UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[BigBallinStalin]

You are looking for the cohesive property of liquid water. Also, you believe in something with no scientific basis (chemtrails), but flail wildly about something demonstrated scientifically (CO2 is a significant factor in climate forcing). How do you reconcile these things, other than "everyone is out to get you" stance?

Reconcile? Why would he do that? He's got that Phatscotty Dodge mastered.

[BigBallinStalin]

For those who do not quite get what entropy is, it is: The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

That's not what entropy is. Entropy is a measure of disorder, or information content, in a system. What you're trying to discuss is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy increases in any irreversible process.

Is disorder technically the correct term? Or do most physicists rely on that 'information content' part?

For example, if my home is initially at 50 degrees F and outside is 30 degrees F, then to me at this stage there is a 'disorder'/disequilibrium between these two object's temperatures. Acc. to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I should expect... entropy (thus disorder?) to increase as the temperature in my house approaches 30 degrees F? But once my house reaches 30 degrees, then I'd call that an equilibrium (thus order).

Can you clarify entropy and that 2nd law?

[Metsfanmax]

For those who do not quite get what entropy is, it is: The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

That's not what entropy is. Entropy is a measure of disorder, or information content, in a system. What you're trying to discuss is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy increases in any irreversible process.

Is disorder technically the correct term? Or do most physicists rely on that 'information content' part?

In this case, I am using disorder in reference to information content. From a microscopic perspective, entropy is a measure of how much information we don't have about a system. That is, suppose you know that a gas is at temperature T and pressure P. There's lots of different ways to organize the individual atoms in that gas so that when you measure the properties of the gas, you get that result. Entropy is a measure of the number of possible ways to do that. Since you can only measure those macroscopic quantities and not the properties of the individual atoms, that's where the "information you don't have" part comes from.

Information content is the idea that most physicists actually use if they're studying the properties of entropy. On the other hand, I use entropy all the time when studying fluid dynamics, and in the macroscopic context, that information content idea is not helpful. Entropy just a number that we use to measure heat exchange properties. It can be thought of as a measure of the amount of heat that is unavailable to do useful work.

For example, if my home is initially at 50 degrees F and outside is 30 degrees F, then to me at this stage there is a 'disorder'/disequilibrium between these two object's temperatures. Acc. to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I should expect... entropy (thus disorder?) to increase as the temperature in my house approaches 30 degrees F? But once my house reaches 30 degrees, then I'd call that an equilibrium (thus order).

Can you clarify entropy and that 2nd law?

Systems want to be in equilibrium, and if you open the window, then the combined "outside + home" system will attempt to reach that equilibrium. The temperature of your house will reach an equilibrium with the air outside that is close to the 30 degrees the outside air started with. Now, the entropy of your home decreased slightly because it cooled down, but the entropy of the surrounding air increased because it gained the heat from your home. The second law of thermodynamics says that the total entropy of the system (outside + home) will be greater than before you opened the window (i.e., the entropy of the outside air increased more than the entropy of your home decreased). In other words, going from a non-equilibrium state to the equilibrium state results in an increase in entropy.

[_sabotage_]

There is more water, by how much? I've gone through this, and shown that the amount of CO2 is negligible.

BBS, imagine a blacksmith with a hot sword. When he puts it into a bucket of water, the two quickly reach an equilibrium. If the sword is at a higher temperature, it will create more steam as more energy is being transferred.

Unfortunately Mets there is a simple means of confirming that outgoing radiation increases with terrestrial temperature, and its something man made climate scientists need to neglect, and do, to make their models.

Your explanation of entropy in regards to homes concerns me at a deep level.

Heat transfer through materials is measured in R values. Only a hermetically sealed home would act as described. That is, it would be based on air hitting the glass. Unfortunately, the inhabitants would die. In general, a house requires exchanges of air every three hours. More would mean you lose too much heat. Less would mean you would be lacking ventilation. But regardless, the heat will do as it does and rise. The air near a heater furnace does not gain heat and "trap it" next to the heater but is transferred via convection, radiation and conduction.

If you want to compare the house to the earth, then outside of the house is space, that is, while I have the heat in my house, I can direct it, recycle it and do what I can to create a lag in its dispersal. Similar to economics, there will be a point where retaining e heat cots more than adding heat. Heat exchangers do work, but will never be 100% efficient.

As Mets himself says, heat is lost to space. Is there a way to recycle this heat? Not really. CO2 will produce a microscopic lag, but just as that sword cools in contact with water, CO2 will pass on its heat to the water vapor and other molecules which are infinitely more abundant in the atmosphere.

He wishes that they didn't pass on heat, so he can cling to his ideology. But science is corrupt. They have chosen to ignore physical laws in exchange for ability to dictate policy and gain funding.

To answer your question, if the house is hotter it lose the heat faster? Everything equal, then yes. Heat increases the activity of the particles and creates a greater temperature gradient between the inside and out. Another way of inking about it is, when its 75 outside, you don't need to heat your house, but when it hits -30 you do, what has changed? When its 75 out there is equilibrium, but as the temperature drops, then the 75 in your house gets drained down to the new equilibrium unless you are add in e necessary heat to stave it off. And the cooler it gets, the more wood you burn.

[Symmetry]

But science is corrupt. They have chosen to ignore physical laws in exchange for ability to dictate policy and gain funding

I think you might be thinking of magicians with this one, although I'm not sure about the policy part.

[thegreekdog]

For those who do not quite get what entropy is, it is: The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

That's not what entropy is. Entropy is a measure of disorder, or information content, in a system. What you're trying to discuss is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy increases in any irreversible process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_the_Entropic_Man

[Metsfanmax]

For those who do not quite get what entropy is, it is: The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

That's not what entropy is. Entropy is a measure of disorder, or information content, in a system. What you're trying to discuss is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy increases in any irreversible process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_the_Entropic_Man

Or is it Jude the Obscure?

As Mets himself says, heat is lost to space. Is there a way to recycle this heat? Not really. CO2 will produce a microscopic lag, but just as that sword cools in contact with water, CO2 will pass on its heat to the water vapor and other molecules which are infinitely more abundant in the atmosphere.

He wishes that they didn't pass on heat, so he can cling to his ideology.

Yes, I do wish that carbon dioxide didn't transfer the heat. The fact that it does is the problem. If the carbon dioxide just absorbed all that radiation, then only the carbon dioxide would get hot. But the fact that it does transfer its heat to other parts of the atmosphere is the problem. That's why the whole atmosphere is warming.

[thegreekdog]

Or is it Jude the Obscure?

I thought it Jude the Entropic Man was a cool name.

[BigBallinStalin]

For those who do not quite get what entropy is, it is: The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

That's not what entropy is. Entropy is a measure of disorder, or information content, in a system. What you're trying to discuss is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy increases in any irreversible process.

Is disorder technically the correct term? Or do most physicists rely on that 'information content' part?

In this case, I am using disorder in reference to information content. From a microscopic perspective, entropy is a measure of how much information we don't have about a system. That is, suppose you know that a gas is at temperature T and pressure P. There's lots of different ways to organize the individual atoms in that gas so that when you measure the properties of the gas, you get that result. Entropy is a measure of the number of possible ways to do that. Since you can only measure those macroscopic quantities and not the properties of the individual atoms, that's where the "information you don't have" part comes from.

Information content is the idea that most physicists actually use if they're studying the properties of entropy. On the other hand, I use entropy all the time when studying fluid dynamics, and in the macroscopic context, that information content idea is not helpful. Entropy just a number that we use to measure heat exchange properties. It can be thought of as a measure of the amount of heat that is unavailable to do useful work.

For example, if my home is initially at 50 degrees F and outside is 30 degrees F, then to me at this stage there is a 'disorder'/disequilibrium between these two object's temperatures. Acc. to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I should expect... entropy (thus disorder?) to increase as the temperature in my house approaches 30 degrees F? But once my house reaches 30 degrees, then I'd call that an equilibrium (thus order).

Can you clarify entropy and that 2nd law?

Systems want to be in equilibrium, and if you open the window, then the combined "outside + home" system will attempt to reach that equilibrium. The temperature of your house will reach an equilibrium with the air outside that is close to the 30 degrees the outside air started with. Now, the entropy of your home decreased slightly because it cooled down, but the entropy of the surrounding air increased because it gained the heat from your home. The second law of thermodynamics says that the total entropy of the system (outside + home) will be greater than before you opened the window (i.e., the entropy of the outside air increased more than the entropy of your home decreased). In other words, going from a non-equilibrium state to the equilibrium state results in an increase in entropy.

Thanks.

[_sabotage_]

All right, Mets.

You are absolutely right.

So let's follow the train of thought of the IPCC and UN. Their solution to the problem is:

End private property,
Impose a tax on living,
Control all resources,
And stabilize world's population to between 500,000,000-1,500,000,000 people.

These are not to be Democratic policies, but policies which limit the ability of democracy to act within their confines.

Let's begin with population stabilization, what do you propose, or since you at merely letting the UN abrogate your support into their control, what is the UN proposing?

Remember, we only have a short time to act or we all face annihilation due to climate change, so how is the population going to be stabilized in a short period of time, especially with the elite able to live longer and longer (apparently)?

If we start with the deniers, and I guess we might as well include holocaust deniers too, and include those who have never even heard of climate change, we could get rid of mos of Asia, Africa and a large part of the third world who haven't taken the time to inform themselves, we can eliminate some of the first world as well.

Now we are down to about 2 billion. Now who? We can't really do much to the Germans, French, Danes because they operate on renewable energy. Perhaps the wasteful Americans, Aussies, Brits and Canadians, South Koreans and Japanese. Lets kill half of them. If we then eliminate the rogue nations we are at our upper limit.

Now we are getting somewhere.bringing in the other policies will show us who else can go. Any opposition and see ya. What are we left with? A small group who is utterly at the mercy of a tiny group. AKA slavery. Well done, you have saved the planet.

How shall we kill them though? We don't want to be left with a guilt ridden population under the control of a governing body who s completely devoided themselves of moral authority. And we do need something that justifies our positions. Perhaps a massive "natural" disaster? Maybe a nuclear war? What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

[Metsfanmax]

What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

I suggest a steadily rising tax on all sources of greenhouse gases into the market, starting at $15/ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year. 100% of the revenues from this tax should be returned to Americans as a dividend.

[BigBallinStalin]

What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

I suggest a steadily rising tax on all sources of greenhouse gases into the market, starting at $15/ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year. 100% of the revenues from this tax should be returned to Americans as a dividend.

When you get government involved, that's not how it will play out. Government and lobbying groups (commercial, environmental, military, etc.) have their own goals to fulfill as well.

[Metsfanmax]

What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

I suggest a steadily rising tax on all sources of greenhouse gases into the market, starting at $15/ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year. 100% of the revenues from this tax should be returned to Americans as a dividend.

When you get government involved, that's not how it will play out. Government and lobbying groups (commercial, environmental, military, etc.) have their own goals to fulfill as well.

Perhaps I won't get what I want if I ask... but if I don't ask, I definitely won't.

[BigBallinStalin]

What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

I suggest a steadily rising tax on all sources of greenhouse gases into the market, starting at $15/ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year. 100% of the revenues from this tax should be returned to Americans as a dividend.

When you get government involved, that's not how it will play out. Government and lobbying groups (commercial, environmental, military, etc.) have their own goals to fulfill as well.

Perhaps I won't get what I want if I ask... but if I don't ask, I definitely won't.

Maybe; it's not always the case that asking for something from government is good in the long-term. Besides, if you want something, there are substitutes beyond the rent-seeking, corrupted environment of government--e.g. markets and civil society organizations (bottom-up planning).

Anyway, the main point is that the first problem of government must be addressed when appealing to any government-provided solution: In order for your desired plan to be fulfilled, politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbying groups will require some benefit to themselves. If this is ignored, then you won't get what you want, and perhaps the result will be even worse than having done nothing (foreign military and non-military interventions come to mind). A big recent example was well-intended voters wanting to help the poor by supporting the ACA--which was essentially a boondoggle for health insurance companies and didn't really provide what people were asking for.

You can either support corruption or deal with it in your opinions. Posing some ideal position isn't useful without considering that fundamental problem of government is not useful and does more harm than good. That's all I'm asking for.

[Phatscotty]

[Metsfanmax]

What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

I suggest a steadily rising tax on all sources of greenhouse gases into the market, starting at $15/ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year. 100% of the revenues from this tax should be returned to Americans as a dividend.

When you get government involved, that's not how it will play out. Government and lobbying groups (commercial, environmental, military, etc.) have their own goals to fulfill as well.

Perhaps I won't get what I want if I ask... but if I don't ask, I definitely won't.

Maybe, or you can simply avoid government all together by asking them to not get involved at all.

Those are two mutually exclusive options. By asking government to not get involved, you're no longer avoiding government, but becoming involved in the political process. If you have enough influence to get them to stop listening to lobbyists, you also have enough influence to get them to make better energy policy.

The main point is that the first problem of government must be addressed when appealing to any government-provided solution: In order for your desired plan to be fulfilled, politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbying groups will require some benefit to themselves. If this is ignored, then you won't get what you want, and perhaps the result will be even worse than having done nothing (foreign military and non-military interventions come to mind). A big recent example was well-intended voters wanting to help the poor by supporting the ACA--which was essentially a boondoggle for health insurance companies.

Since I view government intervention in the energy sector as something that's both 1) tough to eliminate and 2) undesirable to eliminate, I'd rather direct it to more positive ends. Regarding point 1, if government is going to regulate it should be doing it in the most economically efficient way possible, which is to tax things we don't like instead of trying to guess which technologies will be best in 20 years and subsidizing them. Regarding point 2, I don't believe that the situation with no government intervention is more likely to eliminate anthropogenic global warming influences than the situation with intervention, so it makes more sense to use the approach in the last sentence.

In other words, corruption is inevitable, but that's not a reason to avoid changing the status quo.

[Phatscotty]

What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

I suggest a steadily rising tax on all sources of greenhouse gases into the market, starting at $15/ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year. 100% of the revenues from this tax should be returned to Americans as a dividend.

Mets, I totally respect your opinion on this issue. You have spoken more eloquently than most others, and you know your science pretty darn well. But where we disagree is the policy in response.

While I do think we need to do something, I think giving an already severely bloated government billions more dollars is a big mistake. The government gets bigger, almost half of the money is wasted, and friends of the administration will always get waivers and extra credits and offsetting tax breaks and special privileges. And if we did implement your suggestion, we would run into the all to familiar government reality of what should be done/what is actually done. Like the auto-bailouts, yeah, sure, the profits were returned to Americans..... with most checks payable to lawyers and bankers and CEO's. If you got a cut of those billions, then I will stand corrected, but I did not get a check. And when the government gets that dividend back, they are just going to spend it somewhere else, growing government and regulations, again at almost 50% waste. And for what? Does it really make the air any cleaner? Is it really going to reduce climate change? Are the biggest polluters really going to pay? Most likely, it's going to reduce economic output, normal tax revenues, jobs, earnings, and benefits. And it will result in only the biggest companies being able to stay in business, which are the typical "waiver" crowd that makes huge political donations to both parties, and they always get their favors in return. It would mostly hurt the little guys, not to mention it will jack up prices on their products and make them less accessible to everyone.

[Phatscotty]

Since I view government intervention in the energy sector as something that's both 1) tough to eliminate and 2) undesirable to eliminate, I'd rather direct it to more positive ends. Regarding point 1, if government is going to regulate it should be doing it in the most economically efficient way possible, which is to tax things we don't like instead of trying to guess which technologies will be best in 20 years and subsidizing them. Regarding point 2, I don't believe that the situation with no government intervention is more likely to eliminate anthropogenic global warming influences than the situation with intervention, so it makes more sense to use the approach in the last sentence.

Believe me, I very much wish the government you described or the way it should operate was the government we have.

But we don't have that.

[Metsfanmax]

Since I view government intervention in the energy sector as something that's both 1) tough to eliminate and 2) undesirable to eliminate, I'd rather direct it to more positive ends. Regarding point 1, if government is going to regulate it should be doing it in the most economically efficient way possible, which is to tax things we don't like instead of trying to guess which technologies will be best in 20 years and subsidizing them. Regarding point 2, I don't believe that the situation with no government intervention is more likely to eliminate anthropogenic global warming influences than the situation with intervention, so it makes more sense to use the approach in the last sentence.

Believe me, I very much wish the government you described or the way it should operate was the government we have.

But we don't have that.

I reject your pessimism and substitute it with activism. Diminishing of special interest influence in government doesn't happen by complaining about it on Facebook -- it happens by communicating with your representative and clearly telling them what policy you want.

[BigBallinStalin]

What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

I suggest a steadily rising tax on all sources of greenhouse gases into the market, starting at $15/ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year. 100% of the revenues from this tax should be returned to Americans as a dividend.

When you get government involved, that's not how it will play out. Government and lobbying groups (commercial, environmental, military, etc.) have their own goals to fulfill as well.

Perhaps I won't get what I want if I ask... but if I don't ask, I definitely won't.

Maybe, or you can simply avoid government all together by asking them to not get involved at all.

Those are two mutually exclusive options. By asking government to not get involved, you're no longer avoiding government, but becoming involved in the political process. If you have enough influence to get them to stop listening to lobbyists, you also have enough influence to get them to make better energy policy.

Well, one can never muster enough influence to block politicians and bureaucrats from incentives which are conducive to their self-interests. It's not a matter of influencing politicians, but rather it's about influencing people's opinions about government and curtailing the scope of the national government so that (a) the worst people in government can do the least harm and (b) people's expectations of government are updated with proper parameters.

I updated my last post with this, so it should clarify what I mean:
It's not always the case that asking for something from government is good in the long-term. Besides, if you want something, there are substitutes beyond the rent-seeking, corrupted environment of government--e.g. markets and civil society organizations (bottom-up planning).

The main point is that the first problem of government must be addressed when appealing to any government-provided solution: In order for your desired plan to be fulfilled, politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbying groups will require some benefit to themselves. If this is ignored, then you won't get what you want, and perhaps the result will be even worse than having done nothing (foreign military and non-military interventions come to mind). A big recent example was well-intended voters wanting to help the poor by supporting the ACA--which was essentially a boondoggle for health insurance companies.

Since I view government intervention in the energy sector as something that's both 1) tough to eliminate and 2) undesirable to eliminate, I'd rather direct it to more positive ends. Regarding point 1, if government is going to regulate it should be doing it in the most economically efficient way possible, which is to tax things we don't like instead of trying to guess which technologies will be best in 20 years and subsidizing them. Regarding point 2, I don't believe that the situation with no government intervention is more likely to eliminate anthropogenic global warming influences than the situation with intervention, so it makes more sense to use the approach in the last sentence.

In other words, corruption is inevitable, but that's not a reason to avoid changing the status quo.

The underlined is an unrealistic and unachievable goal.

Again, you want change, but you'll get something like Obama's ACA (something suboptimal and perhaps even worse than before).

Finally, the choice isn't between markets and government; there's civil society to consider as well as a variety of possible types of governance (e.g. limited government v. increasing centralized government). For example, you could have a more competitive type of governance which handles the innately corrupt properties of government agents while constraining the consequences and perverse opportunities since they exert more control over a less amount of territory.

[Metsfanmax]

Those are two mutually exclusive options. By asking government to not get involved, you're no longer avoiding government, but becoming involved in the political process. If you have enough influence to get them to stop listening to lobbyists, you also have enough influence to get them to make better energy policy.

Well, one can never muster enough influence to block politicians and bureaucrats from incentives which are conducive to their self-interests. It's not a matter of influencing politicians, but rather it's about influencing people's opinions about government and curtailing the scope of the national government so that (a) the worst people in government can do the least harm and (b) people's expectations of government are updated with proper parameters.

Of course not. Instead, one should focus on convincing politicians that their self-interests include listening to their constituents, or else they won't be around next term. So I agree that it's about influencing people's opinions, but mostly because that's the way to convince a politician that they should act a certain way.

I updated my last post with this, so it should clarify what I mean:
It's not always the case that asking for something from government is good in the long-term. Besides, if you want something, there are substitutes beyond the rent-seeking, corrupted environment of government--e.g. markets and civil society organizations (bottom-up planning).

It's also not always the case that allowing the market to go unregulated is good in the long-term (with global warming being a paramount example). Even in the absolute best case scenario based on the arguments you have previously made, where we remove all government regulation and increases in efficiency cause us to stabilize or decrease carbon dioxide emissions, that's not going to change China's ever-increasing demand for coal. So any policy has to consider the global influences as well. A carbon tax with an associated tariff on imports from non-carbon-pricing countries has the possibility of inducing serious global changes.

Since I view government intervention in the energy sector as something that's both 1) tough to eliminate and 2) undesirable to eliminate, I'd rather direct it to more positive ends. Regarding point 1, if government is going to regulate it should be doing it in the most economically efficient way possible, which is to tax things we don't like instead of trying to guess which technologies will be best in 20 years and subsidizing them. Regarding point 2, I don't believe that the situation with no government intervention is more likely to eliminate anthropogenic global warming influences than the situation with intervention, so it makes more sense to use the approach in the last sentence.

In other words, corruption is inevitable, but that's not a reason to avoid changing the status quo.

The underlined is an unrealistic and unachievable goal.

Again, you want change, but you'll get something like Obama's ACA (something suboptimal and perhaps even worse than before).

That's a possibility, but it's far from a certainty. Part of the motivation here is that advocating for something simple and transparent like a flat tax on all sources into the market is that it's much harder for special interests to corrupt than a system like cap-and-trade. If you design your policy with that in mind, you minimize the risks of your policy getting spiked. And the stakes are high enough to make that bet anyway.

Finally, the choice isn't between markets and government; there's civil society to consider as well as a variety of possible types of governance (e.g. limited government v. increasing centralized government). For example, you could have a more competitive type of governance which handles the innately corrupt properties of government agents while constraining the consequences and perverse opportunities since they exert more control over a less amount of territory.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it's going too far afield from the topic at hand. I need to work within the system we have now, because we can't wait another two decades to start seriously addressing this problem.

[Phatscotty]

Since I view government intervention in the energy sector as something that's both 1) tough to eliminate and 2) undesirable to eliminate, I'd rather direct it to more positive ends. Regarding point 1, if government is going to regulate it should be doing it in the most economically efficient way possible, which is to tax things we don't like instead of trying to guess which technologies will be best in 20 years and subsidizing them. Regarding point 2, I don't believe that the situation with no government intervention is more likely to eliminate anthropogenic global warming influences than the situation with intervention, so it makes more sense to use the approach in the last sentence.

Believe me, I very much wish the government you described or the way it should operate was the government we have.

But we don't have that.

I reject your pessimism and substitute it with activism. Diminishing of special interest influence in government doesn't happen by complaining about it on Facebook -- it happens by communicating with your representative and clearly telling them what policy you want.

my negative comments aside, do you really believe that pessimism is not warranted in this case?

[Phatscotty]

What would you suggest?, time is of the essence.

I suggest a steadily rising tax on all sources of greenhouse gases into the market, starting at $15/ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year. 100% of the revenues from this tax should be returned to Americans as a dividend.

Mets, I totally respect your opinion on this issue. You have spoken more eloquently than most others, and you know your science pretty darn well. But where we disagree is the policy in response.

While I do think we need to do something, I think giving an already severely bloated government billions more dollars is a big mistake. The government gets bigger, almost half of the money is wasted, and friends of the administration will always get waivers and extra credits and offsetting tax breaks and special privileges. And if we did implement your suggestion, we would run into the all to familiar government reality of what should be done/what is actually done. Like the auto-bailouts, yeah, sure, the profits were returned to Americans..... with most checks payable to lawyers and bankers and CEO's. If you got a cut of those billions, then I will stand corrected, but I did not get a check. And when the government gets that dividend back, they are just going to spend it somewhere else, growing government and regulations, again at almost 50% waste. And for what? Does it really make the air any cleaner? Is it really going to reduce climate change? Are the biggest polluters really going to pay? Most likely, it's going to reduce economic output, normal tax revenues, jobs, earnings, and benefits. And it will result in only the biggest companies being able to stay in business, which are the typical "waiver" crowd that makes huge political donations to both parties, and they always get their favors in return. It would mostly hurt the little guys, not to mention it will jack up prices on their products and make them less accessible to everyone.

For example: North Dakota, which has established virtually a negative unemployment rate. I know more than a handful of people who went to North Dakota with absolutely nothing, and every single one of them found 2 full time jobs within 3-5 days. What do you think the results would be if your suggestion were implemented in North Dakota? What would happen to the workers? the companies? the tax base?

[_sabotage_]

I can't remember which department the professor was from, but he described a method of using the heat from soil, I don't mean in-ground heat pumps, but a method using solar energy. The exact method he described had been tested by students from a university in Colorado to heat a greenhouse .

I raised my hand, and mentioned as much. I asked, why couldn't this system be built into new houses. He replied, "What about existing housing?" His tone made it clear what he meant. He didn't mean, but shouldn't we do something for existing housing, he meant, it would be unfair to people who are paying for their heating and his students paying for their education to service the need for heating.

Why an ETS system is better than an in ground heat pump is simple. Because installing is merely putting an aluminum tube from the ceiling and directing it into the ground which acts as a thermal mass. This is the exact opposite of a heat pump and uses heats insistence on rising, and aluminum's ability to transfer heat. It doesn't use a pump, or refrigerant. And the only excavating required for installation is being excavated anyway to make the foundation, where a heat pump needs 15k worth of its own excavating to gain enough heat. This and a few other things helped keep that greenhouse in the 50s with no heating bill even when it reached -20 outside. There are a few other ways of heating your house for free and and could be added to the design of the house at little extra cost.

I met a guy the other day and we got to chatting. Other are thousands of these guys around here. They have the right combination of cheap and creative, and fairly well to do in general. He made his own biodiesel for his tractor and was lamenting the need to heat it over 300 C. He was an older guy, so being the quiet guy I am, I mainly listened.

He had a few interesting thins to say:

I don't know why there's all this fingerpointing at China, it's all Western companies that tell them how to make their products and with what and that's what causes all their pollution.

The housing code in Canada is only there to protect industry from competition.

I have been trying to build a hemp house here. At the permitting office, they said, sure you can build it if you can get a engineer to sign off on it. I asked if a foreign engineer would do. Nope has to be from Nova Scotia and he has to base his experience off of Nova Scotia housing.

What that means, is if it hasn't been built here, it can't be built here. Nothing will ever change.

Why do I write all this? Well, we have over time even put a price on water, and now you suggest we do so with air. It doesn't matter what price you put on it in the beginning, because eventually, it will just go up until some are priced out of the market. You can take in all the oxygen you want, but exhaling means you're braking the law.

My real question, France, England, Canada, US, Australia all have hemp housing. According to the studies, it is carbon neutral because the carbon emitted in its construction is absorbed by it in its lifetime. It also reduces energy use in half. It is also dirt cheap to make. We have seen houses with such claims in the past. In general they run into code problems, or are built as experimental housing that can't be lived in or sold.

I have a 9 bedroom house built by one of the officers in charge of making the Acadians Cajuns. It was not built with a permit, or according to code, and yet still stands as long as the USA has. It costs about 6k a year to heat. Under the new energy prices, that will go up 20%.

I have studies conducted independently by more than 20 universities on 4 continents, including Canada. All have tested the structural qualities, R values and others conducted a variety of different tests.

The government will not permit me to use hemp to renovate and cut my energy bill in half. It is a heritage property and cannot be changed on the outside, limiting my ways of making more energy efficient with conventional materials and upping the cost by 900%.

So should I pay the extra carbon tax, and heating costs or the 900% more expensive, off gassing method? And I don't care about the economic perspective, I ask you to tell me from a moral perspective.

[Metsfanmax]

I reject your pessimism and substitute it with activism. Diminishing of special interest influence in government doesn't happen by complaining about it on Facebook -- it happens by communicating with your representative and clearly telling them what policy you want.

my negative comments aside, do you really believe that pessimism is not warranted in this case?

Whether or not pessimism is warranted is irrelevant. Pessimism doesn't get anything done.

For example: North Dakota, which has established virtually a negative unemployment rate. I know more than a handful of people who went to North Dakota with absolutely nothing, and every single one of them found 2 full time jobs within 3-5 days. What do you think the results would be if your suggestion were implemented in North Dakota? What would happen to the workers? the companies? the tax base?

Did you know that there are more jobs in the green sector than in the fossil fuel industry? Given this fact, and also the fact that the tax returns all revenues to American households, it's hard to see how North Dakotans would be significantly worse off. Research by the Carbon Tax Center indicates that two-thirds of individual Americans would break even or actually be better off if the dividends are returned equally to everyone.

So should I pay the extra carbon tax, and heating costs or the 900% more expensive, off gassing method? And I don't care about the economic perspective, I ask you to tell me from a moral perspective.

If you choose low-carbon alternatives, the dividend part of the carbon tax actually benefits you. If you cut out all greenhouse gas emissions from your lifestyle, you'd essentially be getting a free check from the government every year to thank you for your service.