CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

kpitcher

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
2,999
Carbon Emissions are at a 20 year low for the US. An article says it's mainly due to cheap natural gas. What an amazing insight this person has...

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado."

Who woulda thunk?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiAA4g1Rux_vlMhI1dxbazNbGneg?docId=da1399edab7b42ef9f0269ea5a3ca224


Also discussion on slashdot http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/18/1651223/us-carbon-emissions-hit-20-year-low
 
But that just cannot be, because Al Gore, through "science" has proven otherwise. :D

Nonetheless, the real danger is neither CO2 nor H2O, but CO.
 
But that just cannot be, because Al Gore, through "science" has proven otherwise. :D

Nonetheless, the real danger is neither CO2 nor H2O, but CO.

The real danger is liberals trying to take over the world's energy supply by making up global warming.
 
I wonder if part of the cause in the drop in local CO2 production (if that is accurate) is due partly to how a good deal of manufacturing has moved overseas which indirectly produces a lot of CO2.

I'm not sure why so many libertarian types are so hostile to the idea of global warming... I do not believe the rational comes first from a scientific analysis of the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere...but a reverse rational. That the popular prescribed 'cures' involve an infringement on liberty, therefore the disease must be wrong.

Negative externalities happen...and IMO are one of the few justifications for government interference. The typical libertarian response to negative externalities it to just privative everything and emphasis the tort system. Not only has the tort system clearly demonstrated over the years how flawed it is...but privatizing everything (air/ground water/rivers) just is not practical.
 
Perhaps CO2 emissions are dropping, but many people believe that the H2O supply is being destroyed and earthquakes are being encouraged in the pursuit of the natural gas, by means of hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking.)
 
I wonder if part of the cause in the drop in local CO2 production (if that is accurate) is due partly to how a good deal of manufacturing has moved overseas which indirectly produces a lot of CO2.

I'm not sure why so many libertarian types are so hostile to the idea of global warming... I do not believe the rational comes first from a scientific analysis of the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere...but a reverse rational. That the popular prescribed 'cures' involve an infringement on liberty, therefore the disease must be wrong.

Negative externalities happen...and IMO are one of the few justifications for government interference. The typical libertarian response to negative externalities it to just privative everything and emphasis the tort system. Not only has the tort system clearly demonstrated over the years how flawed it is...but privatizing everything (air/ground water/rivers) just is not practical.

Because the science behind it is flawed. If global warming was real, and scientists were honest about it, then the roadways would be designed for efficiency rather than control. For example, millions upon millions of vehicles across the land waiting at stoplights is unnecessary but it is required by design for control purposes.

If global warming was real, and the scientists behind it were honest, then they would be united behind an effort to legalize hemp. Hemp would go a long ways toward greening the planet. Nobody hears a peep from the environmental scientist community about legalizing the most green plant known to man.

Global warming science is junk science.
 
Why would it matter if CO2 emissions dropped in the U.S. if it isn't controlled in the other countries? It may have increased in many other countries and thus made no difference at all.

Spend all you want to make a difference in one country, making it go broke in the process while the other countries could give a crap and just spew out more than before.
 
Because the science behind it is flawed. If global warming was real, and scientists were honest about it, then the roadways would be designed for efficiency rather than control. For example, millions upon millions of vehicles across the land waiting at stoplights is unnecessary but it is required by design for control purposes.

If global warming was real, and the scientists behind it were honest, then they would be united behind an effort to legalize hemp. Hemp would go a long ways toward greening the planet. Nobody hears a peep from the environmental scientist community about legalizing the most green plant known to man.

Global warming science is junk science.
I agree that hemp should be legalized and would help a lot with a number of environmental issues. But just because society as a whole is not very intelligent at spotting practical and clever cures...doesn't mean they don't have a disease.

Out of curiosity (and somewhat of a side-issue) what did you mean by efficient roadways? More round-abouts? Being able to turn left onto a blank street at a red light, even if you already came to a stop? More one way streets? The last is actually quite efficient...because it eliminates cross traffic turns, makes parking more efficient and enables syncing of traffic lights.
 
I agree that hemp should be legalized and would help a lot with a number of environmental issues. But just because society as a whole is not very intelligent at spotting practical and clever cures...doesn't mean they don't have a disease.

Out of curiosity (and somewhat of a side-issue) what did you mean by efficient roadways? More round-abouts? Being able to turn left onto a blank street at a red light, even if you already came to a stop? More one way streets? The last is actually quite efficient...because it eliminates cross traffic turns, makes parking more efficient and enables syncing of traffic lights.
Maybe he is talking about this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/smart-traffic-lights-pres_n_504814.html
 
I agree that hemp should be legalized and would help a lot with a number of environmental issues. But just because society as a whole is not very intelligent at spotting practical and clever cures...doesn't mean they don't have a disease.

Out of curiosity (and somewhat of a side-issue) what did you mean by efficient roadways? More round-abouts? Being able to turn left onto a blank street at a red light, even if you already came to a stop? More one way streets? The last is actually quite efficient...because it eliminates cross traffic turns, makes parking more efficient and enables syncing of traffic lights.
All the above.

Actions speak louder than words. If the global warming scientists were honest, then they would be leading the charge to actually make the necessary changes.
 
Smart traffic lights and many other road design features as pointed out by rpwi.

The traffic lights are designed to hinder traffic. I can't count the times I have sat for minutes waiting for the light to change when no traffic is coming through on the green light side only to have it change when one finally approaches thus stopping that vehicle.

When I point this out to people I get called a conspiracy nut.
 
Smart traffic lights and many other road design features as pointed out by rpwi.

How about this, as this is one that sticks in my libertarian craw.

In China, not everyone can own a car, despite the fact that they are the largest producer with the largest number of consumers in the world. Taxis are ubiquitous and cheap. Hundreds of millions of bicycles are everywhere, but the real magic in China is the more than one hundred million incredibly high quality electric bikes. Scooters. One overnight charge of what is essentially a small car battery, and you can zip around all day (35-40 MPH max).

I used all forms of transportation when I lived in China. I took high speed trains, public buses and taxis. I owned a car, an electric scooter, and a bicycle. The bicycle was for exercise and enjoyment only. The car was for longer distances, heavier loads, bad weather, or when I needed to take on passengers. Taxis were for when I just didn't want to mess around with a vehicle (especially clubbing at night). The electric scooter was my WORKHORSE. For just personal transportation for daily tooling around in the city in China, NOTHING beats an electric scooter. Quick for city driving, cheaper than cheap, no emissions, no traffic congestion problems, easy parking, and it can carry an average "errand" load (did all my personal daily needs, including grocery shopping, with my scooter).

In short, the electric scooter is The Modern Horse. And for all intents and purposes, our brainiacs in power don't allow them.

City driving is the bane of autos where fuel consumption, inefficiency and pollution are concerned. Stops and starts, most energy wasted in the form of heat, and the MPG drops dramatically. And yet it's the only way MOST people in the US can get around.

OUR PROBLEM - OUR INSANITY

In the US our roads are designed for motorcycles, cars and above. Only. In the cities, bicycles share the roads -- after a fashion. On the highways and freeways, pedestrians, bicycles, scooters and anything that is not a high speed vehicle that is licensed for use on those roads are prohibited by law (safety, doncha know -- caring humanitarian souls that central planners are). But electric scooters are heavily restricted in most of the US. They are only allowed on the roads (in the states that even allow them), ONLY if certain criteria are met. For example, their max speed must be limited to 20 MPH, or they must have pedals on them, to prove that they are more like bicycles. That last reminds me of when automobiles first came onto the scene, and some places required that automobiles be capable of dismantling, in the event that horses were spooked, so that the pieces of the "strange machine" could be hidden in nearby bushes until the horses calmed down and passed.

The biggest problem comes down to LICENSING, lost revenues, and the fact that we just aren't "geared" for something Not Car/Not Motorcycle/Not Bicycle.

So while China has around 150 million superior electric scooters, and growing, the US has around 200,000 MOSTLY INFERIOR scooters. And the price difference is insane as well. In China there are more MAJOR electric bike manufacturers than can be counted. It's a booming and highly competitive industry, about on par with the computer industry in terms of competition, including quality requirements to remain competitive (their motors are even assembled in Class 1 cleanrooms). That meant that I could buy a TOP OF THE LINE LUXURY scooter in China for around $500 US. The AVERAGE (but incredibly well built) scooter runs around $300 there. In the US, scooters run $2K-$3K and up -- and good luck using one without being pulled over.

That's not minor to me. That's major. It's a natural market substitution that we WOULD but are not taking advantage of, and don't even know we're missing.

I may be moving back to Asia soon, possibly Vietnam. First order of business - invest in a good scooter, with a superior lock.
 
Last edited:
Hundreds of millions of bicycles are everywhere, but the real magic in China is the more than one hundred million incredibly high quality electric bikes. Scooters. One overnight charge of what is essentially a small car battery, and you can zip around all day (35-40 MPH max).
I've looked at these before and from an environmental and economic standpoint, electronic scooters are amazing and very practical for work commutes. Very simple vehicles other than the battery, because you don't have to mess with fluids/oil/gears and a whole host of other complications combustion engines have.

Now in somewhere like Wisconsin of course...driving these in the winter would be a trick. But a nice compromise would be a small four-wheel enclosed electric vehicle. Not some big clunky 'chevy volt'...but a speedy 'golf cart'. Unfortunately, safety nazi's have classified motorcycles and cars separately...and if you come close to being defined as a car, you have to face a whole host of burdensome regulations relating to safety. (Bumper strength, airbags, and many things like that). Silly as motorcycles don't face these stringent safety requirements, so why should enclosed 'four wheel motor-cycles'?

The other issue that is holding back economically and environmentally practical forms of personal transportation system is our backwards patent system. Most people don't have a clue of how pervasive this is and how difficult it is for an average Joe to come up with a new vehicle on their own...without innocently bumping into a design constraint that is already patented by somebody else. Put a blindfold on, spin yourself silly and point in a random direction. If you connected with something man-made, chances are it is patented to the teeth. The patent system has made the idea of a free, open and competitive marketplace a complete joke.

The documentary 'Gashole' talks about this and makes the great case that some amazing fuel-economy patents are being squatted on by individuals who have a conflict of interest in seeing them actually used.
 
All the above.

Actions speak louder than words. If the global warming scientists were honest, then they would be leading the charge to actually make the necessary changes.

Scientists are not policy makers. Identifying a problem does not mean you must have a solution. Now what if some scientists advocated producing hemp, would you start taking them seriously?
 
Scientists are not policy makers. Identifying a problem does not mean you must have a solution. Now what if some scientists advocated producing hemp, would you start taking them seriously?
It would give them some credibility.
 
Back
Top