Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Airlines To Join Carbon Trading Or Lose Rights  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6105 times:

This sounds like a reasonable idea, otherwise US airlines could gain a competitive price advantage at the expense of the world's climate.

Quote:
US airlines must pay for their carbon dioxide emissions or face a curb on flights to the European Union, the EU transport commissioner has warned.

The "go green" ultimatum was issued by Jacques Barrot as the transatlantic airline market undergoes its biggest shakeup in 30 years when limits on flights between the EU and US are lifted this month. Barrot said negotiations on a second phase for the treaty, will include a demand that US carriers join the EU emissions trading scheme or an equivalent system in the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...theairlineindustry.carbonemissions

112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 681 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

And if the US airlines refuse to join, and get banned from the EU, and then the USA bans all EU airlines from US airspace, what exactly does that solve?

User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6752 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6018 times:



Quoting Joni (Thread starter):
Barrot said negotiations on a second phase for the treaty, will include a demand that US carriers join the EU emissions trading scheme or an equivalent system in the US.

The EU can demand all they want; it doesn't mean they'll get anything -- just as the EU may refuse US demands for passenger information. Moreover, choosing to suspend the rights of the new US entrants at Heathrow will also lead the US to suspend the rights of EU carriers to operate flights between the EU and airports which are not located within their home country -- and force BA to move a number of its US flights back to LGW as well.


User currently offlineCanberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5998 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 1):
And if the US airlines refuse to join, and get banned from the EU, and then the USA bans all EU airlines from US airspace, what exactly does that solve?

Saves us a good part of the airliners CO2 emissions  Big grin



It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5947 times:

Someone's making a buttload.

User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5928 times:



Quoting Joni (Thread starter):
This sounds like a reasonable idea, otherwise US airlines could gain a competitive price advantage at the expense of the world's climate.

On the heels of demands that Al Gore be charged with fraud and that the scam of "climate change" be brought into court.

Brilliant!


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5917 times:

Typical EU bureaucrat bullcrap.

Let's assume for the time being that we have a problem with excessive CO2 emissions on this planet (Which is likely, but far from proven).

Instead of working the problem, i.e. identify the biggest contributors first and using CO2-neutral technology (biomass to liquid, nuclear and/or renewable power, etc), some bigshot comes up with another monster of bureaucracy that helps no one (least the climate) except the goverments which have another excuse to squeeze some more money outta the people. Hell, in 15 years from now, we in Europe will have to pay for work, instead of earn something ... Count me outta here sooner or later  Angry

SailorOrion

[Edited 2008-03-14 09:45:56]

User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 559 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5915 times:



Quoting Joni (Thread starter):
This sounds like a reasonable idea, otherwise US airlines could gain a competitive price advantage at the expense of the world's climate.

Just like competitive advantage of all the other airlines around the world - except the EU?

The fact that the EU wants to lead in environmental protection doesn't mean it has to force everybody to play by their rules. If they can't even convince the ICAO to adopt their rules, then will threaten US airlines and try to force them by cutting a deal in the open skies treaty.

How nice - and how unilateral of the EU.

- n1786b


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5881 times:

I have no doubt the U.S. will fight this - as well it should.

If the E.U. wants to cause harm to its airlines by punishing them for the "global warming" that they don't even cause, then fine, be my guest. But they have no right to unilaterally impose this pseudo-scientific, hysteria-driven bullsh*t on the rest of the world.

If the E.U., in turn, wants to refuse to go along with America's security regime for flights across the Atlantic, then fine. It doesn't really make us all that much safer, anyway, and I'd much rather have an economically viable transportation system free of the tyranny of bad public policy and guilt-ridden European bureaucrats than pre-notification seven years in advance when anyone with a suspicious name gets onto a plane bound for the U.S.

[Edited 2008-03-14 09:50:33]

User currently offlineACVitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

Yet this is the same thing prohibited by treaty. It amounts to an international tax.

Nothing more then EU BS. I hope it cannot and does not prevail.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5688 times:

Sarcasm on:

I agree whole heartedly with this innitiative, especially the part where if the US does not introduce the same slot restrictions and curfew's that exist at LHR etc, the carriers will loose their ability to serve the EU.
Yippie at long last we would have a level playing field.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5604 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
But they have no right to unilaterally impose this pseudo-scientific, hysteria-driven bullsh*t on the rest of the world.

LOL.

LOL.

LOL.

I'd love to see some science that says global warming isn't happening, and that all the artificial CO2 is good for the environment.

Preferably, one not from TotalFinaElf or Royal Dutch Shell or ExxonMobil, please.

NS


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5592 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 1):
And if the US airlines refuse to join, and get banned from the EU, and then the USA bans all EU airlines from US airspace, what exactly does that solve?

Well that would pre-empt the whole issue of having to offset carbon emissions from transatlantic flights by eliminating the emissions along with the flights.

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 6):
Instead of working the problem, i.e. identify the biggest contributors first and using CO2-neutral technology

Emissions trading is in fact a nifty idea, since it uses a market mechanism to shift reductions in GHG emissions to the industries and companies that can implement the cuts cheapest.

I'm quite optimistic the US will join this system, or implement a similar one. Remember that they'll likely have a working government in 2009 that will be able to face the reality that a problem exists that needs to be confronted.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

This really isn't the forum for it, but I think it is quite relevant to the topic of airlines having someone's interpretation of "science" foisted upon them, to the detriment of not only the airlines themselves but also the traveling public ...

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 11):
I'd love to see some science that says global warming isn't happening, and that all the artificial CO2 is good for the environment.

Some light reading:

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/michreviews.html

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20010617kellyforump6.asp

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5038

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html

Some are articles, some are reports, declarations, etc. The point is that there is a cornucopia of information available out here on the information superhighway to suggest to those who are open enough to hearing it that "global warming" is absolutely not "settled science," as so many continually repeat.

If you want to stick only to more technical reading, may I suggest those last two links, and the website they point to, which is excellent: junkscience.com.

Enjoy.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5541 times:



Quoting Joni (Reply 12):
Well that would pre-empt the whole issue of having to offset carbon emissions from transatlantic flights by eliminating the emissions along with the flights.

I wonder how much a fleet of ocean liners going back and forth between the Americas and Europe would pump out in CO2?


User currently offlineGlbltrvlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5474 times:



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 11):

I'd love to see some science that says global warming isn't happening, and that all the artificial CO2 is good for the environment.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person proposing a theory, not the rest of the world to disprove one.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7572 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5455 times:

ScottB

"US to suspend the rights of EU carriers to operate flights between the EU and airports which are not located within their home country -- and force BA to move a number of its US flights back to LGW as well".

Presumably you are referring flights to or over the USA.


User currently offlineHagic From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5408 times:



Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 6):
Instead of working the problem, i.e. identify the biggest contributors first and using CO2-neutral technology (biomass to liquid, nuclear and/or renewable power, etc),

FYI, the airline industry is also one of those 'biggest contributors'... moreover, airplanes release CO2 at high altitudes, with a substantially larger potential greenhouse effect.

It's unbelievable how in this forum, every time someone comes up with a reasonable environmental initiative is treated as an Eco-terrorist, Eco-nut, Greennie, etc.



There's only one freedom of the press: That of the survivors - (G. Arciniegas)
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5394 times:



Quoting Hagic (Reply 17):
FYI, the airline industry is also one of those 'biggest contributors'... moreover, airplanes release CO2 at high altitudes, with a substantially larger potential greenhouse effect.

Incorrect.

Even the most fanatical treehugger - when being honest - would recognize that global aviation contributes a tiny proportion of global CO2 emissions - last estimate I heard was somewhere in the 3-3.5% range. That is absolutely nothing when compared with automobiles.

Airlines are hardly "one of those biggest contributors." Airlines are among the most minimal contributors, actually.

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17):
It's unbelievable how in this forum, every time someone comes up with a reasonable environmental initiative is treated as an Eco-terrorist, Eco-nut, Greennie, etc.

It's equally unbelievable about how so-called "environmentalists" (on A.net and elsewhere) are so inseparably wedded to their ideology, and their theological belief in human-caused "global warming" that when anyone provides contrasting view points that are based on equally-sound evidence and science, they are treated as if they are debating gravity.


User currently offlineGlbltrvlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5374 times:

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17):
FYI, the airline industry is also one of those 'biggest contributors'...

Excuse me? Try about 3%. The single largest generator of CO2 is living creature respiration.

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17):
moreover, airplanes release CO2 at high altitudes, with a substantially larger potential greenhouse effect.

You seem to be confusing global warming with the greenhouse effect. They aren't the same thing. There's a good explanation here about half way down the page. http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Quoting Hagic (Reply 17):
It's unbelievable how in this forum, every time someone comes up with a reasonable environmental initiative is treated as an Eco-terrorist, Eco-nut, Greennie, etc.

The problem is that you have unproven theories and political agendas being presented as proven fact.

[Edited 2008-03-14 14:38:07]

User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7572 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5358 times:

Problem is what can you do about living creature espiration  Smile

User currently offlinePvd757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3412 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5337 times:

Some readings I have come across state that the population would still produce too much green house gases if you removed all industry that contributes. Until a consensus can be found in all countries, not just EU, that would even include the exempt countries in Kyoto, I think it is all just a bunch of hot CO2 until everyone acknowledges there is some things we can do to reduce the problem but not eliminate it. Climate change is already happening, whether this is implememted or not. BTW, I'm not against doing something to improve the situation just because my government has yet to acknowledge the issue, but more than just a few people in the US think that the EU is trying to do this to either jumpstart their stagnant industries or level the playing field with economies that are still showing long-term growth.
I'm upping my two cents to five due to the weakness in the dollar....................


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8961 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5312 times:

Yeah, let's make airlines even less profitable. . . that'll make them more likely to order newer, more efficient planes!  crazy 


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5277 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 18):
Even the most fanatical treehugger - when being honest - would recognize that global aviation contributes a tiny proportion of global CO2 emissions - last estimate I heard was somewhere in the 3-3.5% range. That is absolutely nothing when compared with automobiles.

3% sounds small but it's a slice that's worth including in the emissions trading system nonetheless. Otherwise airlines would be freeloaders. Obviously, they'd only bear 3% of the cost as well, and even less if they're more efficient than industry on average in cutting down their carbon emissions.


User currently offlineHagic From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5256 times:



Quoting Glbltrvlr (Reply 19):
You seem to be confusing global warming with the greenhouse effect. They aren't the same thing. There's a good explanation here about half way down the page. http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/in....html

For me the definition is very simple: the greenhouse effect provokes global warming, that's it. Otherwise, tell me what's a greenhouse for, or write an article proposing a name change.

Everyone looks at the problem according to their most convenient perspective. That's why we are all f***ed up. Not taking small actions is why nothing will stop China and India from becoming the largest polluters, nothing will stop Brazil from wiping out the Amazon forest, etc, etc, etc. And when someone tries to bring this out to the attention of people like you, is deemed as an 'Eco-terrorist'.



There's only one freedom of the press: That of the survivors - (G. Arciniegas)
25 Commavia : Airlines are hardly freeloaders. They - and really, not the airlines themselves, but actually their passengers - already pay enough. Air travel is am
26 Robffm2 : As soon as the problem of global warming is solved. And of course no more kids starving....
27 Kellmark : Yup, let's all bankrupt the airlines with that EU Global Warming tax based on false science. It is true that the Polar ice cap has been melting. On Ma
28 Post contains images Commavia : Okay, so never, then. So never is the answer. Thanks for clearing that up.
29 RedFlyer : Let's include all fat people, too. Their excesses no doubt leave a larger carbon footprint, everything from consuming more and larger quantities of f
30 Gigneil : I will read through your links, although clicking briefly through I don't see much science from any university studies or national departments, which
31 FreequentFlier : Oy vey. Airlines are now dealing with 110 dollar a barrel oil. If there was ever a time for them to limit fuel consumption and any carbon emissions a
32 DLPMMM : The earth revolving around the sun was a "fringe belief" as well for a very long time. I have dealt with alot of "scientific computer models", and th
33 Gigneil : Snowfall is indicative of warming trends. I didn't ask for any childish responses. We can discuss science if you'd like. You clearly didn't read my p
34 Commavia : In my experience - as a college student - I have found that academics and the "intelligentsia" are often some of the most biased sources of research
35 Glbltrvlr : That's the problem in a nutshell. Commonly held belief is not provable, scientific fact, no matter how much someone might wish it to be. Here's an ex
36 474218 : That easy, if you feel that every breath you take is contributing to global warming, just stop breathing!
37 Gigneil : Sigh, I hate the Internet. This sort of discussion is far better held with a beer, or boxing gloves. I'm not sure my actual position is getting across
38 Post contains images Commavia : Gigneil, allow me to introduce you to the mob: Gigneil, Internet. Internet, Gigneil. No arguments here. And it just so happens that the bat-, torch-
39 Cytz_pilot : Thank you!!! 50 years from now, if the science proves man-made climate change, and we have sat on our hands the whole time, then it's 10 times the pr
40 DocLightning : Well seeing as how I just shelled out over US$1.50 for €1.00 and the US Dollar is continuing to fall, it would essentially isolate the U.S. from th
41 DocLightning : The proof is adequate. It's like the "DNA is the molecule of heredity" argument. Or the "HIV is necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS" argument. The
42 Commavia : Absurd to you, since you believe it. But there are plenty of people - and no, not all of them are stupid or misinformed - who have looked at things a
43 MD-90 : You're aware that the earth's temperature hasn't increased since 1998, right? You're aware that the earth's temperature hasn't increased since 1998,
44 Gigneil : Even unscientific observation says that's not true. The drowning polar bears don't agree either. Anyway. This thread isn't to debate global warming, b
45 Azstagecoach : Believe what you want. Believe that airplanes don't contribute to carbon emissions, or that carbon emissions contributte to global warming. Hey, it's
46 PWM2TXLHopper : If CO2 is heavier than air, and the air at high altitude is thin, wouldn't it be logical to assume the gas decends to lower levels?
47 Warren747sp : Another way for the EU to milk more money from the Americans under the disguise of globel warming which the airliner industry accounts a very low perc
48 Gigneil : Right, so they sit down in Brussels and hatch schemes to tax Americans? Are you suggesting that governments shouldn't tax constituents at all? Further
49 Lufthansa411 : The problem with your logic is that the EU is not saying that the US has to adopt a carbon trading system for all US flights within US airspace other
50 Rampart : I much prefer arguing this debate in my own circles. Granted, there is still differing opinion to be found there. But more civil. And less invoking re
51 Commavia : Slight difference between me and some others here and elsewhere: I have looked at the spectrum of thinking out there, and made up my mind, just as th
52 Post contains images Ikramerica : What part of "we signed an Open Skies treatry" does the EU not understand? Obviously a lot of it, because they keep trying to impose restrictions and
53 Gigneil : Here's what I really want to debate. What IS gravity? I think that its the inherent propensity of matter to collect towards planar radii in spacetime.
54 Khobar : One of the largest (if not the largest) contributor to the "man-made" global warming account is land-use change, and one of the most damaging forms of
55 Rampart : OK. So that means you could be wrong, doesn't it? I've yet to see you admit that. Does it worry you that if you, and more importantly, people who hol
56 Gigneil : I agree. Also right there with you. So much for clean burning hydrogen. NS
57 Post contains links MD-90 : And since when do you EVER trust politicians when they want to control you? That's what all this carbon nonsense is about. If you control carbon you
58 Gigneil : And how do you propose the world be run? You don't trust governments, do you want to trust private industry to look after your best interests? Please
59 EnviroTO : It solves any problem Air Canada might have expanding and filling seats. With no EU flights to the US and no US flights to the EU maybe Gander Airpor
61 Rampart : You are correct that there is no unilateral consensus. Within those who agree that anthropogenic global warming is happening, there is still debate a
62 FreequentFlier : Again, this is simply incorrect. Throughout the history of the scientific method, it is the theory that needs to be tested to be proven. The burden i
63 FreequentFlier : It's perfectly fine and justifiable for you to hold these views. What is unfortunate is your insistence that there is some overwhelming majority of s
64 PPVRA : You can look at it yourself. Want greener products? Buy them, demand it from the private industry. That's why they are there for. That's how you fix
65 L-188 : "The Bigger the Lie the More People will belive it."....Sorry don't remember if that was Barnum or Himmler. I don't think it is just Americans. To dr
66 Post contains links Rampart : I appreciate those links. I recognize some of them as having widely recognized political slants, so thus not particularly unbiased as far as science
67 Post contains links PPVRA : http://www.climateaudit.org/ I read a blog entry at realclimate.org that tried to answer the reason why on graphs, the actual relationship between CO
68 SailorOrion : If we closely look at all the evidence we have, one needs to come to the conclusion that we have no idea what causes global warming, we know that it h
69 Rampart : Thing is, they're mostly PhD climatologists, and you aren't. I can grant you not being able to understand. I can't understand all of it either. It's
70 PPVRA : Maybe, but probably not. The argument was a laughable cop-out and considering others that oppose those views also have PhDs, it might just have been
71 Rampart : See my addendum to my previous comment to you. Might help. But, if I was reading the same entry you were, there was absolutely no bias in that discus
72 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Al Gore? That is correct. The latest evdience actually shows global COOLING. Stop breathing?
73 Post contains images Bennett123 : Surely the key is not does climate change, "yes" that is generally accepted but how quickly. An increase of 1 degree in a hundred years is not a probl
74 MCIGuy : You can't force your environmental policy on everyone else. As has been said, if restrictions are placed on US airlines then the US will reciprocate.
75 Worldrider : most of it goes to the airline not to the govs you guys are sick, as simple as it is. when comes to save a investment bank runned by sick capitalists
76 Mariner : Nor are they trying to do so. But they can enforce it on those who want to do business with them. It isn't so long ago that United Airlines had a spe
77 MCIGuy : What you fail to understand is that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle on this planet. We've had several ice ages following periods of hig
78 DocLightning : And I will say it again: they can go sit with the Creationists, the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" people, and the Flat-Earthers. As it happens, I do have
79 Worldrider : no no, no, the current global warming is far away from the natural warming and cooling cycle ever registered in planet history, it is far from beeing
80 IAirAllie : Don't go imposing your cumbersome tax schemes on us.
81 Worldrider : to be more specific,. if you at tempreature data registered in the last 30 000 years, one can cleraly see a warming cooling cycle, the matter is that
82 Post contains images PPVRA : What the person was saying is that the CO2 rise that occured before 300,000 years ago led to the temperature increase that happened 250,000 years ago
83 StarGoldLHR : America's been dictating to the world for years. Now for once the EU is saying clean up or pack up.. the US doesnt like it. I have to admit teaching a
84 AirNZ : Here we go, the absurdity of some is simply astounding LOL!!!
85 AirNZ : Interesting. Since when did the US ever keep to honouring a treaty except only when it suited them? When it suddenly doesn't, they equally suddenly t
86 474218 : [ Lets take a look at your statement, the airline charges your 22.98 euros for a ticket the government adds another 40.30 euros to the price of the ti
87 Glbltrvlr : You'll understand that people are having a hard time following you.
88 Post contains images Halls120 : Now there's a real enlightened argument. The problem with your - and the EU's - logic is that the atmosphere doesn't obey the lines that humans draw
89 Azhobo : Lets slice it since the last ice age. I would say we are a tad warmer now than then. Shall we blame that on man dumping CO2 into the air? I think not
90 Azhobo : So true. Sorry but the alarmists are teaching it in grade schools also. HOBO[Edited 2008-03-15 13:44:16]
91 ContnlEliteCMH : Since the "other" major byproduct of combustion with hydrocarbon is water, you're talking about an incremental effect at worst. Our cars, furnaces, p
92 Post contains images FreequentFlier : I've heard this a thousand times too. Should we do nothing? No, of course we should do something. Pollution especially is a VERY valid concern. (It w
93 Moo : Which one are you talking about? Co2? Co? O2? Ho3? Contrary to popular belief, H2O is not the 'other' major byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion.
94 Post contains links FreequentFlier : Kinda goes both ways Mariner. EU is composed of sovereign nations, and functions as a sovereign bloc of nations. Putting aside that there is a treaty
95 REALDEAL : what a joke, this whole global warming nonscience has got out of hand. Too many vested interests who can see $$$ keeping myth going, which is hardly
96 Wingnut767 : We still have a long way to go to catch up to Europe when it comes to dictating to the world. We would have to do it for another thousand years to ev
97 Post contains links ContnlEliteCMH : I had to read your post two or three times just to be sure you weren't being sarcastic. Sadly, you're not. Maybe this is part of the problem, that cr
98 MD-90 : I trust freedom and property rights far more than I will ever trust politicians and bureaucrats. 1. The earth goes through natural warming/cool cycle
99 Halcyon : 100 fold since, what, 2000?
100 Post contains links and images Wingnut767 : yes. yes, yes the current flux in temps over the last century are well within normal fluxes and changes What is so unusual about this?
101 Rampart : No, what the person is saying is that EVERY one of the major ice age terminations, including those at 20,000, 140,000, 240,000 years ago, was caused
102 Post contains links CALTECH : From NOAA, global cooling is a happening, oh no, I liked the warm, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
103 Post contains images Wingnut767 : What is artificial CO2? If you are talking about the CO2 that is released from carbon fuels being burned then there is nothing artificial about it. A
104 Post contains links Wingnut767 : Well as Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset “is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly
105 Azhobo : I will bite. The data shown in the chart from 2000 and on is faulty (Hanson Y2K Error)? HOBO
106 PPVRA : Well, I couldn't even find the same post I read the first time on the blog (too many pots to search through) and I'm not even sure which post you are
107 Pyrex : Just because their relative weight is smal doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay their fair share. Do you want power utilities to take all the burd
108 Joni : Not cutting back greenhouse-gas emissions will be more expensive than cutting them back. I've sometimes heard this argument, but it's in fact irrelev
109 Pope : Those are two completely different issues. #1 is global warming happening? #2 are Co2 emission the cause? Personally I tend to believe that global wa
110 Post contains links and images Wingnut767 : Right back at you Joni You mean the scientist who say this do not have a good handle on climate change or global warming or what ever it is you want
111 Joni : Wingnut, we're not going to have another 100-post exchange on climate change. If you remain interested in this important topic, I suggest you read th
112 PPVRA : I didn't propose any subsidies. I was against another tax.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anyone Want To Join Us In CPH :) posted Fri Apr 29 2005 23:32:50 by Pilot kaz
Embry-Riddle Fraternities, To Join Or Not To Join? posted Fri Aug 6 2004 00:31:05 by Fly2HMO
UK: To Join Nafta Or EU? posted Wed Apr 3 2002 17:48:22 by RogueTrader
Sheryl Crow To Join Fleetwood Mac posted Sat Mar 15 2008 01:44:53 by STLGph
Baby Levy To Combat Carbon Emissions? posted Mon Dec 10 2007 11:37:51 by AndesSMF
Argentina To Join Six Nations? posted Thu Nov 8 2007 00:48:27 by Oli80
Anyone Imported A Non-US Car To The States? posted Thu Aug 16 2007 06:38:09 by Lowrider
UN To Increase It's Lack Or Relevance? posted Sat May 12 2007 02:07:58 by MDorBust
Fine! If You Want Me To Join MySpace So Bad... posted Thu Apr 26 2007 21:41:04 by Piercey
How To Join The Mile High Club posted Fri Apr 20 2007 01:24:56 by PipoA380