The empty argument: No one has yet shown that you can “overload” the atmosphere with CO2 that will not be handled by the environment itself through increased vegetation growth or other processes. There is no documented evidence that we could actually make too much CO2 for the planet if we tried. CO2 is something easy to measure, so we can try to charge people for putting CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is also a gas that is released from a perfect operating internal combustion engine. Along with water it is the emission created by a perfect operating internal combustion engine.
Why CO2?: CO2 was chosen, because it can be shown that the US puts more of that out than any other nation. The whole purpose of cap and trade is redistribution of wealth. If you follow the money of cap and trade, you can see this. Of course some of the “environmental minded” people will greatly profit from and cap and trade system that has been proposed so far. Also they use the excuse that “developing countries” are affected more by global warming er climate change than “rich countries.” This is their justification for “punishing” the rich countries with this system. They also claim they know what CO2 levels were in the 1790’s when they do not really know and are claiming that increased industrialization is the main cause on “increased CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Fear Mongering: Arguments for applying any sort of cap and trade rely on straw man arguments, fear mongering (monster storms), and name calling (deniers) as their main talking points. Scientific evidence about global warming climate change caused by man never includes information about the Sun’s mean temperature. Since the Sun is the earth’s main source of heat you would think any reasonable study concerning global warming climate change would consider this.
In reality CO2 is the least effective of any known greenhouse gas:
| GWP* | |||||
| Gas | Symbol | Lifetime (yrs) | 20-yr | 100-yr | 500-yr |
| Carbon dioxide | CO2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Methane | CH4 | 12 | 72 | 25 | 7.6 |
| Nitrous oxide | N2O | 114 | 289 | 298 | 153 |
| CFC-12 | CCl2F2 | 100 | 11 000 | 10 900 | 5 200 |
| HCFC-22 | CHClF2 | 12 | 5 160 | 1 810 | 549 |
| Tetrafluoromethane | CF4 | 50 000 | 5 210 | 7 390 | 11 200 |
| Hexafluoroethane | C2F6 | 10 000 | 8 630 | 12 200 | 18 200 |
| Sulphur hexafluoride | SF6 | 3 200 | 16 300 | 22 800 | 32 600 |
| Nitrogen trifluoride | NF3 | 740 | 12 300 | 17 200 | 20 700 |
| *Global Warming Potential | |||||
Note: Cap and Traders say - "It is not possible to state that this gas or that gas has an exact greenhouse effect. Gases absorb and emit radiation at different frequencies than others. So that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. " Translation - we really do not know what causes the greenhouse effect.
Why Tax CO2: If anyone wanted to “tax” emissions then CO2 makes the least sense. CO2 is very unlikely to last in the atmosphere for more than a year or 2 because that is the average time for any CO2 molecule to stay in the atmosphere before being mixed into the ocean or changed to oxygen by photosynthesis. Proponents of man-caused climate change claim that you “cannot measure” how long CO2 will stay in the atmosphere, even though they cannot argue that the above statement is not a fact. They want to tax it because it is easy to measure and there is tons of it. Not because it has any real factor in global warming climate change.
The effect of the tax: Taxing such a thing will only lead to bankrupting companies or taking money out of people’s pockets. It will have no real effect on global warming climate change. For centuries men have tried to affect the weather and have failed miserably – what makes us feel so highly of ourselves that we could affect climate?
No comments:
Post a Comment