specific volcanic emissions from a very limited sample source. That being so, then as far as volcanic emission estimates are concerned, facts are arguably very thin on the ground. Unverified estimates aplenty though. :8

Utter :mad:

St Helens contributed 0.1Gt in 1980. In 1980 the US alone contributed 4.7Gt total CO2 from burning fossil fuel and making cement.

20.8t per capita x 226.5million = 4.7Gt CO2

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) | Data | Table

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcom...ts/1981-02.pdf

Can't find figures for 1980, but for 1990 the US emitted 0.97Gt CO2 from "motor gasoline". Ten times the amount emitted by St Helens.

Table 10: EIA - Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the U.S. 2008-Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Absolutely. Just that your descendants likely won't enjoy the pleasant climate you do. The planet doesn't give a toss and can do very well without us.

The sad thing is that even though I've clearly demonstrated he is so very, very wrong he'll keep quoting such bull**** without questioning. That, my friends, is faith without reason.

As are human CO2 & SO2 estimates. Simple truth is, we have gone through many many changes in our atmosphere, and we will continue to do so. I am without doubt an advocate for change on our behalf. But to blame ourselves is foolhardy to the maximum. BBC just said that the northern Ice limit is the lowest since record. Records started 200 years ago. Yet we know that the north passage was open some 1500 years ago. What caused that? CO2 levels are known to have been toxic to humans during the Jurassic period. What caused that. I live near a mountain, it has sea bed fossils, excluding uplift - which we know the amount - was still several hundred feet higher that we are now. How high was the water level then?

If we want facts, then according to the IPCC

"Humans produce about 6% of all CO2 emissions and just under 0.3% of all green house gas emissions"

green granite, you need to look a little deeper than that. The 6% is annual and roughly 60% of that 6% stays in the atmosphere. Add that up year on year.....

H20 is the major greenhouse gas but it isn't a driver - the amount is dependent on atmospheric conditions driven by other greenhouse gases. It is removed from the atmosphere too rapidly to be a driver. Throw a lot more water in the atmosphere and it precipitates out rapidly. Throw more CO2 in the atmosphere and it takes on the order of 100 years to be removed.

More CO2 means more H2O means more warming. H2O amplifies the effect of other greenhouse gases, but doesn't drive things.

This thread was about US Govt refusing to allow EU carbon tax on US airlines.
The debate is now about climate change which is not related.

Think this needs to be JBed

Quite right. Back on subject. Will this affect Airbus's move to construct A320 in the USA?

I dont pretend to know enough about the science to argue on the internet about it, but I know with absolute certainty that if we're all going to burn then there's nothing the EU or anybody else can do about it. China, India, rest of the developing world don't even pretend to care. Arabs wish to encourage fossil fuels for obvious reasons. Americans say they care, but have no political will to change (and they still think a 3 litre V6 is a small car).

The only ones who are interested in change are the Europeans and some of their former colonies ie Australia and NZ, and even if they turned the lights out completely tomorrow in all those countries it would barely even slow down let alone stop the climate change apocalypse thing.

It int about Carbon. It is about the fear of Carbon. Without Carbon, life stops, everywhere.

Not even the Carbon brokers spend their time propping up the 'science' any longer. This is about how the small circle of friends gets over on the rest of us.

And Chicken Little, or naked emperors, whatever fairy tale floats your boat.

Gore's ability to keep a straight face is un-matched. Anywhere.

This is getting embarrassing...

Saving The Planet . . .
 

Pprune's Climate change debate is here (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/471031-climate-change-debate.html).

Believers be warned, best be prepared to be turned in to sceptics in pretty short order :E

When will people realize that oil is a finite resource, and that "climate change" is a code word for "use less oil"?????

I hope the USA, China and India do boycott the ETS!!! It's a total scam! OK... so we pay billions in green taxes..... how the hell does that "save the planet"?

* yawn * 6% is 6%, whether it is anually or over 100 years. I see the dumbing down of the education system is working.