Dust bowl looms if US Southwest drought plans fail

Sorry about the choppy writing...I just post thoughts as they come sometimes.

 

So what? Their footprint is going to increase substantially on a per capita basis. What must be realized is that the Chinese Communist Party stands to lose power if it cannot continue to improve living standards. That means economic development at any price.

 

Thats smart. Must be why they are so much better off than U.S right now... America keeps shutting down plants, then paying roughly $20k for a 5kw panel.

Its ludicrous that they enforce this on us...

 

But they keep saying they will not do something unless the USA, which has been polluting for longer and is responsible for more CO2 over a longer time, starts to clean up it's OWN act

BTW the "Johnny's bedroom is messy too" defence does not work for five year olds so why to whole countries keep spouting it?

 

Actually it is you who is the religionist.

Like an Aztec priest you are willing to sacrifice the lives and prosperity of countless people in the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up belief that you can change the weather and appease the Earth God.



That is what you are doing to the Western Economy, sacrificing it on the altar of a secular religion.

Oh.. and I never once on this forum denied global warming. Not once, but I'm not willing to sacrifice society over it like you environmental aztecs are.

 

Fossil fuels are not infinite. We have already reached peak oil, and we may even be approaching peak coal. The end of fossil fuels is not an "if", it's a "when". The switch to non-fossil sources must happen because they're running out. The only question is, will we sacrifice a thousand years of climate for another 20 years of cheap energy? Or will we bite the bullet now?

Which will hurt the economy more in the long run? A 1% to 2% GDP hit now, for mitigation? Or the perpetual 10% GDP hit from unmitigated climate change?

What amazing shortsightedness. Conservatives want to do anything BUT conserve.

 

do you think society can easily afford $5 billion in lost revenue?

Those who are bleating about cost seem to lose sight of the real costs, to agriculture, insurance industry, ecology etc

But so long as cheap petrol remains (which will not be for very much longer) we are good - is that right?

And you refer to us as "religious"

 

I know that MMGW is happening and I know that man as a species needs to take action to combat it (if it isn't too late). But my problem is with the carbon tax thing. It seem as though every time the governments of the world have a problem they tax it and throw the money away.

I can see the politicians now...Oh boy,!! more money!!!
And selling carbon credits just seems like a big scam...at least it smells like one. They will still polute but it will just cost the consumer more of his hard earned money.

We could start by a worldwide reforestation effort. We could begin building LNG fueled transportation. We could use the earths energy for heating and cooling buildings (geothermal).

We also need to build water desalination plants to provide fresh water for water starved areas. The Texas coastal area could sure use a couple. We could also use below ground irrigation and irrigate only at night. If we can use mirrors for electricity generation why not use it to evaporate salt water?
And then condense it underground for fresh water?

We also need to reduce waste. I read the 60% of food in America is wasted. We waste no food at our house (except those two quarts of apples that didn't seal).


I guess what I am really trying to say is...we need a better plan.

 

Do you have an issue with a revenue-neutral carbon tax?

 

I just don't see how buying and selling credits will help reduce emissions.

It will just make energy more expensive.

If I am wrong...educate me...I am willing to learn.

 

It will make fossil energy more expensive, while leaving other forms of energy alone. Thus it makes alternatives more cost competitive.

Let's take the recent plan passed in Australia, which will become law next July. About 500 of the largest carbon emitters will be given (for free at first; but the price will rise as years pass) licenses to emit CO2 for a given year. The number of licenses granted will be equal to the number of tons of CO2 currently emitted, but will decline as the years pass. At the end of the year, each emitter must present a number of licenses equal to the amount of CO2 they have emitted during the year. Failure to do so will result in a stiff penalty.

Since the number of licenses will decline as the years pass, emitters will either have to reduce their emissions, or buy licenses from other emitters on the open market. The Australian government will hold license auctions twice a year, but private sales can also be arranged. This means that an emitter that figures out how to reduce their emissions by a substantial amount will have extra licenses that they will be able to sell. Conversely, emitters that don't figure out how to reduce their emissions will be forced to buy licenses from others, and the price for that will increase as time goes on, because the number of licenses granted will be reduced.

This plan also insures that the most cost-effective steps will be taken first, because companies will have financial incentive to do so: if you can figure out how to reduce CO2 emissions for zero cost (using conservation measures, for example), not only will you save the fuel cost, you will also gain in the sale of the license. Thus emission reductions will pay the emitter twice over.

This type of plan is called "cap and trade": emissions are capped, and licenses to emit are traded. The other option is a straight fossil carbon tax: taxes are levied at the mine, the wellhead, and the import terminal for fossil fuels that is proportional to the carbon it contains. The advantage of the straight tax is that it's much easier to implement (especially in a large economy like the US) and fairer: small emitters are not exempt. The advantage of cap-and-trade is that you might want small emitters (like automobile drivers) to be exempt.

 

Peak oil was a political ploy.. a way of explaining to Americans why we needed to buy oil from the ME.

It was a joke in the mid 1950s and its a joke now..

Its NOT about Oil its about lift costs.

 

So here it is the end of 2011, and we have not yet exceeded the peak production year of 2008 -- even as the price of oil has quadrupled in the past ten years, and more than doubled in the past 3 years, oil production remains stuck pretty much where it has been for a long, long time:



This total disconnect between price and production proves -- more than any slogan you might trot out -- that world oil production is no longer being set by market forces. It is being set by the limits of worldwide production.

We have reached Peak Oil.

 

You need to understand that in the USA conservatives/republicans base most of their opinions not on facts but on the bible and fear and greed. Making changes to their lifestyle for the good of society goes against these three republican foundations.

 

Look, While I do not dispute or support your stance, I must say that OPEC has manipulated supply to their own political ends for some decades. I just do not think that linking price to supply graph proves anything. You are assuming that it represents the freedom of supply to the market.

 

Carbon trading is designed to do many things. One of those things is to make some people very rich.

 

Apart from throwing out meaningless one liners you will never convince me that AMERICANS are not in favour of business opportunities

Well, Americans in general - the right seems pathologically afraid of anything "green"

 

No, we're ideologically opposed to throwing billions of dollars away on the false dreams of environmental radicals.

Environmentalists are nothing more than Aztec Priests, willing to sacrifice the lives and prosperity of countless people in the vain hopes of changing the weather.

 

Thanks for making my point for me

 

The American right has the ability to prevent green energy development in the US. We perceive green energy to be part of the leftist agenda in this country. We won't allow it to happen. And that's that.

 

Good! All the more market share for the rest of us!!

When you catch up with the rest of the world DO let us know, and remember once upon a time places like Crete, Rome and Babylon were leaders of the world

 

The internal struggle must take priority.

History is not one of your strong points.

 

Corn & soybean crops hit hard by this year's drought...

US Drought Impacts Global Food Security
August 08, 2012: The United States is the leading producer of corn and soybeans – two commodities that developing countries rely on. However, over the past two months, prices have risen sharply as the U.S. experiences its worst drought since the 1950s. A food policy expert says effectively responding to the drought can help prevent another global food crisis

 

Haboob story:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/watch-50-mile-wide-dust-storm-devour-phoenix/39610/

http://vimeo.com/26045314

 

http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2011/07/06/massive-dust-storm-descends-on-phoenix-area/