digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at nytimes.com

Industries Allied to Cap Carbon Differ on the Details

nytimes.com — The difficult bottom line in the negotiations is that dealing with climate change will almost certainly hurt some industries and enrich others.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BCCStu, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5Interesting look at the current environment in the business world regarding Climate Change. Some companies will benefit, while others will suffer.
  • ColonelTribune, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6Seems a bit obvious, doesn't it? Dugg because it's important nonetheless.

    How was your weekend, BCC?
  • HolmWrecker, on 06/02/2008, -8/+2Pure *****. We're gonna ***** everything up just to save a world that doesn't need saving.
    Go read about the volcanoes. Mt. St. Helens, which I can see from my home, spews out more pollution in one 24 hour period than all of man kinds' history and it is only at idle. There are up to 500 volcanoes spewing forth massive amounts of pollution.
    If they can make that much pollution there is no way on Gods green earth that WE are effecting ANYTHING.
    Go read about 'em, the documentation is all there for all to see. Look it up you lazy *****...instead of just parroting what you've been told by clueless idiots.
    • xxTazxx, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Actually, there are a few important bits you missed out from your rant. One, the pollutant, sulpher dixode, harms organisms within a defined radius. St. Helen's radius is sparsely populated, and therefore very few complaints of respiratory problems or other supler dioxide related diseases have come forward. Industry on the other hand is operated by humans, and since humans ussually live near enough industrial areas, the sulphur dioxide actually has a dramatic impact on them. That said, sulphur emissions have decreased these last couple of years.

      In terms of climate change, St. Helens has a miniscule effect, as it pumps out 500-1000 tons of CO2 a day. How much do humans produce daily?. 71 million tons of CO2.

      In fact, all the worlds volcanoes put together produce about 200 million tons of CO2 a year. Humans?
      26 Billion Tons.
    • vikingcoder, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Volcanoes emit 150 - 200 million tons CO2 / year globally; that includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes. The most actively degassing volcano in the world, Mt. Etna in Italy, emits ~14 million tons CO2/year.

      Humanity emitted 28 billion tons of CO2 in 2005 from the burning of fossil fuels. That is more than all volcanic emissions during the entire 20th century.

      http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/ab ...
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
      (table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ...
  • andy314159pi, on 06/02/2008, -2/+5Cue all of the deniers.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 06/02/2008, -4/+3The difficult bottom line - one that the media refuses to accept - is that climate change in and of itself is natural and cannot be altered. The concept of "man-made" climate change is unsubstantiated nonsense whose "proof" withers under any scrutiny.

    Should we do our best to restrict pollution? Yes? At all costs? NO. To throw our economy into a tailspin over something so spuriously evidenced is complete fallacy.
    • andy314159pi, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3It turns out that CO2 does absorb in the infrared where the O2 that it is replacing does not, and that will lead to more heat staying in the atmosphere.
      • bigpj, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1True! But why is it that O2 does not display any IR active vibrations whereas CO2 does?
        • andy314159pi, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1induced dipole is zero (for O2)
    • arpie, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2The bottom line that some people choose to refuse to accept is that science has limits.
      Science is essentially ways to model reality and try to explain and predict natural behaviors. An apple does not fall from the tree *because* of the law of gravity. It just does, and the law of gravity models and explains this behavior.
      That being said, how hard is it to just accept that we have incomplete models and data and we just don't know. Are you going to just "adolescently" take it on faith that things will be ok and a global catastrophe just won't happen (to you, after all that is a more convenient point of view for now)? Or, are you going to act as an adult, take responsibility and at least try to do something in case there *is* enough time? Can we risk it? There is probably such a thing as a point of no return, and I'd rather err on the safe side.
      The cons: less comfort, having to think about what you do, use less gas, less electricity, make conscious choices, etc. The pros: possibly saving the world for our kids, living with cleaner air, water, etc.
      Unfortunately, too many people suffer from remote-control syndrome. Take this totally imaginary situation: If it was possible to stop global catastrophe or even bring world peace by something as simple as everyone not using their remote controls at home, while nobody else is watching... would people do it? Think about it.
  • fancypantscz, on 06/02/2008, -0/+7“There is just going to be a giant fight over the free allowances,”

    Right, and who is going to decide who gets the free ride and who has to pay? Politicians.

    And if corporations thought that lobbying and propaganda was important before, it would be good to revisit that part of the budget and make sure you get lots of old capital hill staffers and advert agency on your payroll else they go work for anther industry.

    200billion dollar market created out of thin air (CO2 actually) by federal politicians. We must reduce our carbon emissions but I believe this method is just going to make a bad situation worse by putting another layer of private interests between the voter and their representatives.

    Let just require corporate transparency and put a stamp on the side of products indicating how much CO2 is emitted from the life cycle of products and let the consumer decide. If people are too irresponsible or ignorant to care about their environmental impact, no amount of regulation will be able to save us from ourselves.

    Trying to legislate social change will create more problems than it solves.
    Think War On Drugs...
  • siktath, on 06/02/2008, -4/+1This is awesome! The people in this country believed to be the smartest can't grasp the concept of propriation!
    You fools are my lunch.
  • duke_nate, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6Quick note, the EPA said that imposing cap and trade will increase the price of gas by $1.50, not .50. All hail the morons in congress that would sacrifice our economy to save a planet that doesnt need saving. And even if by some miracle, we could cut the United States CO2 emissions ALOT, China, India, and Germany are more than happy to be putting in new Coal plants, and drilling for all the oil they want. Russia is even cutting the taxes on their oil companies as long as they are exploring for more oil, or promising alternatives. (Coal to Oil, $50 a barrel!) Yet we STILL cant drill on our own coasts or in the ANWR. The rest of the world is most likely laughing at the US for its stupidity!
    • canUdi9it, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1We humans have NO control over global warming or cooling since water vapor* controls 95% of the greenhouse effect. Total CO2 contributes just 3.6%. Human-caused CO2 contributes a measly 0.117% of the total greenhouse effect. Curbing CO2 is a complete waste of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere.

      Read the facts here:

      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. ...

      * Water vapor is an invisible gas, not condensed water, like clouds or rain.
  • Hodor, on 06/02/2008, -2/+3It's funny how people seem surprised that the industries that stand to lose the most would voice opposition to these sort of schemes. Duh! It's happened many times before, carriage makers opposed the automobile. Tobacco companies oppose changes to laws that affect their advertising / labeling. Music companies oppose music trading via the internet. Why shouldn't carbon spewing companies oppose carbon cap / trade system? The answer, imo, is that they should do just that. We just shouldn't listen to them any longer.
  • sodade, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Why don't we just tax EVERYONE based on the sum total of all of their positive and negative impacts to our society? As long as the TRUE costs of doing business are accounted for, it would be inherently fair. Of course the "be fruity and multiply like ***** rabbits" idiots will shoot it down faster than you can say "I'ma breed me up some more conservative voters"
  • bullcutter, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3I would have titled the article, "Industries to gain fortunes over global warming swindle squabble over how to divide pollution tax money."

    "What unites these two groups — business executives from Duke Energy, the Ford Motor Company and ConocoPhillips, as well as heads of environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council — is a desire to deal with climate change. "

    What, are you kidding me? What kind of mentally deficient toolbot do you have to be to actually believe this? What unites these "groups," as always in any given situation, is $$$$, and all these particular assholes are trying to do is get a piece of that government-mandated honeybasket.

    "Experts say it could turn into one of the biggest markets in the world, estimated to be worth over $200 billion a year."

    Yeah, for the average multibillionaire CEO, money isn't nearly as big an incentive to do business as helping mother earth is, sure....
  • pidgas, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Estimated government "revenue" (aka tax) collected for carbon credits: $3.32 Trillion
    Estimated increase in electricity costs: 55%
    Estimated increase in gasoline costs: 30%
    Total lost GDP by 2030: $5 Trillion
    Estimated jobs lost by 2020: 1.8 million.
    Number of new government agencies:

    Technology to achieve proposed limits: non-existent
    Chances China will reduce their emissions: zero
    Practical chances Cap and Trade will prevent climate change: zero.
    Number of climate models predicting 10 year lull in warming (the lull we're currently in): zero

    http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/institute/econsummary ...
    http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/38460

    I'm not a global climate change denier - not even a skeptic. I just know a bad deal when I see one. We're talking about making enormous changes on the basis of climate models - none of which predicted the most significant climate event of the last 10 years!

    People talk about how climate change will affect the world's poor. Indeed, it's a possible risk. But following this policy prescription WILL hurt the poor through job losses and dramatically increased commodity prices (food, energy, etc.). Is it wise to exchange the possibility for a certainty - if the certainty doesn't even prevent the possibility you're trying to avoid?!!
    • amightywind, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1As long as their are a few sane people left there is hope. Contact your congressman, and Lord hope that they are Republican.
      • pidgas, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Contact your Senators - they're debating this now.
  • LenBaird, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2What the eff are corporate leaders doing writing policies which will hurt some industries and greatly benefit others. I wonder if the ones who write the policies will be on the suffer or benefit side?
  • amightywind, on 06/02/2008, -2/+4This is a game of Russian Roulette. Some unelected 'experts' will decide on a whim who can emit CO2 and who can't. Those who can't will be expected to commit hari-kari for the tree huggers and mother earth. In my lifetime this is the most insane act of government regulation I have seen.
  • Ethek, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3This is one more avenue of government control that will surelly be fraught with unintentional consequences.

    'Sorry ma'am you can use your handicap accessible full sized van because of the carbon cap' or more likely 'sorry ma'am they just don't make any vehicles that can accommodate you since the carbon cap'

    People on the bottom will have no control, everything human energy is expended on, including breathing itself expends carbon. It's the trump card for a socialist end game. I'm not for destroying the environment but surrendering personal liberty to a national pr gram to have it turn around and surrender national soverignty to a bunch of international brokers is not freedom. Its serfdom.

    This kind of control has always ended in the worst of human suffering and the most tragic of unintended consequences.
  • shamsgames, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0Why don't we just tax EVERYONE based on the sum total of all of their positive and negative impacts to our society? As long as the TRUE costs of doing business are accounted for, it would be inherently fair. Of course the "be fruity and multiply like ***** rabbits" idiots will shoot it down faster than you can say "I'ma breed me up some more conservative voters"
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/
    http://download.paramegsoft.com/
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/
    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/
    http://xn----ymcae0df5a6fo.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.