"California is a bright spot for clean energy. States have often been the laboratories for policies that move to the federal level," notes Jonathan Kevles of the Sierra Club's Clean Energy Solutions campaign. "We can show the rest of the country that the economy and the environment are not mutually exclusive goals."
If California can prove that it's not the economy or the environment but rather the economy and the environment, the nation will likely follow. "It may take us in the U.S. 20 years to get there, but it will happen in some way, shape or form," says environmental engineer Sheeraz Haji, president of the Cleantech Group, a research and consulting firm, noting the convergence of governments, environmentalists and companies looking to reinvent themselves. "The general trend towards energy efficiency, a low-carbon economy and resource efficiency are bets that are so clear to me."
After all, it only took eight years for the U.S. to follow California's lead on increased fuel efficiency for cars and other vehicles. "One thing Obama has done on climate, he allowed California to adopt aggressive standards and now we're going to do it for the whole country," ARB board member Sperling says. "Now we're adopting a cap-and-trade program on our own."
Editor's Note: Reporting for this feature took place as a result of a Jefferson Fellowship from the East–West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
See what we're tweeting about
67 Comments
Add CommentExcellent! Keep going strong California. Someone has to set the standards for America and you have always done a good job in the past. Don't let these anti-environmentalists put you down. All of us who cares about the air we breath, the water we drink, and the land we live on is behind you 100%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI certainly hope worthless agencies like the Air Resources Board are the first to be shut down when taxpayers from other states are forced to save California from bankruptcy. California should first demonstrate that it can actually govern itself before trying to set an example for anyone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh-nold! Ah-nold! Ah-nold!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrow more plants to combat the increased CO2 levels instead of growing more taxes and government control! They should've passed Prop 19!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I hope obstructionist deniers such as yourself are the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe benefits of global warming are rarely discussed just the gloom and doom which I consider overblown.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal cooling is a much worse enemy then global warming will ever be! When global temperatures where higher life has been much more widespread.
Antartica used to be habitable yet the world did not end. These end of the world predictions disregard humans adaptability and cast a fragility mythos on our biosphere which doesn't ring true to me: hasn't life on earth survived many worse and just as rapid climate changes in the past couple hundred million years!
seannelson and soccerdad- You are both absolutely right. The sad part is that, after most of the businesses have left California and they declare themselves bankrupt, they will be crying for the rest of us to bail them out from their own stupidity. If the planet is really warming, we may be able to continue to feed the worlds billions. If it cools, as some say, there will be mass starvation. We should be praying for warming instead of trying to cool the planet. Luckily we aren't as capable of influencing the climate as some think. I see today that another prominent AGW scientist looked at the science and left the movement. Seems the proof is incontrovertable, CO2 rises Follow temperature increases, they don't cause them. As more and more scientists decide to look at the evidence for themselves, the AGW group continues to shrink. The science is indeed NOT settled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany states such as mine operate with balanced budgets and for some reason seem to have much more realistic concepts of government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs soon as California can pay off their huge debt and balance their budget without our help then their "wonderful" philosophy about the environment may have some credence.
Until then I consider their whole approach just BS from a bunch of fruits & nuts! Put your money where your mouth is!
@Sean Nelson,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Global cooling is a much worse enemy then global warming will ever be"
But we are not threatened with global cooling are we? This is not a either or CHOICE to be made here.
"When global temperatures where higher life has been much more widespread. Antartica used to be habitable yet the world did not end."
And sea levels were at height at that time? Just how many island nations and coastal cites are you willing to see extinguished in favor of such a mad vision? Hold it! I am guessing you think that all that melt water will just go quietly into Never Never land.
"...hasn't life on earth survived many worse and just as rapid climate changes in the past couple hundred million years!"
So what you are saying is that unless we face an extinction event worst than the Permian-Triassic event were more than 85% of life went extinct then we got no worries because after a few million years everything will be just as diverse. Is that right?
I have just one quibble, a small one: While you are enjoying this godlike procession of life and evolution; just how is humanity to make out in the hell that is in between those millions of years?
I'd appreciate otherthoughts
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that:
The US currently emits about 15% of worldwide CO2. If the US was to reduce down to....(pick whatever reduction number you wish).....worldwide emissions will continue to rise greatly. A large percentage (somewhere close to 60%?) of humanity is/will greatly increase their use of hydrocarbon products over the next 25 years. People in vast numbers who never before had electricity or personal transportation in central and south Asia are now getting both.
Given the above, does it make sense (and please explain your reasoning) to spend vast amounts to reduce US CO2 emissions at current facilities by some amount that will do absolutely nothing overall for the climate?
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you have already copy and pasted this before allow me to copy and paste the following response to your dishonest copy-pasta:
1. The U.s emits about 20% of Co2.
2. You make the assumption that the U.S would be or is the only country in the world trying to cut emissions.
3. Ever heard the old saw of: When you find yourself in a hole stop digging?
4. This all rather disingenuous of you since you can not even admit to a serious problem. For goodness sake you think sea level rise is not a problem, can not admit that Corals are dying to inhospitable temps, declare against all evidence that the Antarctic Peninsula is NOT warming, and think that we can not figure out how much of the present CO2 levels is attributable to humanity.
Sorry you have to first admit to all of the above if you want people not see you as a hypocrite.
Trent1492- Aren't the warmists the ones who feel they are godlike when they think they can change the course of earth's climate? By the way, CO2 increase Follows temperature increase in warming periods, so even if we could lower CO2 levels (doubtful), it will not affect the course of climate change. Also, if ocean levels do rise, there should be plenty of new lands to settle in Siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska, and, most importantly, Antarctica. All this assumes global warming, which, contrary to what warmists say, is not universally accepted as fact and has not been proven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Aren't the warmists the ones who feel they are godlike when they think they can change the course of earth's climate?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, that would be the anti-science types (once again) just making things up. The fact is that HUMANITY is changing the environment.
"By the way, CO2 increase Follows temperature increase in warming periods, so even if we could lower CO2 levels (doubtful), it will not affect the course of climate change."
Here is a tip for. Go look up Milankovitch Cycles and now you have your answer. Now here is another tip for you. We can monitor the the Total Solar Irradiance that Earth receives and have been for decades. Guess what? No, change in TSI has been detected and matter of fact, it has declined slightly over the past decades but here we are temperatures consistently in the top ten. Do you have a coherent explanation for this?
"Also, if ocean levels do rise, there should be plenty of new lands to settle in Siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska, and, most importantly, Antarctica."
Wow, earlier you were talking about godlike powers. Now you are blithely talking about abandoning coast lines and the cities around them and moving BILLIONS of people. Is your middle name Stalin by any chance?
and I am willing to bet you are clu
Sorry for that long space on the last post. I had a cursor hiccup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, California. The people of the whole wide world appreciates that very much. What seems to be a disadvantage now in economical terms, will prove to be the right choice for the future, when the energetic matrix of the world will be deeply changed: the adapatations in California started already!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpending stupefying amounts of the consumer’s and taxpayer's money for unneeded expensive power that can not possibly have any impact on a problem that may be nothing more than a mirage. Meanwhile, California is essentially bankrupt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose of us in “fly-over” country are unlikely to follow the lemmings in California in their rush to economic ruin.
Obama recently bragged on Spain for being a leader in solar and wind power. Spain invested billions in subsidies in these technologies. The increased taxes and energy costs drove industries out of Spain causing the loss of 2.2 jobs for each one created by the technologies. 90% of the jobs created were temporary, and Spain has ended the subsidies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalifornia will not reduce any emissions as long as there is unlimited illegal immigration. Demand will continue to increase as long as the population does. BTW, Texas appreciates all the jobs moving there from California.
"The fact is that HUMANITY is changing the environment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at the word you used: it's indeed "environment" not "climate". I appreciate every country's and every region's effort to reduce pollution, save resources and restore natural balance in the enviroment because it is profitable for both people and nature. But I will not approve of investing public money into "combating climate changes" because I don't believe we are able to actively or passively influence climate. If the average temperature is going to rise a few degrees (which we can't even clearly predict) all the influential governments put together can stop it as succesfully as village elders can invoke rain.
@Shalotka,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Look at the word you used: it's indeed "environment" not "climate"
Climate is a part of the environment. What you think is going on here? If you engage in semantics that the physics of thermodynamics is going to disappear?
" But I will not approve of investing public money into "combating climate changes" because I don't believe we are able to actively or passively influence climate."
That above statement looks like a statement of ideology not one of someone who has read what the geophysicists have to say and read it with diligence.
Are you aware of any of the evidence?
"If the average temperature is going to rise a few degrees (which we can't even clearly predict)..."
Actually that is false. Are you at all aware that the first prediction that mankind could raise temperatures by emitting CO2 was first made in the late 19th century by a Noble prize winner who used only pencil and paper?
Why do you not go read what the geophysicists who are specialist in the field are actually saying instead of reading what makes you feel comfortable?
Not only do we emit 20% of the worlds CO2 but we only have 5% of the worlds population. Yup we're spoiled brats!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewables have been sprung out of the cage that big oil held them in and you won't get them back in! Now a ton of smaller companies and every country can create their own energy. Bye bye energy monopolies.
By the way it doesn't matter what you believe. The facts are the facts, humans have caused global average temperatures to start rising since the start of the industrial revolution. Humans, 6 billion or so of them have completely changed the face of the Earth and still some of you think that that can't effect the wind and ocean circulation of the Earth! Now thats shocking!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRussia's leaders Putin and Medvedev used to laugh at Global Warming, saying something like, oh it'll be great we won't need fur coats. Well not after last summer when they had this heat wave come in and sit around Scandinavia and Russia for several months and gave the temperatures of 100 or so. They never seen these kind of temps in their lifetimes. It started fires all over. They quit exporting wheat and grains which amounted to nearly a third of the worlds wheat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@trent- You say the US accounts for 20% of worldwide CO2. I do not see that as accurate. I agree that the most recent published worldwide data (which is from 2006) has the US at approximately 19%, but that would not be the same for 2010. US per capita usage was declining at approximately 1% per year while worldwide per capita emissions were increasing at a rate of 1% year. Based upon that, I estimate that in 2010 the US will be at approximately 15% of worldwide CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also wrote trying to summarize what you believe to be my position, but did this inaccurately.
You wrote-
"you think sea level rise is not a problem"- I think the IPCC overestimated the rate of sea level rise in the short term, but over the long term I think sea level rise is inevitable. Humanity should take steps to protect their infrastructure.
You wrote-
"can not admit that Corals are dying to inhospitable temps" What I have written is that I believe Scientific American repeatedly publishes articles attributing and inferring that specific events (in one case coral dying) are due to long term climate change. Scientific American does this without any data to link what they believe to be a long term trend (climate change), to the specific root cause issue that really caused to described event (coral dying). We know the coral died, we know coral doesn't like warmer water....we do not know that long term CO2 changes caused the temp changes in this specific case, or that warmer water was the cause in this case.
You wrote-
"declare against all evidence that the Antarctic Peninsula is NOT warming"- That is simply untrue.
You wrote-
"think that we can not figure out how much of the present CO2 levels is attributable to humanity."
I believe we know that the data using carbon 14 is no longer accurate and that data using the relationship between carbon 12 and 13 has a wide range of error. I think science can tell generally but not preciously what percentage of atmospheric CO2 is due to humans. I have also written that the non human variations in atmospheric CO2 emissions can be quite significant.
@Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is always a natural level of CO2 emissions and they are significant. But the Earths natural CO2 sinks can process those. But what we're doing is getting the emissions to a level that have saturated the natural CO2 sinks.
Here look at the CO2 graph at the Nasa Climate site:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Can you explain that?
I have never seen or heard of a warmist who is able to say the "n word". Therefore I give them no credence. Nuclear powered generating plants are the cleanest, safest, and cheapest method of producing electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Its use would greatly curtail our need for petrolium from the Muslims. It would have them giving up the Mercedes for the camel. They would have to work for a living.) Playing with solar and wind are fine, but the big kid on the block is nuclear. Cornahol is outrageous, what with the environmental and economic damage it entails. Biofuel when burned produces the big nasty, CO2.
If you want nuclear, there's talk in some parts of the South about building nuclear plants. You might have to wait 10 or 20 years for a couple to sprout up. Did you know renewables together are nearly putting out as much energy as nuclear is currently?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhats surprising is that the military is in big on renewables. Forget Ethanol from corn thats a has been. Try algae, even oil companies are working on that. Geothermal, hydro, tidal is all big. People are realizing we can make energy from anything.
If you gather all the money, regulations and people to build that nuke plant more power to you. But I bet theres more people around that can form their own small companies and just do something small that generates energy. If a lot of those form throughout the world there's a lot more potential there than that one huge company you got together to build your nuke plant.
@rajik- Humans are contributing to increased atmospheric CO2 (IMO). What I have written is that it appears there are also non human secondary effects that have been triggered to compound that human impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, (IMO) you are correct about nuclear power. I have written that the government should approve the designs of "standard" either 3rd/4th generation "conventional" nuclear or thorium nuclear plants. The government should then eliminate the redundant bureaucratic regulatory approval process. On top of that IMO the US government should invest in building dozens of these facilities as quickly as possible. It would be good economically and environmentally.
Cap and trade is a one-sided license to pollute. A company can buy a license to avoid cleaning up it's waste, but there is no way for the people affected by the pollution to buy a license to prevent it. If you get lung cancer from living near the power plant the company can always argue that the government sanctioned its lack of action and that your problems are simply the result of market forces.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGetting polluters to clean up their wastes will necessarily be painful and intrusive. We need effective methods, standards, and inspections, enforced by the government and financed by industry shareholders and customers (to avoid budgetary cutbacks).
I think its meant to force the polluter to clean up their act or go out of business because of having to pay for the pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso the companies that have cleaned up their acts will get this money from the polluters.
I don't know I'm not making the policies. It doesn't hurt to try it out and make changes as necessary.
Cap and Trade is really stupid policy, supported by people with the best of intentions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout nuclear, well really something about splitting atoms doesn't seem like the most elegant of solutions. I would rather see nuclear fusion. I kind of believe in survival of the fittest, the best technologies and solutions will win out. The way nature does things are tried and tested. The environment isn't going to be our last test, there will be more difficult problems in the future. Humans need to keep progressing, honestly I see nuclear fission as regression. So anyway if nuclear comes back so be it, but if it doesn't I won't be worrying about it.
@trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn summary- You also wrote
2. You make the assumption that the U.S would be or is the only country in the world trying to cut emissions.
No, I wrote; that the US is actually relatively unimportant to total CO2 emissions growth on planet earth. Countries other than the US will unavoidably greatly increase their CO2 emissions as they begin to, or increase their production of electricity and their use of personal transportation. Over the next 25 years this is absolutely true and unavoidable.
Please explain how what I state is not correct.
BTW, the above is one of several reasons why Cap and Trade makes poor sense. Cap and Trade involves a high cost for a relatively low return on CO2 emissions and no actual benefit to the environment. It involves spending money for absolutely no benefit. Please explain how this is wrong
@Rajk- when I read about modern nuclear electricity methods I became convinced that they were a smart course of action for the United States. Check them out--Fusion does not exist practically, so the US should implement what does at the best return on investment for the next 25 to 50 years
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell if your solutions get put in great, but I think some of the ideas that the renewable industry is working on right now are amazing. These aren't rinky dink companies either, GE, BP & Rio Tinto, Alstom, Solazyme, DARPA, NASA, Air Force is in on it to, etc etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe'll see. My father worked on nuclear power plants, he's retired now but the industry was about dead in the U.S.. Where are the nuclear experts going to come from? Are we going to bring them in from overseas? I just don't see it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko,
"No, I wrote; that the US is actually relatively unimportant to total CO2 emissions growth on planet earth."
Sure if the second and first Co2 emitters joined in they would only reduce CO2 by nearly half. Such an insubstantial figure. /s
"BTW, the above is one of several reasons why Cap and Trade makes poor sense. Cap and Trade involves a high cost for a relatively low return on CO2 emissions and no actual benefit to the environment. It involves spending money for absolutely no benefit. Please explain how this is wrong."
The you should be advocating for a tax and enforcement.
Oh, I forgot you are a hypocrite you do not think there is even a problem. Come on now, you are the guy, who can not figure out how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere by humanity. You can not even get that far.
Come on now, you are the guy, who can not figure out how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere by humanity. You can not even get that far. <---Um, OK smart guy how much CO2 have humans put into the air in the last 150 years? I would like an exact number too please, and please no typos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso please provide how much CO2 the planet creates naturally, wildfires, volcanoes, anything that oxidizes, animals breathing, etc. and how those are measured. And of course please take into account what is being used by plants as well.
Also I find it amusing that no one thinks of the consequences of the U.S. stopping the use of petroleum and the fact that it will make it insanely cheap for third world and emerging economies to continue to use it.
@Pabsy Loud Mouth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Um, OK smart guy how much CO2 have humans put into the air in the last 150 years? I would like an exact number too please, and please no typo"
Here you go:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_history/keeling_curve_lessons.html
And Here you go:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/siegenthaler2005/siegenthaler2005.html
And here is the some more:
http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.683655
And some more source data:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/
And a nice big peer reviewed over view:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
It looks like to me you some read and learning to do.
Hop to it Pabsy. You got a lot of work.
I find it very interesting how the eco-evangelicals denigrate other religions. It seems to be a recurring thread through human history; in order to supplant an existing religions, the new religion must demonstrate moral superiority as well as show how they alone know better the mind of god by quoting endless streams of scripture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis means you, Trent 1492.
@trent- You wrote- again something stupid-- "Sure if the second and first Co2 emitters joined in they would only reduce CO2 by nearly half. Such an insubstantial figure. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL- FACT--China is the #1 total emitter and their emissions will/must rise substantially as they increase the supply of electricity to a greater percentage of their population. It will also rise due to more Chinese getting personal transportation, ie motor bikes and cars. China's per capita emissions will more than double, so will India's, and this will absolutely dwarf any US reductions.
Another Stupid Trent comment-- you wrote "you are the guy, who can not figure out how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere by humanity. You can not even get that far."
Again LOL- I correctly wrote that what you wrongly wrote about using the Suess effect and showed a complete misunderstanding of how it applies. See comment #23
Again Panama is a friend of California, of course, if we not allow selfishness and elitism of the 20th century continue at 21.<br>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor your consideration and/or publication, a send the paper "The Oceanogenic Power" (http://www.oceanogenicpower.com/gpage4.html) to Scientific American Magazine editors.<br>
This energy is truly clean, sufficient and scalable for California and the world. Now you know, no more dirty energy, the choice is ours.<br>
In addition to ecological damage often debated, what happens with worst environmental damage: the ongoing war, and the world war already decided by its powerful fans, as the sole and stupid decision to hide their own mistakes and to gain the control of the last oil drops?<br>
Make no mistake, the enemies of the life of Panama also prefer war.It is good business for them and for Panama.<br>If its true that instead of war, we want job in a healthy planet earth, this huge project is the solution.
@ Sicko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"China is the #1 total emitter and their emissions will/must rise substantially as they increase the supply of electricity to a greater percentage of their population. "
This does not at all address what I said. Why is it you refuse to address what I said? Actually if you address what I said then your are making my point for me. Why is it you refuse to understand that the larger the emission share of China then greater my point is?
"China's per capita emissions will more than double, so will India's, and this will absolutely dwarf any US reductions.:
Remember what I said about the no.1 and no,2 emitters cutting down emissions? That would include China. China is number 1. and the U.S number 2. You had told me earlier you were not talking about the U.S alone cutting emissions but here you are doing just that. Dishonesty thy name is Sicko.
"...about using the Suess effect and showed a complete misunderstanding of how it applies. See comment #23"
I read comment #23 and it is simply you making bald statements. When will you learn baseless statements hold no value?
I think it completely telling that you can not tell us where those tens of billions of tons of Co2 go. You think they just disappear into the ether. Amazing. That is amazingly dumb.
Here is what I am talking about. Here is a paper doing just what I describe:
Stable Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry in Global
Climate Change Research
Abstract:
"Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about
0.0111073 to 0.0110906)."
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.p
See how that works, Sicko? I made an assertion and then cited a scientific work substantiating it. So tell me why you think spectrospopy is unreliable. Please cite peer reviewed source gas spectroscopsy are utterly unreliable.
For me the worst enviromental problem are the powerful pseudo-religious groups that want to sell their stockpiles of weapons under the guise of keeping the world just for them. Only God can make them desist from such decision. A peaceful world is not good business for them and the proof is that in Panama, one of his checkpoints of the world, are spilling 2000 millions of galons of fresh water a day to move ships through the canal but this project, oceanogenic power, is being sabotaged to not be known, just because I mentioned it as a better alternative to the proposed project to widen the canal, which is a stage prior to the next planned war. Remember, as in the two previous world wars: Panama canal construction or expansion and a world known in economic crisis. I hope you, dear reader, do not be part of this: oceanogenic power, it represents the solution to eliminate forever the dirty energy and the end of the bad use of so lot of fresh water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe oceanogenic Energy is obtained from the tides and the rotation of the earth, the latter most likely produced by the collision of particles and energy from the sun: with the gravities of the Moon and Earth, we change the speed of sea water, creating a jump perpendicular to the movement which then is spilled to the hydraulic vacuum generated in that direction where been broken the balance of the vortex. Then the entire planet retrieves the energy of water, a small part of 800 Tw, which allows maintain and control the priming flow. It's a real chain reaction, but this is cold. because the water is pour in another basin, the Atlantic, it cannot return to the Pacific until at least go to Cape Horn and driven by the planet regains their initial status in the Gulf of Panama.
Maps of the Isthmus of Panama and its seas; results of the altimetry measurements and their recognized analysis; besides showing the huge bulge of energy, give us the evidence that in the oceans is already taking place the cosmic prodigy that has been said can makes better its exploitation.
New lines UHVDC can carry the 35 Gigawatts that need California ,
Of course, the obstacle is that until this discovery we could only think to distribute, from the temperate zones, the energy produced by the dangerous nuclear fission.
Bees, like example, have already solved the problem of overpopulation in their hives and only they make honey. Its rulers, or its queen, only spents doing more bees. Humans do many useful things for others and every woman can only bring 25 children into the world, and at most only with 25 men they are ready. If we settle for one partner and we forget about the business's proposed relaxation of contraception, we don't needs to copy bees.
I Need and we need all the men and women of good will ¡please!
I have notice that almost to the Denier that all Science Deniers never address the links to the science. They have come to the conclusion that an opinion is as good as a fact. Pretty poor reasoning here. E.g Pabsy Loud Mouth asked for evidence that looked at all the source of CO2. Given. The result? Silence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko, is repeatedly given links to peer reviewed information and does his best to ignore it to. And is in the habit of making assertions of empirical fact without the good habit of providing a source of substantiation.
Considering the above facts of behavior that you lot accuse science as being the same as religion takes some major ideological blinders.
@lakota-Keep reading about the Suess effect and then site an article of how it is used to directly measure atmospheric CO2 currently. What I wrote is correct. Science can estimate within a range of error the contribution of humans to total atmospheric CO2. We can not directly measure this with certainty through atmospheric testing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Because of the Suess effect, the ratio of Carbon-14 in relation to other Carbon isotopes becomes contaminated with the Carbon released from burning of fossil fuels after 1900. The C14 variation in the atmosphere as a correct indicator of cosmic radiation is less reliable after the start of industrialization."
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
"One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings,"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
and lakota-- I addressed exactly what you said. You said if the # 1 and #2 emitters of CO2 reduced their emissions....and I demonstrated that #1 China and the other 60% of the world will continue to increase emissions. By any measure CO2 and total GHG emissions will rise dramatically in the next 25 years. (per the IPCC)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch1s1-es.html
The smart will adapt to the change, because it will happen absolutely regardess of US actions.
And the science is referenced for you to learn.
Rejoice you, Panama have the friendly solution for all of you, friends fighters, and for the environment too: oceanogenic power (http://oceanogenicpower.com/downloads/OceanogenicPower2010.pdf). And we only need 10 years from now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Sicko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I logged on this afternoon I saw that you were addressing me as Lakota I thought to myself, "Well there goes Sicko, again, can not even get to whom he is addressing. right." Then I realized that you were accusing me of sock puppetry. I interpret this as typical behavior of bullies, who have lost the argument and so resort to baseless invective. I see your post's are a testament to you and your fellow ideologues intellectual bankruptcy. What's next going to start stealing other peoples E-mail's and falsely accuse them of malfeasance? Oh, wait....
You cited this as evidence:
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
It is not a science site but a propaganda site that is riddled with errors and lies. Allow me to demonstrate
"Carbon14 was also produced by nuclear bomb tests during the cold war."
Yes, it was and scientist are aware of this account for it. Matter of fact, archaeologist when talking of Before Present in dating are referering to 1950. However, we are not talking about dating techniques. What we are talking about accounts for the year in and year out drop of 14C/12C ratios. Nuclear tests INCREASE the amount of 14C in the environment and would thus bias a naive observer into thinking that emissions are dropping. That is not what we are seeing. We are seeing a DECREASE in 14c/12c ratios.
"Because of the Suess effect, the ratio of Carbon-14 in relation to other Carbon isotopes becomes contaminated with the Carbon released from burning of fossil fuels after 1900"
News Flash: the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th Century not the 20th.
And that is the full extent of that sites relevance to the Suess Effect. Did you notice that its claims for the Suess Effect are unsourced? I did.
Then you gave this link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
A much better source for science since it is a site written by the relevant science professionals. However, you seem to not have read the article:
"One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings,"
@Sicko Continued:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKey Phrase: "One of the Methods..." It does not say or imply it is the only way. What you are looking at is ONE of the methods that tracks CO2 emissions over centuries. Matter of fact, it lists several different methods:
Corals
Trees
Oxygen Depletion matched to emissions.
All of these different methodologies come up with the same answer. Humanity has increased CO2 content of the atmosphere by 38% and counting. Why is it you suffer from such a debilitating case of stupidity? This information was all in the Real Climate link you gave. You have scored a 'own goal' again .And no this is not all the methods of looking at the falling 14C/12C ratio.
You have said that the samples are not taken from the air directly. That would be wrong. You confused the paleontological methods with direct the direct measurements:
Here take a look at just one stations air flasks data for 14C/12C ratios.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/daily_iso/spo_c14indiv.csv
"Atmospheric Delta-14C derived from flask air samples"
I would tell you that Goggle is your friend but not apparently if you are a liar...
@Sicko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“You say the US accounts for 20% of worldwide CO2. I do not see that as accurate .”
When will you learn that unsubstantiated assertion can be dismissed out of hand? I care for the evidence not summary dismissals. Allow me to demonstrate:
UNFCCC
http://cait.wri.org/figures/ntn/ntn-slidedeck.ppt
International Energy Agency:
http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf
World Bank
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_kt&hl=en&dl=en
From the International Energy Agency:
"Two-thirds of world emissions for 2008 originated
from just ten countries, with the shares of China and
the United States far surpassing those of all others.
Combined, these two countries alone produced
12.1 Gt CO2, about 41% of world CO2 emissions.
12.2"
Page 11
And later on it says again:
In 2008, the United States alone generated 19% of
world CO2 emissions, despite a population of less than
5% of the global total. Conversely, China contributed
a comparable share of world emissions (22%) while
accounting for 20% of the world population. India,
with 17% of world population, contributed less than
5% of the CO2 emissions.
Page 11
See how that works? I made an assertion and then went to the appropriate reporting agencies to seek out the information. So where is your evidence that U.S emissions have dropped by 4%?. What is your source?
“I think the IPCC overestimated the rate of sea level rise in the short term, but over the long term I think sea level rise is inevitable. “
Peer reviewed evidence please. And please cite the appropriate pages from the IPCC. I also want you to make sure you look at ALL the evidence not just what you think supports your position.
I have also written that the non human variations in atmospheric CO2 emissions can be quite significant.
Another baseless statement that can be dismissed out of hand.
@Sicko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No, I wrote; that the US is actually relatively unimportant to total CO2 emissions growth on planet earth. "
Once again, Sicko, mistakes his pronouncements for facts. Where is you data Sisko? I showed mine. You show me yours.
What I have written is that I believe Scientific American repeatedly publishes articles attributing and inferring that specific events (in one case coral dying) are due to long term climate change"
Hello, you have been repeatedly shown the evidence from peer reviewed sources showing widespread coral dies offs. You have been show the evidence in detail and continue to deny it. A brief look at Scientific American reveals that is has reported on more than just one die off. So why lie?
.
"I have also written that the non human variations in atmospheric CO2 emissions can be quite significant. "
Then cite the body of peer reviewed evidence that says this. A blog or a web site that supports your positition will not do. When will you learn that your word means nothing to me?
"Countries other than the US will unavoidably greatly increase their CO2..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the U.S can do it but other countries CANT. Why not?
"...emissions as they begin to, or increase their production of electricity"
You have confused fuel with generation. News Flash: Electricity can be made from other than coal dust.
“BTW, the above is one of several reasons why Cap and Trade makes poor sense. Cap and Trade involves a high cost for a relatively low return on CO2 emissions and no actual benefit to the environment. It involves spending money for absolutely no benefit. Please explain how this is wrong”vocat
Then go and advocate for a different emission reduction program. Want straight out taxation and legal penalties instead? Go for it. Then again you do not think that there is a problem do you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“LOL- FACT--China is the #1 total emitter and their emissions will/must rise substantially as they increase the supply of electricity to a greater percentage of their population. “
Once again you think that electricity can only be produced via coal. Talking about stupidity.
"China's per capita emissions will more than double, so will India's, and this will absolutely dwarf any US reductions. "
Were you not just earlier saying that when you talked about reductions you were talking about more than the U.S? Now here you are saying just the opposite. Why do you think such lies can not be so easily found?
And here is the plan that Trent1492 is brownshirting for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-alarmist-calls-for-eco-gulags-to-re-educate-climate-deniers.html
This is the "Big Plan" that the eco fascist movement wants us all to sign up for, but hey... NO Pressure!
....and Shoshin enters the fray with a Goodwin AND a conspiracy theory in two sentences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScoring:
1 point for Goodwin.
1 point for it being the first sentence.
1 point for baseless conspiracy theory
1 point for linking to a tin foil hat conspiracy theory web site.
.5 points for taking two sentences to do it in.
Come on Shoshin, you can do better than that. May I suggest something like:
The Greens are Nazis who are behind the attacks of 9/11!!!#
# More points for repetitive exclamation points and writing full sentences in all caps. And of course you if you mention the New Word Order with a dash of antisemitism well then you have achieved your long sought for status of Completely Gullible Idiot.
Trent 1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour eco-fascist buddies are finally out in the open.
How does everyone (else) like them so far?
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, I love your moniker; it shows your fantastical commitment to a world that never existed prior to the immigration of europeans to the New World.
Fits you well, and lines right up with the eco-fascist genocidal ramblings of your hero Pentii Linkola.
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Your eco-fascist buddies are finally out in the open."
I feel so sorry for that scared little world you inhabit. Where wanting clean water, good air, and preserving a temperature regime that humanity can and has prospered in to be preserved is simply labeled "fascist".
Why are you such a tool for polluting industry? What made you decide that corporate profits at any cost is more important than human beings?
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"BTW, I love your moniker; it shows your fantastical commitment to a world that never existed prior to the immigration of europeans to the New World."
How neat! You have made up an entire story with out simply bothering to ask. I wonder if that is how you conduct your entire life. You make assumptions and then judgments about people or issues simply based on preconceived notions. What is it about simply asking that you find so reprehensible?
Trent1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW ceased long ago being a serious scientific debate and is now merely a political one. As to your blind adherence to theology I call it as I see it.
You are no more a scientist than I am a liberal.
@Trent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"AGW ceased long ago being a serious scientific debate and is now merely a political one."
So you admit that there is no longer serious debate about the reality of AGW. That is good! And you admit that the objections to the science are purely political that is also good.
"As to your blind adherence to theology I call it as I see it."
Oh, I see I was wrong about the above. You are one confused puppy. I wonder when you will learn the difference between religion and science. I am guessing never.
I have noticed that you lot never ever address the evidence and logic but resort to shot gun arguments and attack the people. A more clearer demonstration of the weakness of a position can not be found.
It is illogical to debate the "evidence" of an imaginary issue. I'll leave that to you and your kaffee klatcsh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is illogical to debate the "evidence" of an imaginary issue. I'll leave that to you and your kaffee klatcsh."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShorter Shoshin: I am closing my eyes and ears to the evidence and reason.
Unexpected new renewable energy shows whether the subject is an excuse to create the global economic crisis:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnglish:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B650oxtezmd9Y2EwNGZmMzEtZTkyNC00ZWUyLWE0YjUtYjdiNTE5MTIwZjJl&hl=en_US
Spanish:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B650oxtezmd9MjM2MzUzOTAtMzA2MS00ZTBiLWJjOWQtNDA5ZWMzMjlkYzI3&hl=en
Oh angry trolls, I've missed you so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo... I'm just supposed to believe that the California government just saved my ability to breathe. Given I am on the East Coast so I can't speak for people in Cali, but we are in no danger out here of not being able to breathe. Certainly not enough to start paying the state to help me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't California just go through a very public budget crisis? Who are they to say they will pay companies within their determined guidelines? They couldn't pay their workers for a few months.
Just a thought, please quit taxing us for a minute. Lets propose that we get our own finances in order prior to taking more money from people and giving out more grants to people.
This climate change stuff is really starting to look like a giant conspiracy to get more money. They are taxing my gas and now they are going to start taxing my use of gas. They did the same thing with cigarettes, and yet people keep smoking. We aren't moving towards a solution, instead we are just taking money. Heaven help me but I am starting to see through the eyes of Sean Hannity on an issue. This might be the end.
@Juxtappose,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So... I'm just supposed to believe that the California government just saved my ability to breathe."
No, you are not post to believe that. No one says such a thing; only people who have zero interests in the science would say such a stupendously ignorant thing.
"Just a thought, please quit taxing us for a minute. Lets propose that we get our own finances in order prior to taking more money from people and giving out more grants to people."
Shorter Juxtapose: Leave my trillion dollar fossil fuel industry alone!
"This climate change stuff is really starting to look like a giant conspiracy to get more money."
Only to people who are gullible for fossil fuel industry propaganda