80 by 50
 

Can someone please explain how this requirement of an 80% reduction in carbon footprint by 2050 in the cap and trade bill is even remotely possible? I mean, how is it possible that by 2050 we will have a smaller carbon footprint than say.....when the pilgrims first landed on this great soil in 1620?

Ok, maybe that's somewhat of a stretch but the end goal is equally impossible in my mind unless we all go back to riding horses and cooking over open fire. Oh wait, that number of horses or open fires is gonna land us in the same boat with all that farting/poop/methane and smoke.

So, are you telling me you're not man enough to "Live off of the land", like a true "John Wayne" style rugged individualist, Great American would? Whiner! Are you suggesting that Americans can't accomplish whatever they set their minds to? Quitter! So, tell me, why do you hate this country so much anyways? If your goals aren't our goals, well--You know the way out, Mister.

Actually, for me the answer is pretty simple.
My carbon footprint will be far less in 2050,
because I will most likely be------DEAD.:eek:

Seriously, I have no idea. Does seem like quite an unattainable goal.
Mainly because we lack the will and the wisdom to even try?

Dave

I submit that the problem is due to an excess of people.

Global warming, or cooling, or climate change, whether naturally occurring or man made, is natures way of addressing the problem. We're not in the process of killing the planet, the planet's in the process of killing us. It does it all of the time.

Then again, the human race has a history of killing itself off. We may beat the planet to the draw.

That is the natural order of things.

Chas

It does hate us. I know it does, the trees told me so.

Dave

True enough. Earth couldn't care one way or another if we can live here or not. Let's hope we're smart enough to care at least for ourselves.

Um, huh? It was going just fine 'till we started messing things up. Earth may not care if we can live here or not, but doesn't seem out to get us. I mean, as much as we try to pretend otherwise, we *are* the Earth. We weren't dropped here from some other place. We're of the Earth.

I agree. My neighbor has several massive walnuts just waiting for another ice storm so that they can crush me in my sleep.

I wish he'd get the damned things trimmed, but he has no money. Guess I'll just have to wait until one falls on my house, then let the insurance company deal with it.

Chas

We've always had floods, tornados, hurricanes, volcanos, earthquakes, not to mention diseases. Seems like most of the US was underwater at one time.

Everything dies, it's the natural order of things.

Chas

"Um, huh? It was going just fine 'till we started messing things up."

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

What do you base this on?

Here in NY you can trim any branch over your property.

The natural order of things does not omit a species toil, I agree.
Hence we can work to change global warming weather it be man induced or not.

Here in MD you don't need to trim trees, the effing white tailed lawn rats will trim them for you, They just took out $150 worth of evergreens I planted last spring.

My Quote:
Ok, maybe that's somewhat of a stretch but the end goal is equally impossible

What, being "equally impossible" or the "somewhat of a stretch" part?

Do you honestly think that adding another 200 million people or so to this country by 2050 (some peoples predictions) will create less of a carbon footprint? I personally don't think it could be done if we grew zero percent more until 2050.

Good luck convincing suv-soccer-mom that she has to tote her kids around one at a time with a bicycle and Burley cart....or that we should all take the well thought out public transportation, oh wait, we don't have the infrastructure and too much distance between places for things like trains, etc.....

What's your plan noonereal?

You seem to be very interested in putting forth reasons why human nature will make progress toward climate remediation impossible. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try?

It seems to me that, if you accept the consensus scientific opinion that global climate change is a real and present danger to our existence, you take whatever steps you can to mitigate its effects. That you might not reach certain predetermined goals is less important than making significant progress.

So, to answer your original question, I don't think anyone on this board knows whether the 2050 goals are achievable. I certainly don't but I think we damn well need to take this seriously and do whatever we can.

John

Mike it's a good question, none on the signatories of Kyoto had any reduction, they all went up!

But we can feel good, pretend, and pay higher taxes :eek:

Pete

Man, I just don’t agree with your approach to life. Yeah, everything dies. But you’re making a huge leap to say the implication of that is that we should not do anything to preserve life. I mean, you’re saying everything’s going to die anyway so why worry with global warming. Well, why worry with hospitals? Why worry about murder? Why worry about war? Everything is going to die anyway, so why take any steps to prevent it? I’m not a proponent of the “throw up your hands, there’s nothing you can do” school of life. That sounds a lot like giving up. And taken to it’s ultimate extreme, it sounds a lot like anarchy.

Having laid out those questions let me pose some answers. We are the product of countless eons. The Universe, the Sun and the Earth came in to being and so far as we know we’re a unique product of that process. Our children will be the legacy of that great history. I believe it is our duty as the stewards of creation to preserve this place, the only place where our kind can exist, in a manner in keeping with the journey that brought us into being. Or to state it another way, we don’t have the right to destroy our children’s future.

Ironically, from time to time when Republicans are pretending to be fiscally responsible they say the same about our National Debt. Of course they did a fine job of piling it on over the last eight years, but that’s another story. When they’re out of power they like to thump on anything they can with “how are we going to pay for it” and “we can’t leave the bill for our children”. If we can’t bother our children with a matter as petty in the scheme of the Universe as a National Debt, can we really saddle them with the prospect of a planet that no longer sustains life in the manner we enjoy?

Take care,

Ed

Well, there you go, Chas. Just move your house, the neighbors house and all those Walnut trees to New York, then trim the limbs.

Pig dead, soldier on!

Dave

Man, you said that in a *lot* fewer words than I did.

No one suggested anything of the kind. And I would agree that's absurd. Personally I'd like to see us move more toward an urban lifestyle and get away from the suburban sprawl. Who needs it? I live in the city and I kind of chuckle to myself every time I hear people complain about their commute. Mine takes 10 minutes.

But what to do for the Soccer Moms: I’m confidant that in 2010 we can come up with technology that’s more efficient that the internal combustion engine. Think about how the world was when cars were introduced. Can you think of anything that had advanced less? For all our GPS and 16 speaker sound, cars aren’t really so much more advanced than the Model T.

How about this- the Honda CFX Clarity. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/ Runs on Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe. Zero emissions. I don’t know if that’s the answer or not. I know W was keen on it. Shoot, just that makes me suspect. But I’ve long been a proponent of nuclear power. Yes, there are issues to be dealt with, but the French have made remarkable progress in recycling spent fuel rods. I’m confidant that the U.S., if we somehow found our will again, could lead the world in this kind of technology.

How about solar collectors in Earth orbit? Without the atmosphere in the way they’re far more efficient, and tests have already been done to “beam” the power back to Earth via microwave. It’s amazing what’s been discovered in the last 100 years.

Not to mention the possibility of nuclear fusion if we can grab a bit of Helium 3 from the Moon. Hell, W was keen on that idea too. What a neat way that would be to get power! And, again, if we choose to we could lead the world in that technology. Alas, I’m afraid we no longer can take as far sighted a view as is required for a project like that.

I guess, when you look at how arcane our current systems are, an appropriate question would be “how could we *not* substantially reduce our carbon output if we gave it a shot?”

Take care,

Ed

Consider this: no matter what we will use up the earth. Fusion and space colonization is the only real solution :D

Pete

How do you figure? Using nothing more than the power of the Sun, the Earth had been self sustaining for billions of years. Unless we chose to change that, I don't see any reason it can't go on for billions more.

I got'cha Eddie, but this graph shows the problem.

http://www.ciese.org/curriculum/popg.../worldpop.html

Pete

Is that my 401k balance? Could have sworn it looked just like that. Oh, wait a minute. That one goes the other way.

Yeah, that one scares the willies out of me too. But not with regard to global warming. Shoot the vast majority of the folks on that graph have almost no carbon footprint at all.

Take care,

Ed

Ultimately our sun will go supernova and the resulting red giant will engulf everything, probably as far out as Jupiter.:eek:

That did it, I'm cashing out my 401k. :D

Pete

I think we have a couple years before we need to worry about that. Hopefully by then humanity has evolved into pure consciousness and will roam the Universe unfettered by these mortal coils.

I doubt that, however I think we would have colonized enough across the universe by then to make it an event of little consequence to us as a life form.

Humans have been around for, what, 2 or 3 hundred thousand years? The dinosaurs were around, oh gosh, I think it was more than 100 million years. The sun will die about five *billion* years from now. If you think anything resembling a human being will be around to see it you have a much more lofty view of our importance in the Cosmos than I. If somehow there is a direct line to life at that time from us, whch would be super-cool, I suspect it would be unrecognizable.

You know what else this chart shows? It shows that there is *no doubt* that Humans have demonstrated an ability to effect change in their environment. How else can you explain the explosion of population? Why in the world would we deny the possibility that we're now doing damage when there is such an overwhelming measure of evidence we are?

Look, nobody alive today will suffer all that much as a consequence of me driving my Hummer so what's the BFD? As for you bleeding hearts and your "future generations", there might not even be any so who the Hell cares?

John

Eddie, there is no doubt we're trashing the planet. Heck it's probably trashed beyond hope already.

We differ in what we can do about it. The forces and volumes in play are beyond mosts' comprehension, it amounts to terraforming - and we haven't been past the moon!

I think we should spend the money on fusion research, we'll need vast amounts of power. Heck we should've spent the stimulus on it too. ;)

noone, is that Asimov's' human only universe, or Star Wars? :D

Pete

You characterize the task before us as bordering on the hopeless. Others have posted similar views and seem to conclude that the problem is so big that it's pointless for us to try to solve it. This is nihilistic hedonism. We really are an immature species, aren't we?

Terraforming is the modification of a planet inhospitable to Earth type life forms into one that will support and nourish them. We ain't there yet insofar as Earth is still capable of supporting us. What we need to do is take steps to ensure that things don't get any worse here and, hopefully, figure out ways to make things better.

John

Wow! That was just positively "wing-nut" of you, John.

Dave

I'm all for it, so long as no one asks me to do anything or make any sacrifices, or God forbid-----pay any taxes.

Wow! That was positively "wing-nut" of me!:eek:

Dave

Think I'll get in my 370hp, 4,100 lb Dodge and drive .75 miles to pick up a book of stamps and mail off my house payment? Hmmmm?

Dave

I dunno. We fucked it up easily enough and only took 100 years. Not sure why we can't put it back. We know more now than we did then.

With you 100% on fusion though.

Yeah, screw it. Let's all get drunk and rape some women. The end is nigh. Every man for him self. Anarchey now!

John, I'm not saying don't try. I love the outdoors and recognise our responsibility.

But once again, Kyoto didn't do one darn thing except make people feel better. Perhaps we should be trying something else.

And yes, in effect it's hopeless. It took humanity its' entire selfish output all these years to effect it, if indeed we are responsible for what is currently suspected (speaking directly to the current issue at hand). So a couple of (shown useless) treaties, and all will be right? Humanity as a whole is too thick. [edit: yes, we really are immature! We agree on something :D ]

Pete

Here is the writing that inspired my original post.
http://www.questar.com/1OurCompany/n.../UVUSpeech.pdf

I'm not saying we should do NOTHING, I'm simply asking how in the heck can anything meaningful be accomplished given our track record + expanding population + many countries coming online with their own "me generation" + global economies what they are + (insert problem here)....etc.

"Love the outdoors"? Man, talk about trivializing an existential crisis!

Kyoto didn't do all it could have but it accomplished more than just making us feel all warm and fuzzy. Kyoto established that there was an international consensus regarding the reality of global climate degradation and the necessity to act. That's really ground-breaking and essential before effective remediative measures can be undertaken on a sufficiently large scale.

It's only hopeless if we believe it to be - or if the people with a monetary stake in the status quo convince us that it is. We haven't been degrading our environment for as long as you seem to think. That didn't really begin to happen until our population numbers and our technological sophistication allowed it. That would put it about 150 years ago. We still may have time. Whether we do or not won't be known until we try - and we have to try!

John