Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Right. Low gas prices = low housing costs. Funny how the poor always come up in relation to gas prices, because keeping them low will reduce prices a bit for everybody. But heaven forbid actually paying the poor more, because that raises prices slightly for everybody, and we can't have that.

High gas prices will only get higher as demand from Asia keeps surging. We're better off adapting to that by building transit and other measures than trying to keep gas prices low. It's a futile effort.

And those scrubbers will cost a fortune if they are to have any effect (ie required in mass quantities) who will pay for that, and from what funds?

   

Are you FORGETTING I was more or less on your side concerning paying a living wage to workers and am pretty much a socialist?

Think taxing oil and gas to an even greater degree is going to help the poor either?



Who the hell said I was opposed to a cheap and effective mass transit system. I adored Sydney (Australia) because they have a very good system and want the same.

Read what I wrote. I think its counter productive to simply tax gas exorbitantly in order to save the planet as a strategy. I think its much better to develop cheaper and more efficient ways to remove the CO2 rather then trying to limit emissions.



I have already said, put gas tax money into research. We spend trillions in research for any number of things, this actually being one as well. If it was between the planet dying and us needed this technology you can bet we'd be doing just that.

   

If you want to use gas tax money for CO2 abatement research and projects, you'll have to way increase the price of gas, since what's collected now is already fully allocated. I think trying to remove emissions once you've made them is a mugs game, you'll always come out behind.

As for the poor, that really has nothing to do with this discussion, but is brought up as a red herring by the gas suckers. Make the poor not poor and they'll have the money they need to live. Then they'll have to look at how they allocate their funds the same as everybody else. Those people that really need high fuel use vehicles will continue to use them, and will find a way to pay for them. The rest will do the smart thing and reduce.

   

Such CO2 scrubbers are amazingly easy to 'build'.

   

B-B-But they'll block my view.

   

Only if you have no vision. Nobody thought fuel efficiency could be increased much more either until the Japanese did it back in the 70s. Since then gas efficiency has gotten much better.

Computer power & technology has increased exponentially. Look at any cellphone and both of those were because we put money and effort into research.

No reason we can't do it for scrubber tech.

   

Why do we need scrubber tech when we can just plant trees on unused farmland and etc.?

   

| agree. I spent a summer as a tree planter. Great fun but also hard work. The fact is though that trees alone wouldn't combat CO2 emissions right now let alone in the years to come. Lets also worry about the fire risk as well.

Seems to me that developing scrubber technology is exactly the approach you AGW deniers would best support. We don't tax gas back to the stone age. We aren't legislating consumption laws. It is about developing a technology that would combat the problem AND allow us the ability to clean the air of other toxins and pollutants.

Where is the downside beyond the research and upscale cost?

   

How about downscaling the size of the scrubbers and putting them in vehicles? As it seems that gas powered cars appear to be the main culprit in NA.

   

Careful with the ad hominems. It weakens your argument.

   

Bart himself will proudly claim that title.

In fact he used to have a giant sig saying just that.

   

Perhaps that will work as well. It is all down to energy costs. The scrubbers can't use up more energy then the CO2 produced by the gas to run them. That is why I propose CO2 scrubbers run by solar and/or wind.

   

Crops grow better in a CO2 rich enviornment and use less water. The little pours they "breath" through are smaller in a CO2 rich enviornment and therefore less water evaporates through them.

Plus, I like it warm. I wouldn't worry about scrubbers.

I am all for energy conservation though. Excited to see how much energy the auto manufacturers can extract from a litre of fuel.

   

Those pores are called stomata. Plants use CO2 to make carbohydrates. More CO2 can be beneficial, but there will be a limit to how much they can use. And other climate change effects can have very negative effects on plant growth.

Not really sure what your point is here. But if it was just about having a little bit warmer temps in Canada, climate change would not be such a big problem.

   

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ction.html

While plants do require CO2 it is not a growth rate limiting factor. Other nutrients usually are.

While I enjoy warm temperatures too, the whole planet can't enjoy Miami temperatures and climate. Would kinda kill the whole skiing industry.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next