Here it comes

From Yahoo News

h/t to Adolfo Giurfa

EPA for the first time looks to mandate reporting of the gases linked to global warming

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government wants to require companies for the first time to disclose how much greenhouse gases they’re releasing.

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing mandatory reporting of the gases blamed for global warming at approximately 13,000 facilities nationwide.

The facilities include refineries, automobile manufacturers, power plants, coal mines and large manure ponds at farms.

Together, the facilities account for about 85-90 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The EPA requires no reporting of greenhouse gases. The information will be needed if it decides to control greenhouse gases or if Congress passes a law limiting the pollution.

Companies would have to file their first reports in 2011.


Should the the EPA ever demand my report, I think I’ll follow Jim Hansen’s lead and do a little “civil disobedience”. Assuming the trend holds, I’d likely send back something like this:

temp-vs-co2

http://www.marylandiplaw.com/BillMeLater.gif

(when you figure it out)

Advertisements

153 thoughts on “Here it comes

  1. I lived through a junta in Greece, from 1967 to 1974. let but nationalistic puritanic generals. It was hard to be disobedient.
    Our institute, the main scientific institute of Greece at the time, got a general as president, who immediately started imposing army discipline. Even though it was a research center, we had to be present and working at 7:30 in the morning in the winters and at 7:00 in the morning in the summers. One theoritician ( theory tends to have late risers and late sleepers) kept coming in at 9:00. Every day he gave in as an excuse that he went for a medical examination of morning feces.

  2. If the EPA or any government agency attempt to force companies to report emissions then it is a step towards forcing productive companies to purchase carbon credits from unproductive companies.
    Once they have that in place they’ll turn towards personal carbon trading. You, a productive member of society, will be forced to buy carbon credits from the lazy dreggs of society. A new class of criminal will be born out of that – carbon crooks. Lazy people who steal for a living so that their carbon credits don’t come down. And mafias who exploit people (the poor, kidnapped girls, illegal aliens, etc) who have with credits.
    Start sending evidence to all the companies that the EPA are targeting. Show them that CO2 is not leading to catastrophic climate change. If they are forced to pay for credits they will lay off workers or pass the cost on to consumers. Organise consumer groups and workers to protest against any action by the EPA.

  3. Did you see this Guardian article ??
    “Greenland ice tipping point ‘further off than thought'”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/greenland-ice-sheet-climate-change
    From the article:
    The giant Greenland ice sheet may be more resistant to temperature rise than experts realised.
    Jonathan Bamber, an ice sheet expert at the University of Bristol, told the conference that previous studies had misjudged the so-called Greenland tipping point, at which the ice sheet is certain to melt completely.
    It would take an average global temperature rise of 6C to push Greenland into irreversible melting, the new study found.
    Previous estimates, including those in the recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the critical threshold was about 3C – which many climate scientists expect to be reached in the coming decades.

  4. That graph is obviously cherry picking by starting at the 1998 peak. I don’t think our side needs to cherry pick to prove our point.

  5. Think of all the electricity and CO2 which a successful blog is indirectly responsible for. They will be able to tax non-profit dissidents right out of existence, generate more money for the ruling class, and save the planet all at the same time.

  6. Even 6C won’t melt most of Greenland’s ice cover. Probably a third at most. And that would not be a catastrophe at all because most of that new fresh water would be absorbed by land like a sponge does.
    This is something climate models don’t do well or at all. They do not know how much water land can absorb into water tables. And of course, if we put more and more water to use then we are taking water out of the seas and distributing it elsewhere. Models do not factor any of that.

  7. Step 1 of energy rationing, which will drive up the cost of everything you eat, use, live in or drive.

  8. “Together, the facilities account for about 85-90 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
    And according to the Department of Energy, transportation accounts for about 1/3 of U.S. CO2 emissions. 90% + 33% = 123%… is this the new math?

  9. CO2 = pollution
    When a necessary trace gas gets labeled ‘pollution’ we have already lost this battle.

  10. Anthony,
    Your graph seems a bit out of date. Also, something like this would really provide a clearer picture:
    http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture15-1.png
    Or perhaps the residuals with 95th percentile confidence intervals:
    http://s81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/?action=view&current=Picture16-1.png
    Regardless, its fairly obvious that the divergence between temps and CO2 concentrations over the past 10 decades is well within the range of past variability between the two factors. CO2 increases monotonically. Temperature, surprisingly enough, does not.
    REPLY: Its humor, get over yourself. – Anthony

  11. First register how much ‘greenhouse gas’ you are emitting and then what? Organised boycotts of businesses emitting more than the ‘acceptable’ amount? Given some of the utterances (“death trains”) and antics (green custard) of some of the more extreme people on the climate alarmist side we might even see the windows of the buildings of such businesses being smashed in protest. Maybe those young people attending that ‘training’ session in Washington a while ago will be organised to stand outside such businesses to deter people from using them.
    A bit extreme? Maybe. But a government which can “Remove “conscience” protections for health workers who refuse to issue contraception” (BBC report) is not a government that is likely to worry too much about people’s civil liberties. For some, it seems like all that matters is that less carbon dioxide is put into the atmopshere; it does not matter too much what the methods are that achieve it. This is what happens when you put considerations of ‘science’ above considerations of ethics.

  12. The federal government wants to require companies for the first time to disclose how much greenhouse gases they’re releasing.
    The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing mandatory reporting of the gases blamed for global warming at approximately 13,000 facilities nationwide.

    You notice how they only want companies…I wonder who would be the single most emitter of greenhouse gases? Could it be the US government.
    Wouldn’t it be interesting to see reporting for say the White House, NASA, the Military and even the EPA…who would they trade with?

  13. Big Government sticking its nose in busineess.
    Next step is private lives.
    Like I said earlier, they’re gonna overreach, and then there’s going to be a major popular backlash.
    People want the government to serve them, and not to shove microscopes where the sun don’t shine.
    Get ready to bend over folks. Cuz here it comes!
    All the while, they’ll continue flying in their priavte jets.

  14. William R
    Call it cherry picking if you wish – point is that temps have taken a turn south over the last 11 years – CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MODELS PREDICTED.

  15. We’re not talking about a nanny state taking over here.
    This is going to be more like your clean-freak mother in law coming in to tell you how to look after yourself.

  16. jae (10:35:36), I’m curious to see the report they expect you to complete. How are they measuring the release of CO2, or, more accurately, how are they expecting *you* to measure the release of CO2? Is the gas limited strictly to CO2? Is there a way for the gov’t to check your figures and see whether your measurements are accurate? To where do you send the completed reports?
    I’m thinking Sacto might be hiring accountants, and I could use a job… Hmmm. What’s that old adage, something about working from the inside?

  17. The minimum threshold for reporting in the proposed rule is 25,000 metric tons of GHGs, and there are something like 42 industrial source categories for which reporting is required, so individuals will not have to report how much CO2 the exhale.
    After the rule is promulgated, it will still not be the first EPA rule to require GHG reporting. Electric generating plants have been reporting CO2 emissions for years now under the Acid Rain Program – see EPA’s Clean Air Markets website if you want to download CO2 emissions data for your favorite local utility.

  18. Psiiiuuu:
    may be deducted in:
    Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
    This is crazy, probably completely exterminate the American companies.

  19. The totalitarian world state is slowly happening and the satellite that crashed was likely a tool to discriminate CO2 emitters.
    In Canada, municipalities are infiltrated with green activists who serve on bureaucrats’ committees then who do not get elected on green lists but who are getting elected on known political politicians’ list. It is clearly a subversive way to reach a local decision level and pervert yet another level of government.

  20. How do emitters determine the amount of their CO2 emissions? How much does it cost to do so? How extensive will the reporting requirements be? Will they include office buildings, shopping malls, server farms, etc?

  21. 13,000 in a class action law suit against the EPA, with all their wonderful
    blood sucking lawyers. Subpoena Gore and Hansen and put them under
    oath. You think Gore sweats now!……Now that would be some good TV!

  22. April,
    Good point… that 80-90% number set my BS meter off as well. I thought it was SUVs that caused 80-90% of the emissions.
    G

  23. Industry Insider (11:50:35) :
    The minimum threshold for reporting in the proposed rule is 25,000 metric tons of GHGs, and there are something like 42 industrial source categories for which reporting is required, so individuals will not have to report how much CO2 the exhale.
    Considering that each person exhales about 0.5 metric tons of CO2 a year any large company with more than 50.000 employees is caught. The army comes to mind. Large Universities? Mc Donalds?

  24. Aron (10:27:30) : “Once they have that in place they’ll turn towards personal carbon trading. ”
    Aron, I’ve given this some thought. It goes something like this:
    Each time a human being exhales they “emit” from their lungs gases that contain about 4000 ppm of carbon. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but it’s over 10X the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In short, with each exhalation human beings create 10X the carbon they inhale. Therefore, humans are definitely “polluters” — not as bad perhaps as a coal-powered power plants, but polluters nonetheless, and they should be subject to EPA regulation.
    I read somewhere that over the course of a year a human being exhales about 0.5 tons of carbon. With an average life expectancy in the US approaching 80 years that means that over their lifetime every human being now in existance (plus the new ones that may be “produced” in the future) will generate about 40 tons of carbon.
    So, now that we understand the “science”, what’s the plan? In the year that the cap and trade scheme kicks off everyone then alive will have to buy carbon credits for themselves and their offspring. The number of credits required will be based on your sex, age and life expectancy. (Sounds complicated, I know, but we can create a new bureaucracy to figure all this out). For a typical middle class American household of two adults and 2.1 children that would work out to somewhere in the vicinity of 100 tons of carbon credits depending on the ages of family members. Using the EC carbon market as a guide that could amount to more than $3500 (in more normal economic times — it would be substantially less today).
    Ok, that takes care of those alive when the plan starts, but how do we handle the need for additional carbon credits for newly produced human pollution units (aka children)? Perhaps, we should require prospective parents to buy a life-time supply of 40 tons of carbon credits for each child they produce? Sounds fair, but what about those who choose not to produce a CO2 emitter. Maybe the Obama plan will grant a 40 ton credit to each woman who “chooses” not to produce a “polluter” — it could be the Planned Parenthood’s version of a “Save the Planet” program — have an abortion and get 40 carbon credits free, which of course can then be sold to a prospective parent at the then prevailing market rate.
    Oh, yes, I forgot — fertility varies by ethnic group so allowances will have to be make — think of it as “affirmative action for climate control”. And, if the price of carbon get’s too high, we know some people won’t be able to afford credits (sort of like health insurance today), so we could make the entire system “progressive” like the tax system — the top 5% of the income bracket will end up buying 70-80% of the carbon credits.
    OK, now that covers the people. Now, what about the family’s pets? Dogs are bigger than cats, so they produce more carbon…………………………
    Here it comes…and here we go! Enjoy the ride, folks!

  25. Sylvia (11:46:03) :
    Where actual data are not available (which is most cases) it will be done via the use of published emission factors, i.e., multiply tons of fuel used by an “emission factor” of y tons CO2/ton fuel. So you have to keep records of all fuels burned/used (which everyone does, anyway). In the case of methane and other GHGs, you then multiply also by a CO2-equivalence factor that adjusts everything to a CO2 basis. It WILL actually create some jobs; consultants are drooling over this (although it’s so simple that they will not be needed in most cases, unless third-party verification is required; and EPA is not proposing 3rd-party verification (which surprises me, given the need to create jobs)).

  26. I notice two things about global warming –
    1. Every consequence of global warming in bad.
    2. Every solution involves raising taxes.

  27. Our government here in ole New Zealand tried to pass a fart tax on cows a few years back (after they nationalised carbon credits from trees… resulting in forestry owners clearing the tree’s for dairy land) We didnt stand for that kinda crap! They backed down.
    William R (10:50:10) :
    “That graph is obviously cherry picking by starting at the 1998 peak. I don’t think our side needs to cherry pick to prove our point.”
    Well if we want to be really objective we should show the graphs from the end of the last ice age to put natural variability into perspective…. somehow i cant see “youre side” doing that 😉

  28. Who would have ever thought that mixing baking soda with vinegar would be an act of civil disobedience?

  29. We need to use embryonic stem cell research to clone a cow that emits much less GHG. Now that’s change you can breath to.

  30. Good luck to our American friends. Let us know how you get on with the possible new regs. The worse it turns out the more likely Canadia is to follow suit.
    We could use some GW up here in the frozen North where record cold swept across Central Alberta last night. Edmonton blasted the old record by a whopping 13C° … at minus 42°C! Ugh!
    I’ve applied for this patent. Will make millions. ☺
    http://photoshare.shaw.ca/image/2/d/8/63987/epaemissionsmonitor-0.jpg

  31. I’m curious to see the report they expect you to complete. How are they measuring the release of CO2, or, more accurately, how are they expecting *you* to measure the release of CO2?
    That is what Green jobs are for. These nosey bastards in Green shirts go around discreetly measuring CO2 emissions with some retarded device. They knock on your door from time to time to ask why your bills are high and what equipment you use. Then they ask if they can come inside to inspect your property to suggest how you can be more efficient to save Gaia.
    Can’t be efficient enough? Shame, you’ll have to buy carbon credits from the guy who lives in a single room rental. He has plenty credits spare because he never drives, never turns on the lights, eats once a week, hates consumer products, contributes nothing to the economy and hasn’t got a job. So while he gives nothing back to society, he gets rich selling carbon credits to productive people who get poorer.
    Then you have that failed satellite which could have tracked CO2 emissions by nation. Papua New Guinea is using fossil fuels to work their way out of poverty. Oh no no no, that cannot be allowed. They must buy carbon credits from an even lesser developed nation or even a rich one that has spare credits laying around. Result, Papua New Guinea’s growth is slowed down.
    Totalitarianism and imperialism, right there.

  32. From numberwatch:
    The common factors in campaigns of zealotry are:
    • Creation and maintenance of a myth
    • Ignoring all evidence countering the myth
    • Ad hominem attacks on opponents
    • Encouraging authoritarian governments to impose taxes and reduce individual freedom
    • Promotion of limits and constraints that are simply invented without reason
    • Collusion by the establishment media
    • Damage to science and its methods
    • Elimination of things that make life bearable
    • Making some people very rich while impoverishing the lives of almost everyone else.
    Think AGW. Perfect fit.

  33. Jack Green (12:38:56) :
    Well the buggers should be giving the farmers carbon credits for all the wetlands they’ve drained first! 🙂 A farm in general dos’nt stink o methane, swamps do… but i have no idea what the official figures are.

  34. “That graph is obviously cherry picking by starting at the 1998 peak. I don’t think our side needs to cherry pick to prove our point.”
    Well, the AGW folks are cherry picking by starting their baseline in 1978…

  35. John Egan (10:39:59)
    That the Greenland icecap would melt at a 3 degree temperature rise was always absurd, and it certainly doesn’t take any “new study” to prove it. Why? Because temperatures in Greenland, both on top of the icecap and along the coast, was about 5 degrees warmer during the last interglacial, but in every place where the ice has been drilled to bedrock there is ice dating from that interglacial!

  36. Going along and complying with their idiotic laws is in my view aiding and abetting tyranny.
    My opinion is to conduct a passive protest.
    That is no one react to their moronic intrusive requests. Do not cooperate, just continue going about your business as before. If they come after you, then don’t resist, let them carry you off like a sack of potatoes.
    What are they going to do? Throw 50 million of the most productive people in the brig?
    There’s a time to stand up for what is right.
    Give me liberty, or give me death.
    This slogan is about to make a come back – I fear.

  37. “is proposing mandatory reporting of the gases blamed for global warming at approximately 13,000 facilities nationwide”
    Believe me, they can do that, and even worse things. It has been done here in Europe. See for instance the document at the bottom (it’s in spanish, don’t care, just go to the table where the spanish government authorizes the “new entrants” for the period 2008-2012, i.e. CO2 emissions are rationed, see the name of the industry and the CO2 ration allocated for each company and for the period 2008-2012). If you exceed the emissions then you have to buy emissions rights elsewhere or paying a penalty ~ 100€/ton. Totalitarian, isn’t it?. My only hope is the US fighting this nonsense, we in Europe already lost the battle.
    best
    http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/participacion_publica/cambio_climatico/pdf/infopna2008-12.pdf

  38. Those companies should all move to India! Not just they would free themselves of these kind of pressures, they would also force this Administration to rethink their economical priorities.

  39. Just destroy the economy.
    Only one thing to do.
    Figure out how to make some money off this.
    At this point it is every man for himself.

  40. Hey folks – just an English Teacher’s kid’s take on things, but why do we talk about vapors that absorb (and, of course, re-radiate) in the infrared portion of the spectrum as if they are necessary for the function of cool-weather nurseries?
    i.e. If CO2, CH4, HOH etc. are’nt capable of heating things up unless constrained in an agricultural ‘hothouse’, why do we refer to them as ‘greenhouse gasses’? Why not refer to them as “so-called greenhouse gasses”, “alleged greenhouse gasses” or simply “‘greenhouse gasses'”? Let’s be forthright and honest in our scepticism!
    Tom

  41. The tax will bounce off the company on to the comsumer. Just a long winding road to gain submittance from the public for environmental taxation. The scientific accuracy doesnt matter, only public acceptance. They’re expecting some strife from you, but not your children and your grandchildren. Thats why the climate propaganda starts in school-figuring that the tax will ramp up fiercely by then. Thats right, your heirs are really going to thank you for being so thoughtful of their future.

  42. This is fun! The first class action lawsuit will be directed at government i.e. ALL government and related industry, military, laboratories and agencies to disclose THEIR GHGs. And, since the scientifically accepted definition of GHGs specifies predominantly (85-95%) water vapor – steam releases (a variable dependent on ambient temp) MUST be included along with water.
    Next lawsuit will be directed at States having greater or lesser amounts of fresh water. They must provide evaporation tables and estimates for the release of their water into atmosphere as water vapor. Wow. This can provide the tort attorneys twenty years of steady income. Thanks EPA!

  43. “”Wouldn’t it be interesting to see reporting for say the White House, NASA, the Military and even the EPA…who would they trade with?””
    The worst part is that news outlets (newspapers and television news) will be exempt.

  44. Consumer Unite
    Since we the consumer Pay All Taxes on goods and services, send a message to government. Tell them you will cut your spending by 15% if they try to regulate CO2.
    Also, inform your representative you will work to remove him or her from officer if he or she votes for any type of CO2 regulation.

  45. Talk about helping the poor, a 40% utilitiy bill increase should help them…….
    Maybe Obama is going to give some free electricty to get around this increase.

  46. The answer is simple… over-report your emissions by using peak capacity figures remember the reporting will be as we are coming out of recession, so make sure you use the number the Government likes to use, “what our economy can produce” not what it is producing. So use the highest production numbers you have on record.
    If all businesses do this there will be a cushion in issued permitts making them worth basically nothing because of supply and demand, bid the permits into the dirt at the auction. The government will have a surplus of permits and they cannot be removed from the pool, the system is like roll over minutes, so buying too many one year allows you to use them in the future. They reduce the pool the next year by 1% or whatever and then you purchase all the permits because they will be at the supply and demand low price. (by purchasing them all you create the “perception” that the production is up so they will not try and lower the cap to drive the prices up. If you ever worked with a Government Agency you know they spend all of their budget surpluses in the last month to make sure to maintain funding levels. Same idea.
    Then hold them and refuse to release them into the system the next year and leave the excess in the Government hands, alternate like this back and forth and the Government will get about 10% of expected revenue over the first 3-5 years and will be forced to scrap the system due to costs.
    Simple.

  47. OK, I’ve been thinking, and that’s always dangerous. I have a stupid question.
    According to dogma:
    1. Manmade CO2 is a dangerous gas that is causing world temperatures to rise and it is reaching a point of no return.
    2. The U.S. is the second leading emitter of manmade CO2.
    3. According to the Energy Information Administration (US), transportation is responsible for 34% of the US total manmade CO2(2007).
    4. Catalytic converters convert CO and unburnt hydrocarbons to CO2
    Why is there not an immediate government order to remove all catalytic converters from all U.S. automobiles? After all, what’s a little localized acid rain and smog compared to the end of the world?
    Why is there no push to come up with a different converter that would convert these substances to something other than CO2?
    Could it be that there is an ulterior motive?
    OK, All skate…

  48. ” Tom in toasty warm Florida (10:41:09) :
    Does steam count as a greenhouse gas?”
    You mean like a taking a shower tax?

  49. We have this in Europe and at least in my country, these carbon-credit assignments are just another source of corruption.

  50. Also, inform your representative you will work to remove him or her from office if he or she votes for any type of CO2 regulation.
    And threaten to drag them through lots of mud.

  51. “helvio (13:21:03) :
    Those companies should all move to India!”
    They just might.

  52. I told the Dept. of Agriculture census that I sold off all my livestock a few years ago.
    What the government doesn’t know won’t hurt me.

  53. Why is it that the bureaucrats honestly believe that large companies will pay these ridiculous taxes. In the modern world, it is far too easy to just relocate to a country without pointless regulation and just ship all the goods in. It would cost far more than the revenue lost to open every packet and see it it was made in a “green fashion” so everyone else in the world will ignore the regs and make money from the uk/us sabotaged economies.
    Are there no businessmen/women creating these laughable laws, or does the destruction of the western economies fit nicely into their plans.
    The only people that will be left to pay these taxes are the public service workers who cannot relocate.

  54. I wonder if there is a correlation to the increases in CO2 with the increases in attendance at worldwide sporting events? With all that cheering and shouting, not to mention those at home and in bars watching via cable and satellite, not to mention all the CO2 being released from all the beer and soda being poured, not to mention more and more events are held at night so artificial lighting is needed, not to mention the increased travel of teams to ever farther locations around the world.
    Let’s ban all sports. They don’t actually need to play the games, just set up computer models to determine the outcomes.

  55. Pierre Gosselin (11:40:41) :
    We’re not talking about a nanny state taking over here.
    This is going to be more like your clean-freak mother in law coming in to tell you how to look after yourself.

    She’s righteous, self-obsessed, certain, uptight, loud, annoying, And once in the house – very difficult to get out…

  56. Just Want Truth… (14:37:18) :
    I believe a read some placce that a chip maker maybe closing their plant in Californina instead of compiling with the New CO2 regulation. Job lost, 2000-3000 range.

  57. “and large manure ponds at farms.”
    Okay, just the thought of some minor bureaucrat writing up procedures and standards for estimating GHG emissions from this source is enough to bring satirical images to mind. Just to picture the deadly serious earnestness of it all or the poor fellow’s job description and dutes…

  58. The only answer that everyone should give is: ZERO!
    Why? Because you then do what all of the ecoterrorists say they do, they plant enough trees to offset it all.
    Problem solved!

  59. “MikeE (12:28:05) :
    Our government here in ole New Zealand tried to pass a fart tax on cows a few years back (after they nationalised carbon credits from trees… resulting in forestry owners clearing the tree’s for dairy land) We didnt stand for that kinda crap! They backed down.”
    The same Labour Govn’t clear felled thoudsands of hectares of 80 year old prime forest too. I now forget the reason why, but it certainly sounded rediculous at the time, something like the trees were planted before the policy (Of an ETS) was introduced.

  60. In 1957 Ayn Rand wrote:
    There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
    In the new America we will all be declared criminals. Therefore, let us strive to become the very best criminals that our talents allow.
    Michael Ronayne
    Nutley, NJ

  61. Does the President or any other Greenie think for a minute that US firms will begin to move operations to more friendly climes (sorry for the pun). If I were a CEO with, say 100 manufacturing facilities in the US, I would definitely look to places like India to relocate. This would also include corporate data centers (they consume tons of electricity). If a carbon tax passses, look for many nations, including those in Europe, to take advantage of a windfall. The loses in jobs would be immediate. Don’t think that firms in China, India, Vietnam, Signapore, and Eastern Europe are not watching; it wouldn’t surprise me if some of them have firms on K-Street on retainer lobbying for a US carbon tax.

  62. If I own a company in one of the potentially affected Industries (esp refineries and auto manufacturers), I likely will be looking at moving some or all of my production elsewhere, if possible. To a place that will not tax or cap carbon. China says Hi to GM. Relocation studies are in progress. The de-industrialization of the West continues.

  63. Outstanding response to any AGW mandate from our new alien overlords. I’ll let more of the illiterati know to come here to see it.
    Great work.

  64. This is just prep for the carbon tax.
    The correct response is an unending stream of lawsuits.
    Take a page from the greenie book.

  65. Climate Heretic (14:08:50) :
    “The answer is simple… […]
    Then hold them and refuse to release them into the system the next year and leave the excess in the Government hands, alternate like this back and forth and the Government will get about 10% of expected revenue over the first 3-5 years and will be forced to scrap the system due to costs. […]”
    Uh, you had me until the last paragraph. Since when has the government EVER scrapped a system due to costs? Faced with your scenario, the government will double down on the cost of the bureaucracy needed to get some revenue – anything – out of the CO2.
    That’s not to say that businesses shouldn’t do as you suggest.

  66. The silliness of attempting to control carbon emissions is compounded by the silliness of believing that emissions must be reported and measured.
    All forms of energy are metered or weighed at every change of ownership, since that is how the transaction is billed. The emissions from the combustion of each fuel source are known. Therefore, the emissions can be tracked at any stage in the chain of custody.
    When viewed this way, the application of a “cap” is also far simpler. Production and importation can simply be capped at whatever level. The market participants would then determine the value of the fuels by competing to purchase a share of the available quantity from the purveyors. Unfortunately, that approach does not of the opportunity to auction allowances (tax the total potential transactions). As the cap is reduced over time to achieve the desired emissions reduction, the buyers choose either to pay the market price of leave the market.
    However, leave it to government to turn a simple technical issue into a make-work project.
    The irony is that the first buyers to leave the market will be those who can shift their energy use to electricity, thus shifting their need to compete for limited fossil energy to the utility of other electric generator. To the extent that this occurs, an already stressed electric sector would be put under even greater stress. On the other hand, to the extent that manufacturing customers move their facilities to developing countries which have no intent to reduce their emissions, the pressure on the electric sector would be reduced to a degree.

  67. John Galt (11:14:21) :
    CO2 = pollution
    When a necessary trace gas gets labeled ‘pollution’ we have already lost this battle

    Who would have thought using deoderant spray could destroy the ozone layer. The chloroflourocarbon is only trace gas in the atmosphere after all!!!
    from online dictionary
    pollution (p-lshn)
    The contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms. Pollution can occur naturally, for example through volcanic eruptions, or as the result of human activities, such as the spilling of oil or disposal of industrial waste. Light from cities and towns at night that interferes with astronomical observations is known as light pollution. It can also disturb natural rhythms of growth in plants and other organisms. Continuous noise that is loud enough to be annoying or physically harmful is known as noise pollution. Heat from hot water that is discharged from a factory into a river or lake, where it can kill or endanger aquatic life, is known as thermal pollution

    Surely, heat light CO2, Oxygen, H2O can be pollutants at the wrong concentration in the wrong place?
    Mike

  68. “EPA for the first time looks to mandate reporting of the gases linked to global warming”….Then, as it has fully demostrated in WUWT, there will be nothing to report!!

  69. MikeE and Pierre Gosselin:
    Sorry for the misunderstanding. My side is your side…I am very much in the realist camp! I just think that such a graph is intellectually dishonest. We should leave that practice to the warmist’s camp. A more complete view of temperature vs. CO2 supports our argument, so no need to cherry pick and risk undermining the message.

  70. “EPA for the first time looks to mandate reporting of the gases linked to global warming”….Then, as it has been fully demostrated in WUWT, there will be nothing to report!!

  71. The only effective way to deal with speculative beliefs such AGW and GW is by stressing alternatives that make logical sense.
    For example: There is no need for higher temperatures to explain the disappearance of glaciers. The same thing would happen if the melting point of ice drifted upwards. It is perfectly possible that what is really going on is that the melting point of ice is changing and this is being misunderstood by the so-called “scientific” community.
    How do you explain the migration of high altitude species to higher latitudes? Higher temperatures might explain that, but people seem to forget that there is another, perfectly logical explanation: A sudden simultaneous genetic mutation across high altitude species. Such a mutation would cause species to seek northerly latitudes to counteract their biological changes.

  72. Dave in Canada (11:21:51) : You notice how they only want companies…I wonder who would be the single most emitter of greenhouse gases? Could it be the US government.
    IIRC:
    Transportation is the largest consumer of oil.
    The U.S. Government consumes more transportation fuel than any other entity in the United States.
    The largest part of the U.S. Government fuel budget goes to the military (by quite a bit, like way over half).
    THE single largest fuel burner in the Military is aviation.
    ERGO, the U.S. Govt. gets a ‘pass’ or we ground the Air Force, Marines, and Navy Air…
    The U.S. Air Force has a program to certify their fleet on synthetic fuels. They are using coal as the source material… EPA will not like that.
    I suggest sending the proof that CO2 is not a problem to every flight rated wing of every military service…

  73. That graph is obviously cherry picking by starting at the 1998 peak. I don’t think our side needs to cherry pick to prove our point.
    I’ve heard this a lot. Two points.
    1.) It makes sense to judge any trend from high point to low and low to high. After all, that’s when trends begin. 1998 was the peak. The trend has been cooler since then. Likewise, I am perfectly willing to address the warming phase from 1977 (low) to 1998 (high) and look at that as one piece.
    2.) The 1998 El Nino was immediately followed by a less intense, but longer La Nina. Both are at the beginning of the graph, and one counteracts the other when drawing a trendline. So if you want to avoid cherry-picking, you need to include both of them IN or both of them OUT.

  74. to thefordprefect (16:14:48)
    Oh my god. are you serious about the CFCs? That myth is the father of the AGW myth. It received a Nobel price, also.
    CFC does not cause ozone destruction. Ozone destruction on Antarctica is a natural process
    (sorry for my english, i’m spanish)

  75. “Steven Hill (15:59:15) :
    Ban all motor sports asap! I bet they won’t do that one. LOL”
    Aussie V8 racing “planted 50,000 trees” last year. This year they will plant more and run E85 ethanol. Go figure!

  76. hereticfringe (13:03:27) : Well, the AGW folks are cherry picking by starting their baseline in 1978…
    It’s not just the baseline, it’s the whole “start history in 1880” cherry pick:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/picking-cherries-in-sweden/
    I am firmly of the belief that “be a mirror” is the best philosophy most of the time. Someone follows the Geneva convention, so do you, they break it YOU DO NOT SET AN EXAMPLE, you take the gloves off. So… I see nothing wrong with countering one cherry pick chart with another. At worst, it will raise the issue of cherry picking and get a real debate started…
    (BTW, this philosophy is to some extent built into the Geneva convention. Signatories were not required to follow the rules with non-signatories; as an inducement to get the non-signers to sign up… Folks used to understand this sort of thing: We’ll treat your folks fair IFF you treat our guys fair.)

  77. “Production and importation can simply be capped at whatever level.”
    I call dibs on bootlegging gasoline from Canada!

  78. Steve in SC (15:47:19) :
    ‘This is just prep for the carbon tax.
    The correct response is an unending stream of lawsuits.
    Take a page from the greenie book.’
    I may have an attorney who will want to take on EPA.

  79. “Bill me Later”
    That’s one of those lines that makes me feel like standing up and cheering!

  80. When will the tax on breathing-out be imposed? I assume joggers and those who exercise (those selfish CO2 polluters) will be able to purchase carbon credits from coach potatoes? If I become a coach potato and go into hibernation while this insanity blows over (no pun intended) – will I get reimbursed for all the carbon I did not produce?
    I didn’t open a beer just then – can I get a cheque for the carbon I did not release to the atmosphere?
    Should we kill all green vegetation (or “CO2 Death Trifids” as I like to call them) now or wait until the plan is fully implemented? I will certainly be organizing rallies to the farms and prairies of the Midwest forcing them to shut down unless they replace their crops with solent green (mmm tasty).
    Will murderers be able to claim carbon credits for the additional CO2 they saved the world?
    So many questions, so little time…

  81. any idea how much CO2 is produced during a launch of a space schuttle. I want to claim the carbon credits when that program shuts down

  82. helvio (13:21:03) : Those companies should all move to India! Not just they would free themselves of these kind of pressures, they would also force this Administration to rethink their economical priorities.
    It’s a little more general than that, but yes. BRIC will be back. (That’s Brazil, Russia, India, China ) though I’d expect that as the CO2 Police swing into it, Russian may have less benefit than the others (it DID sign Kyoto; but could back out).
    I find it odd that the hope for economic survival of the world will now hang on recalcitrant Russians backing out of deals and selfish Chinese Communists telling the west to go pound sand on CO2…
    EEM is an emerging markets ticker. FXI is a China basket. RSX Russian and EWZ is a Brazil basket. There are several India baskets, but IFN / INP / IIF / EPI tend to track together mostly. Australia is a resource play leveraged to China – EWA or IAF for longer term holdings.
    EPI up 6% today in a bounce off the bottom… FXI up 8% in a similar move. EWZ up 7.8% EEM up 8.1% compared to Dow 30 DIA up 5.6% and S&P 500 up 5.9% while RSX Russia is up a whopping 12.9% on the day. Bear market rallies can be astounding!
    DISCLOSURE: I own EWZ and EPI. I will likely trade into some FXI for this rally. I tend to avoid RSX just because I’m a coward and don’t like to play in a hardball game with Putin and the Russian Mafia… I sometimes buy EEM as a quick way to get a largely Brazil and China dominated basket, but my heart belongs to Brazil and I often run back to EWZ. I also own IAF the First Australia Fund as an indirect China play in resources. Up 7.4% today AND has a 22% dividend 😎 EWA is more broadly traded (more shares so less of a problem buying or selling a lot) as an Australia bucket – up 7.6% and with a 15.7% dividend I own a chunk of EWA from time to time (it’s easier to buy and sell fast compared to IAF so I trade it more. IAF is more a buy and hold investment.. only traded 47k shares today vs 3 million for EWA…)
    My take on this is that as we come of this bottom, BRIC is going to rocket and the U.S.A. will tag along behind saying “Wait, Wait! Wait for ME!!” puffing out of breath wishing it could get a CO2 fix via some added fuel…
    But I could be wrong.

  83. Anthony
    Regarding a possible entry:
    I’m very new at this posting business and have no idea how you decide on the things you present. I don’t see anything on the site that explains this, which may mean you don’t want to be bothered. Thus, I’m sending this in the regular manner of submitting a comment. It doesn’t fit the current theme so I’m not expecting to see it here, and perhaps nowhere. Just asking? Regards, John
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    March dismissed – January recruited to fill in
    From John F. Hultquist – on the evening of March 10, 2009
    Here is a short bit from the NWS regarding temps in eastern WA state, specifically Spokane.
    AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPOKANE WA
    249 PM PDT TUE MAR 10 2009
    .SYNOPSIS…
    THE WEATHER WILL BE MORE TYPICAL JANUARY THAN MARCH OVER THE
    PACIFIC NORTHWEST TONIGHT AND TOMORROW. MANY LONG STANDING
    RECORDS WILL BE THREATENED TONIGHT …..
    LOOKS LIKE AFTER THE COOL START ON SATURDAY…WE WILL SEE
    PROGRESSIVE WARMING THROUGH THE PERIOD WITH TEMPERATURES LIKELY
    WARMING TO ABOVE NORMALS BY TUESDAY. TUESDAY FORECAST HIGH IN
    SPOKANE IS 51F. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME ABOVE 50F IN SPOKANE
    SINCE NOVEMBER 18…WHICH WOULD TURN OUT TO BE A SPAN OF 117 DAYS.
    THIS WOULD BE THE 10TH LONGEST STRETCH ON RECORD IN SPOKANE FOR HIGH
    TEMPS BELOW 50F. FX
    This follows two mighty blasts of wintry weather that ripped through the Washington Cascades this past week.
    I find this interesting because in late January or early February the forecast by Piers Corbyn [ http://www.weatheraction.com/ ] was for early and middle March to be just like this – Polar Outbreaks in these latitudes. I did not save his report and only had the “public media form” so it was not detailed in any case. At the time the March weather forecast was being based on a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) event which can still be seen here:
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/50mb9065.gif
    Note, I’m looking (on day of year 67) at the 50 mb (approx. 20 km.) chart that shows the C temp going from -75 to -42 in January and has just now returned to the 1979 -2007 mean. This was tangentially discusses in February on WUWT
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/correlation-demonstrated-bewteen-cosmic-rays-and-temperature-of-the-stratosphere/#more-5254
    but didn’t provide an explanation for the stratospheric warming. At that time, I found and posted a report of a January 1989 “minor” SSW warming:
    http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/120/1/pdf/i1520-0493-120-1-221.pdf
    Here is a quote:
    “The event had a maximum influence on the stratospheric circulation near 2 hPa. The zonal mean circulation reversed briefly in the polar region as the temperature increased 34 K in 3 days. The cause of the warming is shown to be the rapid development and subsequent movement of a warm anomaly, which initially developed in the midlatitudes. The development of the warm anomaly is caused by adiabatic descent, and the dissipation by radiative cooling.”
    That the SSW would disrupt and reverse the polar flows (I recall) was the basis of the Piers Corbyn prediction. I’m just back inside from feeding horses and checking their heated water supply. I’m thinking Corbyn’s forecast was either one very good guess or there is considerable predictive power in the goings on in the thin cold polar atmosphere.
    I can’t add anything else but I’m sure some others can. Thanks, John

  84. Re: JP (15:38:52) : and businesses moving overseas.
    You hit the nail on the head- excellent point.
    This is the reason these fundamentalist environmentalists are clueless when it comes to enforcing policy or seeing how the real world works – they live in their little simplistic linear worlds where A+B=C and have not the slightest clue as to what their policies could mean down the road.
    It is the same reason supporting ethanol led to food shortages (“ooops never thought of that “- duh), the same reason banning DDT led to countless deaths from malaria in the 3rd World (“ooops never thought of that” – duh) etc. etc. etc.
    Now we have the great ideas of 1) replace coal and gas-fired power stations with wind farms and solar AND 2) build electric cars which require to be plugged in at night.
    So the overnight demand for power will go up (i.e. we will require MORE, NOT LESS power generation than we currently produce) and yet our sources of said power generation will become 100 times more flaky (what happens if the wind aint blowing or its cloudy!!? – better buy a bike, knit a whooly hat and bath once a week I guess).
    If these energy policies are pushed forward then everyone can get ready for more frequent brown-outs and black-outs so common in California. Meanwhile, there is good data to suggest that we are in for some colder winters ahead (ever tried driving an electric car in snow?). Welcome to the 70’s.
    “ooops never thought of that – DUH

  85. How smart is it to shut down the very industry which saved us from lives of poverty and misery?
    Just what we need:
    More powerful unions,
    More cost on cars
    Energy shortages and higher costs
    More taxes
    More government involvement in everyday life
    More criminal prosecution for failure to pay carbon taxes
    I’m going to snip myself before I let go of what I really think.
    Why can’t we find the proof?

  86. “old construction worker (15:03:01) : I believe a read some placce that a chip maker maybe closing their plant in Californina instead of compiling with the New CO2 regulation. Job lost, 2000-3000 range.”
    There’s nothing like more regulation and higher taxes for making a recession worse!

  87. Don’t be too hard on the EPA. This situation came about with a Supreme Court ruling, Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al, which, in effect, found that co2 is a pollutant implying that AGW is a fact and that EPA must act unless they can prove that co2 is not a harmful GHG. EPA’s original position was that there was not enough evidence that co2 was harmful. They wanted to wait until AGW science was settled before making a ruling.
    Are there other examples of environmental rulings by the Supreme Court where the court’s scientific expertise was claimed? How is the constitution being upheld with such a ruling? A classic example of environmentalists bypassing the legislative branch with judicial legislation.

  88. What a lot of people don’t realize about Geneva is that it had an awful lot to do with making it perfectly legal to execute illegal combatants. Not to protect them. To execute them.
    When unarmed German saboteurs landed in the US, we executed them even though they had, as of yet, committed no act of sabotage.

  89. Three guys walk into a bar and order drinks which they quickly toss back.
    The first guy says “Today I caught three armed robbers, and rescued a busload of hostage school children from a gang of serial killers – I love my job, I work for the FBI.”
    The second guy says “Ha – so what…, I strangled a north korean spy and made love with a beautiful russian double-agent – I love my job, I work for the CIA.”
    The third guy says “Dang – that’s nothing…, I tanked the american economy and pushed all manufacturing to China – I really love my job, I work for the EPA.”

  90. At the Climate Conference, people were looking for simple arguments the layman can latch onto. I intend to supply those, using fewer words and simpler concepts than has been done previously. Such as might prove useful in the upcoming political struggle.

  91. John, I live in Pullman, WA (seventy miles south of Spokane). The temp is currently at 9F, which is a record low for this date. The sky is clear. I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t drop to single digits below zero. Last year, my husband sarcastacly commented to me that no one lived here during the last ice-age. We have no historical record of how cold it can get on the Palouse. My furnace is running nearly non-stop spewing carbon emissions, but to no avail, we are still bitterly cold. On the positive side, I do notice a lack of global warming articles in our local media.
    Our record low temps will never be recorded because the federal government research facility has been dropped from the GISS data. Did their mercury freeze or what?

  92. evanmjones:
    Regarding your point 1, the purpose of the graph is not to show a “trend”, but to show the lack of a direct relationship between the two variables.
    Regarding your point 2, this contradicts your point 1, but I agree, it would be inappropriate to start the graph at any point during this time period.

  93. As I am Canadian, I cannot claim to know the American tax system very well. I am curious about President Obama saying that no one making less than $250,000 per year will see any tax increases. Then announcing that a cap and trade implementation will bring in $650 billion. Will this not be felt in the pocketbook by every American? Will the cost not eventually be felt by the consumer in every imaginable product? Is this slight of hand, or am I missing something?

  94. The simple solution to this “problem” is to report massive releases of “greenhouse gases” now so as to allow an immediate reduction and destruction of the “carbon market” shortly after it opens.

  95. I can see a class-action suit or whatever, coming from business, related to something along the lines of taxation without representation or onerous taxation or regulation. I think it will be placed upon the government, by some savvy lawyer, to prove that, A. reporting CO2 is necessary for the health of planet, and B. because of A the government must prove that CO2 is harmful and that reporting CO2 emissions will lead to a reduction in CO2 to safe levels, which will then lead to lower temperatures. End of program. The judge must decide if the regulation is onerous.

  96. “How do you explain the migration of high altitude species to higher latitudes?”
    1. There’s a long-term warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age.
    2. Wanderlust? There’s a counter-trend of northerly species moving south (details posted a couple of days ago in one of these threads), and therefore possibly (I infer) of high-altitude species moving lower.

  97. Some of the saner members of the Democratic party need to stop their more wild-eyed fellows from showing the full extent of their AGW delusion. A proper energy policy can only be constructed with respect to reality. We need to focus on economical domestic sources of energy. China is bent on using coal to power themselves into the future. We will have to compete with the efficiencies they obtain.
    The politics that drive this AGW theory will break its bones on the facts as they develop and will deeply wound all of the parties and movements that endorsed it.

  98. Aron (10:27:30) :
    If the EPA or any government agency attempt to force companies to report emissions then it is a step towards forcing productive companies to purchase carbon credits from unproductive companies.
    Once they have that in place they’ll turn towards personal carbon trading. You, a productive member of society, will be forced to buy carbon credits from the lazy dreggs of society. A new class of criminal will be born out of that – carbon crooks. Lazy people who steal for a living so that their carbon credits don’t come down. And mafias who exploit people (the poor, kidnapped girls, illegal aliens, etc) who have with credits.
    Start sending evidence to all the companies that the EPA are targeting. Show them that CO2 is not leading to catastrophic climate change. If they are forced to pay for credits they will lay off workers or pass the cost on to consumers. Organise consumer groups and workers to protest against any action by the EPA.
    Aron,
    The caps & Trade is initiated by the Mafia.
    One of them is Al Gore and you can buy your credits now at his website.

  99. “EPA for the first time looks to mandate reporting of the gases linked to global warming”
    Are they looking for HOT AIR?

  100. David Ball (19:45:49) : You get it, just as we do. Sadly, not enough Americans got it in the last election.
    Pamela: Big industry is now supporting this scheme. Socialism rewards the few, big players. Government regulation crushes the up and comers from ever competing. That’s why the Soviet Union had such an antiquated system when they collapsed, the few preferable companies had no need to compete. The government took care of them. Get rich to do nothing is the cap and trade system.

  101. The ultimate outcome of CO2 regulation will be inflation. I’m curious as to what effect this might have on real estate values, since that’s the root of this economic downturn that has yet to be addressed.
    Is there a silver lining here in the short-term? I’m in need of some positivity here.
    Reply: Other moderator’s reply removed. Reasons why in email. ~ charles the moderator

    • AEGeneral
      Not likely a silver lining there. Real Estate values are traditionally a function of interest rates which are already at rock bottom. As they go up to control inflation, the corresponding value of the Real Estate has to drop in order to make monthly payments affordable.

  102. old construction worker (14:03:03) : Consumer Unite
    Since we the consumer Pay All Taxes on goods and services, send a message to government. Tell them you will cut your spending by 15% if they try to regulate CO2.

    Consumers have already shut their wallets. Look at car sales. I don’t expect this to get better any time soon in this country.
    We are falling into the social democracy trap. It will take a generation to claw our way back out:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/csd-california-socialism-disorder/
    So I’m shopping for a better place to be. I just hope that I can hold out 2 more years for the kids to be out of college. Then again, I suppose I could be on a tropical beach with a laptop and they could stay here with the house 😎 Heck, I’ll bet they could even qualify for some government support payments if there was no income earner…

    • E.M. Smith
      Wireless is free on Copacabana beach, but you do run the risk of being killed for your laptop.

  103. AEGeneral (20:55:04) : Is there a silver lining here in the short-term? I’m in need of some positivity here.
    You can do what I do, and that is to laugh at the stupidity. I would like to pretend that alarmists are people that I don’t know, but they aren’t. I talk to believers every day. They are so illinformed that I stopped trying to discuss the science because it always turns into angry politics. I don’t understand their absolute belief when the proof of the opposite is right before their eyes.

  104. Maybe it is time for the strict adherence method. Pick someplace, like Louisiana or Florida, calculate the total swamp gas emissions and sue them for GHG “pollution”. Repeat. Break the system with strict compliance…
    Focus on metro mass transit systems, swamps & bogs, government run electricity generation, sue the Feds for their cut of the offshore oil pumped. Sue them for NOT containing any and every oil seep and gas / clathrate seep. Prove that it just can’t work by killing the government revenue from it with suits. Federal forest cut? Sue for the forgone sequestration and the excess soil breakdown (roots decay). I think we could work it up to a few $TRILLION right quick! (Oooh, and Federal range land for letting cows on too! AND for not putting out the underground coal fires!!)
    In no time at all you could have the cattle lobby, the timber lobby, every major bus / truck seller, the oil drillers, you name it, all up in arms…

  105. @ evanmjones (19:05:01) :
    The Geneva convention only stipulates what warcrimes are, and what you should do next if you caught someone committing a warcrime. That is give the man its rights accoording to the protocol, a fair trial and such.
    Execution is only allowed if your justice-system carries the deathpenalty (and some do only in wartime, and others not at all, not even in wartime).

  106. jeez (21:07:05) : Wireless is free on Copacabana beach, but you do run the risk of being killed for your laptop.
    I was thinking somewhere a bit more discrete … and with a gated pool … and room service at the beach / pool side … This place in Jamaica comes to mind… but that was 30 years ago, before laptops, and I’m sure it has changed…
    FWIW, there are places in the good ‘ol U.S.A. where the wrong color shirt or hanky gets you killed too. It’s all about being aware and selective.

  107. Pres. Obama said yesterday that he promises to base “public policies on the soundest science” as well as to “appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology.” His memorandum on the new research on stem cells directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy “to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making.”
    Do ya think that will apply to the climate question? Unfortunately, I believe it will hold the same strength as the promises to give all legislation a 48-hour airing and end all ear mark spending. His budget relies too heavily on several hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue from the carbon cap-and-trade scheme to overcome the moral relativism of his political promises including “restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making.”

  108. milio (16:49:25) : CFC does not cause ozone destruction. Ozone destruction on Antarctica is a natural process
    Watching the ozone maps has convinced me of that. One pole depleted, the other extra rich! Unless the CFCs were all attracted to one pole, it’s a farce! Given the pattern, it looks like an electrical effect from an EFT event with Birkeland currents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
    creating the ozone.
    (sorry for my english, i’m spanish)
    You’re English is fine. Better than my Spanish (and better than many native speakers of English!)
    Beinvenidos á esta página! WUWT!

  109. @schnurrp (18:35:54) :
    Re Massachusetts v EPA, the decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts dissenting, and Justice Scalia also dissenting and writing a separate dissent. In Roberts’ dissent, he stated quite clearly that this issue was not one for the courts to decide, but instead should have been handled through the legislative process. (see below)
    The 5 votes in favor were the liberal Justices Stevens, Brower, Ginsberg, and Souter, plus Kennedy.
    The 4 votes against were the conservative Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent was joined (agreed to) by the other 3 justices who voted against.
    The decision may be read here:
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
    In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, in part:
    “Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of progress on this issue in the elected branches, petitioners have come to the courts claiming broad-ranging injury, and attempting to tie that injury to the Government’s alleged failure to comply with a rather narrow statutory provision. I would reject these challenges as nonjusticiable. Such a conclusion involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem. Nor does it render petitioners without recourse. This Court’s standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of grievances of the sort at issue here “is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive,” not the federal courts.”
    Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
    Climate Change Attorney

  110. anna v (12:19:31) :
    Industry Insider (11:50:35) :
    The minimum threshold for reporting in the proposed rule is 25,000 metric tons of GHGs, and there are something like 42 industrial source categories for which reporting is required, so individuals will not have to report how much CO2 the exhale.
    Considering that each person exhales about 0.5 metric tons of CO2 a year any large company with more than 50.000 employees is caught. The army comes to mind. Large Universities? Mc Donalds?
    Yes Anna,
    And if emission targets are not met they start culling life stock and in the end culling people.
    http://green-agenda.com
    What must be very clear to everybody:
    CO2 emissions and reduction targets set by legislation provide a serious threat to our freedom, our economy and in the end to our prosperity and our life.
    The world wide effort to push CO2 regulation through is based on a political ideology
    that undermines our democracy and our civil rights.
    From all nations in the world, the USA and the American people will pay the smallest price. Development countries will pay the price in human lives lost due to mass starvation caused by famine.
    The current crises only will jeopardize the lives of 2 billion people short term.
    An 80% cut in CO2 by closing coal powered energy plants and restriction of the use of fossil fuels will force us close down our economy full stop.
    Solar, wind and bio energy can not replace use fossil fuel.
    For this we need other technologies which are not available at this moment in time.
    If CO2 will be classified as an toxic gas this will put a rope around our necks ready for lynching.
    This political agenda is based on a hoax with a single objective:
    To regulate and control humanity in numbers and behavioure.
    This political doctrine can be compared with the communist and socialist systems that killed millions of people in China, Russia, and Cambodia.
    We must stop this madness with all our power.
    It will be a difficult job because the people behind this doctrine have been preparing their coup for a long time and they have infiltrated our democratic systems up to the level of the USA Presidency.
    Building a strong opposition is the first step but there are many big stake holders and interest groups that will take a stand as soon as they know what is going on.
    Informing the public is of the essence.
    For those who believe that US industry will move to India or China if regulation taxes will force them to they must know that this won’t be an option.
    Obama has just announced a review of all Trade Agreements.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030903157.html?wprss=rss_print
    Obama’s policy is to consolidate his popular vote by introducing a Public Health Program, a Student Program, the creation of 3 million “Green Jobs” , the creation of a Civil Army and tax reductions.
    It will not take long before huge groups of Americans will rely on the Obama administration for their bread and butter.
    The near future will show that his economic program to revive the banking system and the economy will fail.
    His initial tax reductions will result in the most devastating tax system in US history.
    Climate legislation and the Federal Budget still have to get through Congress and the Senate.
    If you take a look at his current Federal Budget proposal you will find a post Climate Taxes which result in 300 billion dollar taxation per year to be paid by the American consumers.
    This won’t help the economy to revive and it won’t do anything for our climate.
    It only will make is poor because all the bills end up at our door.
    It will put a break on consumption which is exactly what they want to achieve.
    Therefore, organize, inform people, get in touch with the companies and create a counter movement.
    Or experience the First Global Revolution live the rest of your life under a FASCIST ECO REGIME.
    http://green-agenda.com

  111. “evanmjones (19:12:12) :
    At the Climate Conference, people were looking for simple arguments the layman can latch onto. I intend to supply those, using fewer words and simpler concepts than has been done previously.”
    Thanks evanmjones. I’ll be looking forward to reading your work.
    Also, after watching Lawrence Solomon in the breakfast talk from Monday I was thinking :
    Maybe commenters here can get together and pay for a few 30 second segments on tv to play at commercial breaks with simple messages about the real science, but in very simple, and even funny, layman’s terms. And then say something at the end of the segment like, “Go to WattsUpWithThat.com for more”. The segments wouldn’t have to necessarily be broadcast on the big four channels. Local channels would be a good start, and much less expensive since i don’t know how much could be brought in from commenters for such a project. I think many of us want to do something to reach the mainstream. This might be a good way. It would be far more effective than exchanging comments with, as Anthony has put it, trolls.
    I don’t know if Anthony would like the idea. It’s just a thought.

  112. David Ball (19:45:49) : As I am Canadian, I cannot claim to know the American tax system very well.
    No one does. It is hideously complex. There are even lawyers who specialize in tiny little sub parts of it and don’t know what it really does.
    I am curious about President Obama saying that no one making less than $250,000 per year will see any tax increases.
    This is political lies. First off, he means “any federal income tax rate increases”. There will be plenty of increases in federal excise taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, severance taxes (on oil, gas, whatever), CO2 taxes, etc. Oh, and remember that a federal fee is not a tax… Now, that “rate” part just means that if you make $100,000 you will pay a certain percentage after deductions. They can still eliminate the deductions for things they don’t like (like, oh, car milage) and you pay more tax, but your rate didn’t go up! Get the picture? Then as inflation from spending a few $Trillion we don’t have kicks in, to earn the same value as that old $100,000 gave, you will need to earn $200,000 (and thus pay more taxes) but without a rate increase… lucky you…
    Then announcing that a cap and trade implementation will bring in $650 billion. Will this not be felt in the pocketbook by every American? Will the cost not eventually be felt by the consumer in every imaginable product?
    But those taxes will be payed by companies. Yes, they will pack it into the price of goods and services, but those will be price increases due to evil corporate greed, not tax increases!
    Is this slight of hand, or am I missing something?
    You are missing something:
    “How can you tell a politician is lying? His mouth is moving!”
    Just remember to ask yourself “What is is?” and “Is it a tax if it is a fee?” and What about if we get a company to collect if for us as a price increase?”
    And just remember, these are the folks who think that cutting the expected rate of growth of spending from 6% to 4% growth is a “cut in spending”…
    Cutting the 1st or 2nd derivative is not cutting the object, but they keep on saying it is…

  113. AEGeneral (20:55:04) : The ultimate outcome of CO2 regulation will be inflation. I’m curious as to what effect this might have on real estate values,
    Is there a silver lining here in the short-term?

    Short term, no joy. Longer term, real estate is a good idea.
    jeez (21:00:01) : Not likely a silver lining there. Real Estate values are traditionally a function of interest rates which are already at rock bottom. As they go up to control inflation, the corresponding value of the Real Estate has to drop in order to make monthly payments affordable.
    You are correct in the short term. And if you had said Real Estate Prices, rather than values, I’d agree even more… The real estate VALUE is the constant, it’s the money price that changes. Money is a “rubber ruler” in times of inflation.
    This is all about time frame and time lags. Inflation has a several year lag to get cooking. In the short run, it’s all about interest rates. But in the long run (multi years to decades) it’s all about inflation. At the peak of the last oil / energy shock inflation spiral, interest rates were up around 12% to 18% and prices were inflating like crazy.
    So what will happen? Right Now, we need near zero interest rates so the economy does not die. What you want to be doing Right Now is locking in a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at this dead money bottom.
    Eventually, this too shall pass. At that time the Fed will start pulling interest rates back up. A pace with that, real estate prices will also rise (due to economic recovery). This is normal business cycle recovery behaviour. More housing demand from folks with a new job drives the home prices up from foreclosure lows to “normal” as rates rise from dead low to “affordable low”.
    At some point prices and rates will pass through the equilibrium point. (Probably about 3-5 years away) Prices will be those that a typical fully employed worker can afford at a reasonable interest rate. (probably about 4% Fed rate or about 7% mortgage)
    Then they will keep on going…
    That’s what happens during the excess growth phase of the business cycle. Normally the Fed would kick the Fed Funds rate up to about 5 or even 6% (mortgages 8% to 9%) and pull the market back via a bit of a slap down / recession with home priced dropping and the cycle repeats. (What we just had was this effect on steroids, and without much of an interest rate bump to pop the bubble…)
    BUT…
    When you have excessive money supply, when the government is printing pretty pieces of paper by the multiple Trillions and spending them, eventually that will make the pretty pieces of paper a bit less interesting to own. But it takes time. (Typically about 4 to 6 years, sometimes faster, often slower.)
    When that happens, the FED raises rates and no one cares because if your money is losing 10% a year in purchasing power, you don’t care if you will get paid 9% on a bond or 8% on a mortgage. You just want to dump the cash, quick. And buying a house dumps that cash while locking in an asset with real value (and with 90%+ borrowed in debt dollars that are inflating away…) That is when real estate starts going up 10% / year in it’s nominal price (real value holds constant, but the money is cheapening) and you are thrilled to death to put a 8% mortgage on the house.
    In that context, you don’t lose any value on the money you spent for the down payment (and are dodging the 10% inflation tax on that cash you spent). The 90% that you borrowed is shrinking 10% in real terms per year (though you have to pay 8% mortgage) so you even make 2% / year compound real value on your debt! Heaven! And if you did it right and got a 5% government subsidized loan that’s even better…
    Those folks with an old 4% mortgage are thrilled to death, since they have to pay back ever less real value in ever more worthless pretty pieces of paper. Everyone feels richer, since their home is “worth more”, unless measured in loves of bread, ounces of gold, or hours of labor to build… The losers are the folks who bought 30 year bonds or issued those 30 year fixed mortgages…
    So Cap and Tirade will result in higher real estate prices, but we’re talking 4 to 6 years (though some economic recovery will raise prices some sooner).
    The Problem…
    We night not get inflation. We might get ‘stagflation’ or even ‘deflation’. I don’t expect deflation. Deflation is hideous (we’ve had a bare whiff of it in the last 2 years. We went to ‘zero’, not negative, inflation. Imagine what real deflation would have been like… SO the FED et.al. are moving heaven and earth to avoid deflation… Stagflation is what we’re likely to get. No growth (i.e. that house price bump from folks with new jobs doesn’t happen) but we do get the inflation in 4 or 5 years.
    Most things stay the same, you just don’t have enough money to do anything about it 😉 and home prices rise more slowly.
    In all these scenarios the thing to do now stays the same: Refinance, 30 year fixed. As we sort out into inflation with growth or stagflation, you still want inflation defensive investments (like houses and metals) but stagflation you also want some ready cash investments like TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities).
    One Sidebar: Currencies. The dollar will end up dropping against currencies that are more disciplined. Swiss Franc, Japanese yen, maybe even the Euro. This too will take time. When things are bad, folks run to the dollar. The idea is that it’s a whore, but it’s the best whore in the whorehouse. But eventually the discipline (or lack of it) dominates. Those countries with significant trade advantages have their currencies creep up (Chinese Yuan) and those who make things for export that are in demand also rise (Aussy Dollar, Loonie – Canadian dollar, Brazilian Real) as demand for their metals and mine goods rises. So buying into stocks of miners et. al. in those currencies makes some sense. FXF is the Swiss Franc, FXY is the yen, FXC is the Loonie, FXE is the Euro, FXA is the Aussy dollar and BZF is the Real. Or you can buy stocks in those currencies and try for a “2 fer”.
    In time of inflation, I usually go to Yen or Swiss Francs and buy stocks in Australia and Brazil (especially if it’s oil shock related as Brazil is immune from oil shocks being energy independent…).
    So, bottom line: It’s a bit early to worry about inflation, but a 30 year fixed mortage is a good idea right now… There is plenty of time to ‘rig for inflation’ and / or deflation. Measured in years.

  114. E M SMith said
    “So I’m shopping for a better place to be. I just hope that I can hold out 2 more years for the kids to be out of college.”
    I’m thinking of Italy. Not because theyre not as mad as the Anglo Saxon world is becoming but because I don’t understand a word of the language and in this case ignorance is bliss.
    TonyB

  115. Milio and EM SMith
    It would be interesting to see a thread on WUWT on CFC’s and ozone depletion.
    I came across a reference to renewed doubts on causes and queried it with a leading Cambridge professor and did some follow up work with the Max Planck institute.
    Previously I would have just accepted the theory 100%. Now I have a 40% doubt as the ozone hole last year was the second biggest ever as (almost)predicted by someone who links it to cosmic rays.
    I dont have the background in this field to know the science but the circumstantial information and reading other peoples reports suggests this story still has life.
    Tonyb

  116. E.M.Smith (21:04:59) :
    ‘Consumers have already shut their wallets.’
    Then shut your wallet some more and work to throw the bums out of office. Put a stragle hold on the politicans who are choking “the goose that lays the golden egg”.

  117. E.M.Smith (00:21:45) : “Refinance, 30 year fixed. ”
    May I add that you should also consider a a 30 year fixed with interest only for 10 years. This will lower your payment now. Using the time value of money theory, your increased payment in 10 years will most likely be of less value than your payment today. Just be sure it is a FIXED rate, not variable. If you take the difference now and apply it to paying down other consumer debt you may have it’s a win win situation for yourself. And if you structure the loan properly any payments to principle during the first 10 years will lower the balance immediately and reduce the monthly interest payment immediately as opposed to an amoritized loan where the payment stays the same throughout the length of the loan. The option to pay more now and lower the payment now remains with you not the lender.

  118. Anna V: The draft rule does not apply to mobile sources of emissions (e.g., humans, cars, etc.), so a company would not be pulled in simply due to having a large number of employees. Still, this is a slippery slope, and I agree with the general sentiment that CO2 regulations are a form of eco-fascism.

  119. With reference to the complaints that using a graph starting in 1998 would be cherry picking, and thus following the bad example of the AGW crowd: Keep in mind that there is a world of difference between proving and disproving something. In mathematics (where formal proof is God), showing that a theorem works for a million cases does constitute a proof. However, showing that it doesn’t work for one particular case is absolute proof that the theorem is false. The AGW folks cherry pick dates in an effort to supposedly prove man-made global warming. We would be just as bad if we used the 1998-to-the-present data in an attempt to prove man-made global cooling. However, it is perfectly valid to use the 1998-to-the-present data to disprove their theory of man made global warming.

  120. All matter, including CO2 molecules, when temperatuers are above absolute zero emit radiation accoding to the Stefan Boltzmann Law. The 15 micron waveband for CO2 absorbs 19% of IR (at 40 C source) as it passes through the air. CO2 molecules reradiate spherically reduding total absorption to 9.5%. The 2.7 and 4.5 micron bands are not significant. The 9.5% is independent of Co” concentration as is global warming.

  121. Re John F Hultquist:
    I received an e-mail from a good friend who teaches physics at the U of Idaho. He complains that the temperature was 7 F last night. It was 26
    F here in the Seattle area earlier this morning. BRRRR!

  122. Re Robert van der Veeke and evanmjones:
    Geneva Convention is generic. There are several major accords dealing with a variety of subjects. Be specific. A simple reference is neither helpful nor descriptive.
    Re Everyone:
    Business will move to avoid CO2 emissions regulations and their costs. Wealthy people and their money will move to jurisdictions with favorable tax regimes to avoid a confiscatory income tax on earnings in excess of $250,000/yr.
    However, cap and trade and sale of carbon credits operates as a regressive national sales tax on virtually everything purchased or consumed. The middle class and the poor, who cannot move, will suffer the most.

  123. How long before we as individuals have to report our CO2 production from;
    Our cars
    Our furnaces
    Our lawnmowers
    Our snow throwers
    And yes our breathing?

  124. The EPA must be composed of a bunch of time serving nerds with not one independent scientific thinker amongst them.

Comments are closed.