Archive for Thursday, May 30, 2013

Opinion: Climate change we can’t ignore

May 30, 2013

Advertisement

This month we reached a tragic milestone: Carbon dioxide levels hit 400 parts per million (ppm) in our atmosphere (Scientific American, May 9). For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels have not risen above 300 ppm. The last time CO2 was at 400 ppm was about 3 million years ago, before humans existed, and sea levels were at least 50 feet higher than they are today.

While already dangerously high, we can expect CO2 levels to continue rising 2-3 ppm each year on our current course. The 350 ppm level, which a number of scientists regard as the safe limit, is growing smaller and smaller in our rearview mirror. How high will we allow this number to go before we decide to take significant action to curb greenhouse gases?

We know that higher carbon dioxide levels result in higher temperatures, and, not surprisingly, our global average temperature rose by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/649). If we do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, scientists predict that global temperatures will increase by 7 degrees by the end of the century.

If many Americans fail to hear alarm bells, it may be due to the fact that a well-orchestrated campaign has been waged to create the illusion that there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about climate change. A recent survey of more than 12,000 peer-reviewed articles on climate change, however, shows such disagreement is virtually nonexistent. Published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the survey found this consensus among climate scientists: 97 percent agree that global warming is happening because of human activities.

If the science is settled, what does this mean for us here in Kansas?

In their 2008 report, “Climate Change Hits Home, The Risks to Kansas,” Drs. Nathaniel Brunsell and Johannes Fedemma, et al, predict that Kansas’ average temperature will increase 2 to 4 degrees by the end of the century, and southwest Kansas will face an average increase of 8 degrees. We will also experience fewer frost days, more heat waves, more intense storm cycles, a higher probability of flooding and decreases in soil moisture.

This does not have to be our future. We can take action to preserve a livable world for future generations.

One solution, championed by Republican and former Secretary of State George Shultz, is a revenue-neutral carbon tax. In an op-ed appearing in the Wall Street Journal, Shultz wrote, “Clearly, a revenue-neutral carbon tax would benefit all Americans by eliminating the need for costly energy subsidies while promoting a level playing field for energy producers.”

Citizens Climate Lobby, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization also working to pass a revenue-neutral carbon tax, recommends returning the revenue to all households on an equal basis, which would offset increased energy costs arising from the carbon tax.

Hopefully, Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts and Rep. Lynn Jenkins will join Shultz and support this innovative solution. In lieu of congressional action, President Obama will turn to Environmental Protection Agency regulation to curb greenhouse gases. Which would our Republican members of Congress prefer: The regulatory approach or the free market approach?

Reaching 400 parts per million is our wake-up call on climate change. It’s time to choose the path of heat resistance.

— Lynate Pettengill is the director of field development for Citizens Climate Lobby. She resides in Lawrence.

Comments

ThePilgrim 1 year, 11 months ago

While the science may be settled, you logical argument is flawed. If millions of years ago we were at this level and seas were 50 feet higher, then why not now at the ppm same levels? China is pumping coal into the atmos and will never sign climate restrictions. And our wind farms are killing eagles. Note : A tax is never "revenue neutral". Come on, it will never pass. Period. What you/we can do: 1. Shut down the coal plant in Lawrence. You think that the KU signs on the turnpike are Lawrence's signature to travelers? No. The coal plant is the main remembrance of passing in state and out of state motorists. How to shut it down? Protest. Lay across the track of the train carrying coal to the plant (OK that last suggestion was a little extreme). 2. Eat less meat 3. Encourage more real dollar business in Lawrence. Besides KU workers, retail on Mass Street, apartment managers, and call center workers, what else do we have? Release the stranglehold on new businesses. Then there will (maybe) be less commuting greenhouse gasses to KC and Topeka. Of course, they are planning on widening K10 to 6 lanes within the next 10 years.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

"If millions of years ago we were at this level and seas were 50 feet higher, then why not now at the ppm same levels?"

You might as well be asking how it is possible to have ice in a glass on a hot day. It takes a while to melt, brainiac.

Revenue neutral is in reference to whether the government makes money on it. Taxes on imports can be levied for goods coming from countries which have no climate change mitigation plan in effect. Read up on it a little before you criticize it.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

It's very possible that different things can cause the same outcome, isn't it?

We don't really need to figure out exactly what caused something millions of years ago - we need to figure out what's happening now, and what we can do about it.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Naturally occurring events are not magic; there is always a cause and a source of CO2. In the past, there have been continental plate subductions, massive volcanism, positive feedbacks from melting permafrost, de-stabilized methane clathrates, lack of weathering during snowball earth events, etc. This time the source is carbon long sequestered as fossilized organic matter, and the cause is human extraction and burning of the same.

Costs are relative. Would I rather live with slightly less growth in standard of living or send my kids into a future world which has a climate never experienced by our species nor any of the species upon which we are dependent for food? Given a choice, I'll pick the former.

rtwngr 1 year, 11 months ago

Hold on there, Vertigo. Who asked you to bring rational, reasoned thought into this discussion? Use of logic will not be tolerated.

gr 1 year, 11 months ago

"How high will we allow this number to go before we decide to take significant action to curb greenhouse gases?"

I believe action is being taken. And how's that working out? CO2 levels the highest ever? Kind of makes you think our puny little efforts to cool the whole outdoors, is kind of silly, isn't it? By the way, you said how much the levels were, but you didn't say how much man contributed.

"We know that higher carbon dioxide levels result in higher temperatures, and, not surprisingly, our global average temperature rose by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century "

The past century? But you started out talking about "hundreds of thousands of years". How much has the global temperature risen since then? In the 70's you would have been talking about the global temperature the lowest it's ever been. Yep, your argument is flawed. You are comparing apples to basketballs.

"predict that Kansas’ average temperature will increase 2 to 4 degrees by the end of the century, "

A few years ago, it was predicted a 1 degree rise in temperature. Now, with increased taxation and puny little efforts to change the world's temperature, it's predicted to increase 2-4 degrees? How's taxation working out? By the way, do you think there are any areas with an average temperature 2 to 4 degrees warmer than Kansas, today? How about many degrees warmer? Is there no livable areas in those places? Do insects run off with the place? Is food produced there? What about cooler areas? If they warm 2-4 degrees, then they would get the same climate as we have today, right?

"Clearly, a revenue-neutral carbon tax would "

That's your real motivation, isn't it? You stand to profit, no?

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Your beliefs are wrong in a number of ways.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

" In the 70's you would have been talking about the global temperature the lowest it's ever been. "

Can't tell what you've been reading, but your conclusion is wrong. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

"By the way, do you think there are any areas with an average temperature 2 to 4 degrees warmer than Kansas, today?"

Yes, it is called Texas, and wheat yields there are a fraction of what they are in Kansas. Precipitation patterns are very similar. Is that what you mean to tell us; that wheat production in Kansas will be cut substantially?

gr 1 year, 11 months ago

"" In the 70's you would have been talking about the global temperature the lowest it's ever been. "

Can't tell what you've been reading, but your conclusion is wrong. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm"

I said, "you would have been talking about". I didn't say it was any more right or wrong than what you are talking about now.

And maybe you should check what you've been reading. Is only wheat grown in Texas? Is Texas only 2-4 degrees warmer than Kansas? Does Nebraska "enjoy" higher yields in all things than Kansas? If Kansas is already less, and Texas is already more less, then is that not one of your "trends" that have already been underway for eons? Hope that gives you some questions to consider rather than believing anything someone tells you.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Why don't you do some of your own research instead of asking others to spoon-feed you information and then ask more questions? Here, I'll give you a starting point:

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/

You might also dig around and look up the rising trend of heat wave events, and see if you can relate heat wave events to crop yields.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

You were wrong about what was being said in the 70s; so, why do you think you were right about who would say it?

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Do you think that production and costs will remain stable as what can be grown where changes?

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

"If they warm 2-4 degrees, then they would get the same climate as we have today, right?"

If painting in broad strokes, yes. Nebraska will become more like Kansas, and Nebraska currently enjoys higher yields per acre than Kansas. So, Kansas yields will decline to resemble Texas yields, and Nebraska yields will decline to resemble Kansas. Hope that answers your question.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

gr: "By the way, you said how much the levels were, but you didn't say how much man contributed."

Pre-Industrial records indicate the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280ppm. That means that human activity is pretty much responsible for an increase of 120ppm of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution started burning large quantities of coal and other fossil fuels.

gr: " How much has the global temperature risen since then..... your argument is flawed. You are comparing apples to basketballs."

The more information we gather about current and past temperature records for the atmosphere, oceans and land, the more clear it becomes that an acceleration in global temps is occurring and no credible model is out there that will explain the data unless you include the role of human-activity related release of greenhouse gases. A good place to start in getting the whole picture might be here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

The rest of your post looks to me to be confused thinking at best. I suggest you read up a little more and then submit some clearer questions/issues.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Pre-Industrial records indicate the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280ppm. That means that human activity is pretty much responsible for "

LOL. For millions of years, various mechanisms on the earth filled the atmosphere with CO2, and other processes caused a decrease, but the industrial age made all those processes stop and now it's pretty much only man is creating CO2.

Seriously, you don't understand why we don't believe you?

If you are going to run a scam, at least make it plausible.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

"but the industrial age made all those processes stop"

Who said that? Let's see; no one.
On the other hand, the amount of additional carbon in the air and sea is largely the same as what we have dug out of the ground and burned, and it has the some isotope signature as fossil fuels. So, where has all the carbon we've burned gone if not the air and sea; and, where has all the additional carbon come from if not fossil fuels?

Before you say volcanoes, let me just point out that it would take a flood basalt type eruption on a scale with the Siberian Traps or the Yosemite megavolcano to produce that much CO2. Seen any of those around the world lately?

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Seen any of those around the world lately?"

There are thousands of volcanos belching CO2 into the atmosphere. It doesn't need to be one big event or series of related events. It doesn't even have to be obvious volcanic activity as CO2 can be vented underwater as well. Every time you exhale, you are adding C02 to the atmosphere. You and every other animal on earth. How many animals do you think lives on earth?

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

You are off by a couple orders of magnitude. Human activity producing CO2 far, far exceeds volcanic emissions.

" It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate." http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Animals exhale CO2. Plants consume CO2. How many animals can live without exhaling the carbon absorbed by a plant? None. They balance each other. The energy animals use is the same energy plants absorb from the sun during photosynthesis. The net is near zero, as evidenced by the thousands of years of stable CO2 levels since the last glacial period.

gr 1 year, 11 months ago

Now you might be onto what I asked before. Compare the CO2 that we make to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe then we can talk about "orders of magnitude".

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

The math is trivial; (400-287) / 400 = 28%. 28% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is a result of human activity. You keep asking questions, but you don't seem interested in the answers.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Animals exhale CO2. Plants consume CO2"

Cars exhale CO2. Plants consume CO2.

"The net is near zero"

The net adjusts to zero. It has no choice as long as interdependent organisms exist.

"as evidenced by the thousands of years of stable CO2"

If the earth is billions of years old, and animals have existed for hundreds of millions of years, why are you limiting your sample to thousands of years?

When you do that, my first thought is you are trying to scam me by cherry picking history for the statistic you want.

The bar is set pretty high on convincing me man made global warming is real. It isn't that I distrust science. In fact, I like as much as I can understand. I believe life exists on billions of planets, That isn't even remotely proven, but I accept it. However, if every answer to life on other worlds was increased taxation, higher prices and redistribution schemes, I'll start needing some more proof. If it's going to increase socialism, I'll need to see more than statistics.

If the evidence you have seen convinced you of AGW, good for you. I remain unconvinced.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Do you even look at the data that has been provided you? Your comments belie an apparent total inability to absorb the information folks have provided you. Please re-read the information provided you in the charts and numbers provided you in the comments above, and you will clearly see that the information provided you is a clear and accurate description of the fact that the planet's capability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere is being outstripped by the amount of CO2 emitted, and the difference is attributable to the huge amounts of CO2 being released by the combustion of geologically sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels, primarily coal, oil and natural gas.

Do you think the Scripps Institute is lying in their record of CO2 increases in atmospheric concentration? Do you think the Carbon Project is making up the numbers showing the amounts of carbon released by human activity? Where's your evidence?

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Seen any of those around the world lately?"

There are thousands of volcanos belching CO2 into the atmosphere. It doesn't need to be one big event or series of related events. It doesn't even have to be obvious volcanic activity as CO2 can be vented underwater as well. Every time you exhale, you are adding C02 to the atmosphere. You and every other animal on earth. How many animals do you think live on earth?

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Where do you think the CO2 produced from our burning of fossils fuels has gone?

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

You really don't understand the homeostatic nature of atmospheric gases, do you? There are a number of sources on our planet that emit CO2, including animals, volcanoes,decaying vegetation and the like. On the other hand, there are processes that absorb CO2, including things like plant respiration, the oceans, geological processes, etc. These processes come to a balance point, or homeostasis, in which an increase in emissions results in an increase in planetary absorption over time, so that barring a large scale disruption or introduction of a new process, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 on our planet is quite stable, and the result is atmospheric composition of CO2 at around 280 parts per million.

Enter human activity, where we dig into the carbon cycle, removing billions of tons of geologically sequestered carbon in the form of coal, oil, bitumen, natural gas and other greenhouse gases/fossil fuels, extracting the energy through combustion to do our work, incidentally releasing the leftover carbon into the atmosphere. Well, the planetary processes that absorb carbon from the atmosphere are still doing just that, but there is a lag in the processes of absorption, resulting in a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's where the increase from 280 to 4oo ppm comes from. It's us. This is not a controversial statement in the least. The presence of CO2 and other atmospheric "greenhouse" gases in a higher amount acts like a blanket over planet, increasing the absorption of solar energy so that the planet warms up.

Hope this helps you understand the difference between a scam and something of real, legitimate concern.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Hope this helps you understand the difference between a scam and something of real, legitimate concern."

Sorry. Still a scam. How do you derive the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere that the earth is supposed to have? How do you derive the correct temperature or the number of hurricanes? You are on shifty sand and you want me to join you. No thanks.

Further below that you have the philosophical argument that man is organic to the Earth just like tigers and bears. Anything an organism that is native to a planet does is appropriate for that organism to do.

We didn't climb to the top of the food chain by putting out our campfires.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Lib275: "How do you derive the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere that the earth is supposed to have?"

Here's where it happens, or more accurately, the origin of the record of current composition, which has expanded to a global network: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/

For CO2 record preceding the current values, much research has gone into sampling air samples frozen in ice going way back in time. Do your own homework to find more about this.

Lib275: " How do you derive the correct temperature or the number of hurricanes?"

I believe the instrument for determining temperature is called a thermometer. I believe the number of hurricanes is determined by counting them, using the base 10 system of counting. They use the same criteria worldwide for determining whether it's a hurricane by measuring the wind speed, using an anemometer.

gr 1 year, 11 months ago

"Pre-Industrial records indicate the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280ppm. That means"

It may be true. It may also not be true. Is that how you think science is done? That's why people are questioning such confused conclusions.

gr 1 year, 11 months ago

Instead of saying "That means that...", what you might do so you can have some credibility is start by showing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is, what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2. Then show what percentage of man-made CO2 is in the atmosphere. You could do that by finding the total ppm man-made, and then using the total CO2 percentage calculate the man-made percentage.

And then..... ask yourself if such a small percentage is making an effect. After spinning that, you could then consider if something else could increase or decrease such a small percentage and then question if your spin is valid.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

You seem to be very confused, gr. What is your basis for saying that 280ppm may or may not be the amount of pre-Industrial CO2 in the atmosphere? This summary conclusion came out of dozens of research projects reported in even more scientific papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, based on coming at the question from many different directions. The same with the conclusion that humans have added an additional 120 ppm into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial era. And there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists studying the human sources of carbon emissions today and creating complex models trying to account for the data so that we can make reasonably accurate predictions about the future.

Why not take a look at the tip of the science iceberg, say, by going to the Global Carbon Project, and learn a bit more about the carbon cycle? http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/

Another helpful overview has been provided by NASA: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

OK gr, let's look at some numbers.

Human activity has increased CO2 content in the atmosphere by ~40%. CO2 takes a big bite out of the earth's emission spectra, http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif The mean temperature of the earth is ~287 Kelvin. We have observed less than 1 K of warming so far. Can a 40% change in one of the primary GHGs cause a less than 1% change in temperature so far? Yes, that is entirely conceivable.

gr 1 year, 11 months ago

Actually Doug, you are very confused. Look at the quote again. The problem with your statement, as I said twice, is the "that means that" part of your quote.

And cg, just like most global warmers, your "evidence" has no substance. Your graph talks about radiance and wavelength, but nothing about human activity causing it. You look at data and then make a giant leap of faith that it "means that..."

Chris Golledge 1 year, 10 months ago

Where do you think the CO2 produced from us burning fossil fuels has gone? And, if none of it has gone into the atmosphere, what has been the source of the additional CO2?

What you see as a giant leap of faith, I see as the ability to do simple math.

gr 1 year, 10 months ago

" what has been the source of the additional CO2?"

There's that leap of faith again. Since you don't know and haven't considered, any additional source "must be" and "means that"..... (Insert made up conjectures here, which do not need to be tested since they are so 'apparent')

You just don't understand how science is done.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

It's funny how global warming always turns into an excuse to raise taxes. It's like catching a pick-pocket in action

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

The tax is only on sources of carbon, and it'd be refunded 100% to taxpayers.

Not that you want to understand anything that might challenge your fealty to strict and unquestioning ideology.

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

Should of read: HA HA HA.....And you bought that line?..........SHEEP....

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"and it'd be refunded 100% to taxpayers."

So it's really just another redistribution scheme? Big coal does the work and you pocket a few bucks.

You should work for your money instead of trying to get the government to take other people's to give to you.

"ideology."

My ideology of spotting and not buying into scams.

gr 1 year, 11 months ago

Not really. Utility companies will charge the customer the increase + more for the cost of the extra government burden, then the government gives it back to the customer. You could think they take it out of your right pocket and put it in your left pocket. However, there's that extra cost, and then there's the government "oversight", and agencies, and programs, and you soon find you don't get much back in your pocket. And you may even owe more.

rtwngr 1 year, 11 months ago

Oh sure, refunded 100%. That's right up there with man made climate change on the unbelievability scale.

Mr_B9 1 year, 11 months ago

So Les you say: "My company's alternative energy product lines can power society on carbon dioxide extraction from the atmosphere and could be manufactured in this area or any locality on any continent ". Is that how you are powering your own home right now? You off the electric meter yet? Just curious how thats working out for you?

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Is your system a form a waste-to-energy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to...

Such technologies have been proven to work, but are still uncommon. Since most chemical reactions involving carbon and/or oxygen are uphill, thermodynamically speaking, from CO2, I'm doubtful that power can be generated from CO2 on a commercial scale. However, burning biomass could be just as efficient as burning fossil fuels, without adding net CO2 to the atmosphere, and without the inefficiencies of conversion to ethanol or biodiesel as an intermediate step.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

"The current warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientific opinion on climate change and global warming is that it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels."

Global warming conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

What is it you are trying to say?

ThePilgrim 1 year, 11 months ago

It would have made more sense if the LJWorld forum would not take out the line breaks separating the arguments. (but I thought that maybe you could follow 1, 2, 3 in order).

Really easy: coal plant (the coal plant existence in Lawrence is such a slam to the activist street cred that it is a joke), eat less meat, more biz, less commuting. How hard is that to understand?

A lot easier than your climate change tech solution that no one has ever seen and no one, not locally, not nationally, takes seriously.

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

We are not ‘destroying’ the world. We are fighting, tooth and claw, for our place in it. Earthquakes, hurricane, floods, tsunamis, all show us the futility of endeavors meant to ‘constrain’ nature.

We fight a constant battle against insects, pests, bacteria, viruses, molds and an assortment of critters all scrabbling to be the first one to the food. Harming the planet? How about keeping the ants out of my kitchen…

Throw any Eco-activist up in Alaskan nature, and let them see how long nature respects their endeavors. The bears will be most gratetful.

We can very easily make the earth uninhabitable for us.. but destroy it? I think thats far beyond our means. The world will not be destroyed, it will respond.

We’re riding on this planet in an elegance dance. The earth lead the dance for many eons. Now, we think we’re going to try to lead. And we’re going to lead a dance and we dont even know our partner?

Science represents not what is out there, but our current level of understanding. It exists whether we can explain it or not. We’re not done learning yet, and there’s lots left to teach.

How about we spend less time trying to predict whats going to happen, and run around with whatifs, and instead concentrate more on actually getting a good look at what we’ve got. We’ve still barely seen the bottom of the ocean, and Science is still discovering amazing things about......Gasp....... Water itself! Heck, they didn’t even discover the undersea water current that extends from the south pole to the equator till just a few years ago.. Geeze

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Oh, really? We are fighting tooth and claw to stay afloat as a species against the myriad natural forces and ants in our kitchens? Is that why we are creating an epoch changing collapse in the planet's biodiversity? And as far as science not knowing what's out there, probably the biggest issue facing science is that we are destroying so much biodiversity so quickly that science is probably going to miss more details from extinctions than it will manage to find out about what's left. For more information, here's a good starting point: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdfMilleniumassessment.org

melott 1 year, 11 months ago

Pilgrim has made some good suggestions: try to reduce your commuting. Eat less meat. gr noted that there was a temporary cooling episode in North America in the 70's, and we have had a slight pause in the climate change during the last decade. This is probably due to some change in solar activity, which also has some effect on climate. Still the overall temperature change is up. Still, The nine warmest years since 1880 have occurred since 2000, revealing a trend of global warming. The carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm is the highest in at least 2.5 million years; back then there were no ice caps. Yes, avarom, more research is needed, but it is time to act. Already, 97% of the people who do research on climate agree that humans are driving the current trend. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

The government consists of a gang of men/woman exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods and services!

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Government is flawed; therefore, the last 150 years of science is wrong. Could you explain the connection?

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Science is bought and paid for. Everything is. Now scientific findings are being manipulated to convince me we need more taxes and redistribution. That requires more proof than science is capable of providing right now and it also makes me suspect scientists are being paid with grants for coming up with a specific answer.

You have a loooooong way to go.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Sounds to me like you're waiting for someone to pay you to change your mind.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

The fossil fuel industry has many, many times the money that publicly funded research institutions have. Do you think if they could fund a study which would show that it is safe to continue using their products they would have done so by now? They haven't.

If science were bought and paid for, the coal and oil companies would own it, and they don't.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Jerry Moran won't support it; I think not anyway. He is currently working toward blocking the efforts of the Obama administration to block the XL pipeline, which means he views near-term profits from increasing our exports as more important than the threat climate change poses to our way of life, which means he does not understand it is a threat.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

While many folks supporting a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend program are also against the Keystone XL expansion project, there are a number of prominent conservatives who support both ideas, and there is no reason to think that Mr. Moran, given the facts and with lots of support from a large number of his constituents, couldn't be persuaded to support the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax. In fact, I think I'll write him a note saying just that right now--you might be interested in the case conservatives are making for just that. Bob Inglis made just that case at the Dole Center in a recent talk and was interviewed by the Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/14/could-republicans-ever-support-a-carbon-tax-bob-inglis-thinks-so/

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Interesting bit on Bob Inglis. I think his motivation is misguided in that it favors corporate wealth over individual wealth, but it would be a start in the right direction.

Jerry Moran on the other hand, appears to be of a different ilk. http://www.ontheissues.org/international/Jerry_Moran_Energy_+_Oil.htm

The revenue neutral aspect of the proposal would not violate his pledge against a net tax increase, but his positions favoring fossil fuel energy corporations and his denying the reality of what the science is telling him would leave him unmotivated to support any carbon tax no matter how offset.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

You might be surprised at what he might support--he's a politician looking for bipartisan issues to support. An example of this is his co-sponsorship of a bill that would extend a way of attracting investment capital to clean renewables called Master Limited Partnerships. These are common tools used by fossil fuel projects and a bipartisan group that includes him is making this proposal. So yes, the voting record in the area of renewables and climate change is pretty awful, but it is so with virtually every republican out there. If folks don't ask him to seriously consider a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend program, how's he going to find out that folks in Kansas support this idea?

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Please carry on, and I'm hoping I'm wrong about him.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

I certainly hope you put your time into doing the same: here's how: Sen. Roberts: http://www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailPat Sen. Moran: http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry

Rep. Jenkins: http://lynnjenkins.house.gov/contact-me/

I encourage everyone to take the time to correspond with their legislators even though more times than not you are just going to get a canned response. Staff do take note who calls/emails and over time, this has a real impact. So go to it!

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Here we go again. Yes, the climate is changing. Fewer and fewer people are disputing that. The scientists are right. A carbon tax, however, is not scientific – it is economic. The sneaky transition might just go unnoticed. A few thoughts about that given that there is no generally accepted current legislative proposal to critique.

  1. It is not revenue neutral. There will be many winners and losers.
  2. Kansans will be among the losers as we are heavy contributors. Other places like Oregon will be winners as they have alternate, readily available, “green” energy sources.
  3. The actual tax does nothing of itself in addressing climate change. It just makes many things more expensive. To address the artificial increase each area of the country will have to tax itself to create alternate energy generation systems – a capital intensive process. Kansas will essentially be doubled taxed.
  4. Don’t be taken in by the notion of returning the tax proceeds. There is no way to do that equitably. Initially it will be an income redistribution scheme with Kansans losing. Later it will be a totally independent source of money for “green” investments – removing them from any competition in our budget process.

There are better solutions for addressing climate change than the "carbon tax.’ We need to address this national issue with appropriate national priorities and broad based national funding. No scapegoating!

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Indeed, here we go again.

  1. Revenue neutral is in regard to the government. The government should make no money from it; that is the intention. You are arguing with a claim that is not made.
  2. Whine, whine, whine. Mommy, it's not fair that we all have to get out of the pool now because he got in the pool before I did; I don't care if there is a thunderstorm coming.
  3. It does make the goods and services produced with a large contribution to climate change more expensive than those which contribute less. It is not clear why you think people will not chose the less expensive option.
  4. More whining, and demanding a perfect solution before taking any action.

What solutions? The only thing you have offered is a plan to let the government collect tax and decide how to spend it. That sounds like it has more potential for government abuse than a system where the government has to return all the money to the general populace.

Topple 1 year, 11 months ago

You underestimate the populous' ability to ignore anything which may alter their way of life.

ChuckFInster 1 year, 11 months ago

Love the alarmist tude in this piece. I believe your time would be better spent trying to convince the third world industrialized countries of your concerns as they are by far the biggest polluters on the world stage.

One thought of comfort however, Mr. Obama does have a green energy policy that he's been thumping the last 5 years or so !

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

"... the third world industrialized countries of your concerns as they are by far the biggest polluters on the world stage."

Please make even a little effort to get your facts straight. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?order=wbapi_data_value_2009+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

Mr_B9 1 year, 11 months ago

As Lynate Pettengill stated: "The last time CO2 was at 400 ppm was about 3 million years ago, before humans existed". Seems to me CO2 may be a bogus measurement being used as political propaganda. I have an idea: Maybe all you weather liberals and smart climate/weather scientists could jump off your pedestals get together and invent the Super Acme Carbon Scrubber Machine. Wouldn't that be wonderful? I can see it now, planet saved by weather liberals and climate/weather scientists. It's now legal to continue breathing. Woohoo let the parade begin. One thing is for sure folks, I don't know what's going to happen with our climate and neither do any of you. But what I do know is you folks that are thinking the sky is falling better take interest and be more concerned about all the businesses that China is buying up in this country and even right here in your own backyard. THAT IS REAL.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

What also is real is your ignorance which alas is not so B9. You seem to have a genuine ignorance of the social and economic consequences that has already started as a result of rising sea, land and air temperatures associated with the human introduction of the equivalent of hundreds of volcanoes spewing CO2 into the atmosphere day and night, overwhelming the planet's ability to re-absorb those and other greenhouse gases as fast as we are releasing them, resulting in climate change, oceanic acidification, and sea level rise caused by a combination of warmer waters and ice cap/glacial melt.

Will the planet re-absorb the excess greenhouse gases? Sure, after a few millenia minimum, and so in the meantime we will be facing massive human relocation away from rising oceans, biological ecosystem and agricultural disruptions, economic and social chaos, and a host of things we won't know about until we start seeing them.

This, from a scientific community who as a whole are quite conservative in their predictions, who have repeatedly had to up their predictions of the consequences of the path we've been following and the future if we continue business as usual. Will those predictions prove to be wrong? Unlike the politicians, the scientific community is not afraid of revising their understanding of reality, based on empirical evidence. If there is a credible alternative explanation to both the mechanisms and reality of climate change, be assured that it will show up. That's the one thing that the deniers, both in the political and scientific realm have been completely unable to offer up.

Mr_B9 1 year, 11 months ago

Guess your not an inventor, hmmmm.Funny thing about that white speck in chicken poo DougCounty, it's chicken poo too. As I am sure you know there are always 2 sides to every debate and we are clearly on opposite sides. So don't let your arrogance make you any more foolish than you already appear. You speak of science based off empirical evidence and how scientists have to revise their understanding of reality. That is true, however, there is still so much to learn and this subject is far from being proven. So until scientists have a common denominator I will stay on my side of the fence. Neither you nor I actually know, or for that matter, will ever know in our lifetime if man controls the climate. Is it fact or fiction? I bet you drive a car, work in a building that is heated and cooled, heat your home in the winter so your family doesn't freeze, cool your home in the summer so your family doesn't have to sweat through their dinner, all of which in my opinion makes you a hypocrite. If you truly believe humans are the tipping scales for C02 emissions and will cause the deaths of thousands of people now or in the future then I say how can you live with yourself as a contributor and consumer.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

"Guess your not an inventor..."

And I guess you're not someone who understands basic chemistry. Fossil fuels have high chemical potential energy; CO2 has low potential energy. This means it generally takes energy to convert CO2 into something else, which kind of defeats the purpose of burning the carbon in the first place.

"...until scientists have a common denominator..." Apparently you haven't been paying much attention; the debate amongst scientists about the cause of global warming started about 100 years ago, and has been effectively over for several decades. There already is a common denominator.

"...how can you live with yourself as a contributor ..." Well, it is easier for me to try to do something about the problem than to pretend the problem does not exist. Apparently the latter is easier for you.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Chemical potential energy is taught in Chem 184, a freshman level chemistry class. You have told us you don't understand chemistry as well as a freshman engineering student, and yet you believe you can hold a meaningful debate about something as complicated as the earth climate system.

Have you heard of the psychology term Dunning-Kruger effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%...

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Thanks for jumping in cg; and B9, what will it take for you to decide that "scientists have a common denominator?" It's already a consensus of around 97% that this is not a hoax and we're playing a pivotal role. 98%? 99%? 100%? Even gravitational theory doesn't have those numbers.

Do I consume energy? Yes. Does that make me a hypocrite? It certainly makes me pause and consider my personal role in the planetary dynamics, makes me think that it's worth insulating the heck out of my house, have a passive solar design in my house (not rocket scence; just more windows on the south side of the house), have cars with good mileage, consider my carbon footprint in what I do, and lobby my legislators to wake up and try to avert the worst consequences of global warming by leveling the playing field between the fossil fuel energy folks and the alternatives. How about you?

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Another interesting possibility is TerraPass - you can "zero out" your carbon footprint by purchasing offsets from them.

They invest in emission reduction stuff, have an A+ rating with the BBB, and use outside monitoring to ensure that they are achieving their goals.

If you're already mindful and conservation oriented, it won't cost you too much.

Mostly, it seems they do things to reduce methane output, which is apparently a much stronger greenhouse gas, so they can offset CO2 by reducing less methane, according to someone who works there.

Anybody can do this right now - we don't have to wait for governments to get their act together.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

This is just a cap-and-trade program, which has so far been fairly ineffective. It's also voluntary. While voluntary efforts are important, they are not sufficient. There needs to be a comprehensive plan that's NOT voluntary to be effective. That's why tax-and-dividend is so attractive-- it's not voluntary, but it still allows the freedom of choice in the marketplace. But making carbon-belching choices would become ever more expensive.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

That's completely false - it's not a "cap and trade" anything.

It's an emission reduction program, verified by outside monitoring. By reducing emissions in the same amount as one's use, one essentially zeroes out one's carbon footprint. If you want, you can even invest more than that.

Of course it's voluntary. That's not a flaw, it's just an aspect of it.

The major upside is that anybody can do it immediately, and it works to do what we want to do very directly, which is reduce emissions. Contrast that with the large, hard to implement tax/dividend plan, which might eventually have some impact on emissions, and it should be clear why I like it.

I'm not suggesting the government should do this (although it might be an interesting idea), I'm suggesting that we can all do something right now to reduce our destruction of the environment, rather than waiting around to see what the government comes up with, if anything.

After the last long debate/discussion on this subject, I found it rather depressing, and thought we were pretty much screwed, so I looked for something I could do immediately and on my own, rather than through politics, and I found this.

It may not save us, but it's something I (and anybody else) can do right now.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Good discussion--in my humble opinion it's not an either-or between programs like Terra Pass and a carbon fee and dividend program, it's a both-and scenario. Both do things the other can't do, and both, if widely adopted, can make a difference.

Mr_B9 1 year, 11 months ago

"Doug County says: It's already a consensus of around 97% that this is not a hoax and we're playing a pivotal role." Fact is the 97% number is a manipulation. It actually appears that. the real number is .05% of scientists believe what you say. Only 65 of 12,000 climate science papers claimed that humans cause more than 50% of 20th century warming. Many accredited scientists believe it is the sun and the oceanic oscillations that are the main drivers of the climate. I will concede you may not be a hypocrite but rather a victim of elitist's propaganda. Regardless you are a consumer and contributor and yield responsibility to what you deem to be true. So do what you feel is right for yourself but don't dictate to me then have the arrogance to call me ignorant because I don't believe what you believe. How old is the earth? That's right, you nor your scientists know that answer, therefore what is the normal temperature of the earth? No one knows. Take a minute and think about how smart YOU think you are and then imagine in a hundred years how much smarter those folks will be. You see DougCounty I see you as nothing more than a smart talker spewing information you think is real. Let me remind you this is all political propaganda and a hoax and that's what I believe.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

You are mathematically challenged as well as illiterate in basic chemistry, and you are reminding us that you will choose to believe what feels comfortable to you regardless of any knowledge or lack thereof you possess. But, the paper referenced by Lynate has already been discussed at length if you care to expand your references beyond those telling you what you want to hear.

Discussion by the authors, detractors, and supporters: http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Direct links: Cook et al 2013 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Doran 2009 http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Oreskes 2004 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Or feel free to read through the literature on your own, or even conduct your own survey for comparison. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change+consensus&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"rising sea"

For 20 years I fished at the same spot, north end of the Sanibel causeway. I went about every weekend from 82 up to about 95. I went back for a funeral in 2007 and afterwords took my wife to see my old hangouts, Sanibel Island being one. The same rocks that used to snag my hooks were sticking out of the water the same and the barnacles were at the same level.

You will not convince me of rising sea levels because I've watched them for 35 years and they remain the same.

Making statements that I've seen disproved with my own eyes does nothing to convince me you are telling the truth.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, you've brought up your causeway "evidence" before, and you ignored the global data then, too. But for those who are interested in reality, the folks at the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group are probably the go-to source for seeing what's happening globally--here's a link: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Yeah, I trust a website more than my own eyes. Actually, I don't. Have you ever even been to sea level?

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

So do you trust anything? You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes science, which is probably why you don't trust it. Science begins by collecting data that is as objective as possible, and as much of it as possible, looking not at the individual empirical data point, but rather looking for patterns in the data that can be as accurately described mathematically as possible. These patterns are continually tested and retested with both new data and by making testable predictions that are either confirmed or shot down by the data.

In other words, scientific measurements of the global sea level looks at more than your data point at the Sanibel causeway. And yes, I've been to many sea levels and below, for that matter.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Dear cg22165: Responses keyed to your comments below:

cg22165: Revenue neutral is in regard to the government. The government should make no money from it; that is the intention. You are arguing with a claim that is not made.

George: Maybe. Depends on how implemented. But the term revenue neutral requires the clarification that we are losers (see below).

cg22165: Whine, whine, whine. Mommy, it's not fair that we all have to get out of the pool now because he got in the pool before I did; I don't care if there is a thunderstorm coming.

George: Typical liberal. We must punish those who are retrospectively judged guilty. My tax avoids this problem - yours aggravates it.

cg22165: It does make the goods and services produced with a large contribution to climate change more expensive than those which contribute less. It is not clear why you think people will not chose the less expensive option.

George: Energy is in most of what we buy and most items will increase in costs if we have a carbon tax. How much is unknown until we set the rate and then watch what happens. Could get very expensive over time. Like most great “liberal” notions it will be raised just about every year.

cg22165: More whining, and demanding a perfect solution before taking any action.

George: Yours is a very imperfect solution. Mine operates within our system, sets priorities, avoids a “green” playpen, and treats the problem as a national issue and not a local issue where we force people to spend to address a problem by taxing them so they can tax themselves even more. We could start my solution tomorrow. How about your solution – DOA in this Congress. Maybe we can regulate our way to a carbon tax.

cg22165: What solutions? The only thing you have offered is a plan to let the government collect tax and decide how to spend it. That sounds like it has more potential for government abuse than a system where the government has to return all the money to the general populace.

George: My an arch liberal opting for a “market solution” If you give the government the authority to raise a carbon tax the government will decide how to distribute it and before very long how to use it for other interests. Just like it always does.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

You are still arguing with a claim that is not made.

You have not countered the assertion that a carbon tax would increase the cost of products made with fossil fuel and people would buy the less expensive products; thereby, the tax would reduce CO2 emissions where you claim it will not.

You see as desire to punish what I see as the realism that we've got a serious problem and it matters more what we do about it than how we got here. Quit feeling sorry for yourself. Besides, you are continuing from a false premise; wind costs less than hydro, in levelized cost. Coal, without sequestration, is cheaper than both. So, what you are saying is that because we have been using cheaper energy than the Oregonians, they should subsidize our conversion costs. Huh? Do you think they will think that is fair? Really? I'd like to see you sell that to the congressmen from Oregon. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

What, you think congress would jump on your wagon? If they did, it would only be because they saw a huge potential to fund their local pork-barrel projects.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

George: Here is an example. We tax coal at its source because it is a carbon generator. The price of energy goes up quite a bit here in Kansas as we use a lot of coal. It does not go up in Oregon where they have hydro-power. We then have to tax ourselves to create alternate “green” sources of energy. At this point all of them are more expensive than coal and the capital cost of creating them will be very expensive.. Whatever we get back from the carbon tax (if anything – trust those environmentalists?) does not even cover the first tax let alone the second.

George: A carbon tax just creates a liberal environmentalist “playpen” where the true nature of the problem is concealed – we make it local rather than national. Punish them Kansans – Whine, Whine.

George: Deny these people their playpen. Act like grown-ups and fund the issue as we funded the Manhattan Project or the Interstate Highway system.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Some of your suggestions have merit, George, but they are NOT mutually exclusive to a revenue neutral tax and dividend program. Not to mention that they are politically much more difficult to achieve.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Is that why the carbon tax has failed in the congress. Seems like many of the members understand the win lost issue. Note I did not even touch on jobs. Perhaps in the long term the "green" solutions will generate as many or more jobs then they costs. That said there will be many winners and losers as we are not going to make a coal miner into a turbine installer.

If we do a carbon tax we need to create programs to protest the people we replace.

There is no revenue neutral carbon tax. The cost of just about everything goes up with the natural inflationary result. The return of the tax (if returned in proportion to what paid) will not cover that cost. Any other solution penalizes innocents. I do not believe it will work that way. The tax will end up being a political "football" with consequence none of us can foresee.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

"Is that why the carbon tax has failed in the congress."

It's never even come up for a vote. To you that may signify failure, but to others, it merely means there's much work to be done.

"There is no revenue neutral carbon tax. The cost of just about everything goes up with the natural inflationary result. The return of the tax (if returned in proportion to what paid) will not cover that cost."

That makes absolutely no mathematical sense. But this isn't about making sense for you. You've made up your mind (based on whatever mysterious reasons) not to understand it, and you'll do whatever contortions you need to to remain in that condition.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Why do you continue to trot out the same tired arguments against the revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend proposal, George? You've been handed studies that conclude that regional differences really aren't that significant, and if you want to make them even less significant, you can compensate with differential regional reimbursement rates, something that would not be that difficult to do. You have refused to acknowledge these studies and their conclusions without any credible critique, only saying that you don't believe them. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but let's be clear that it's not based on the conclusions of folks who have studied this topic far more than you have.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

The Manhattan Project and the interstate system were focused each on one clearly defined objective with one means of achieving it. Replacing our energy infrastructure is a very diversified goal with many solutions available. Kansas politicians will say we need mostly wind, states with mountains in the rain band will say we need mostly hydro, those with desert will say we need to fund mostly solar, Iowa will say we need more ethanol. Your solution entrusts the politicians to pick the appropriate balance of winners; which is kind of funny coming from someone who treats "liberal" as a derogatory term.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

It's interesting that the primary argument against the very real fact of anthropogenic global warming/climate change is based purely on ideology, with hardly a word about facts or data or science.

The dinosaurs lacked the intellect to either cause or prevent their extinction. Too bad the greed-based ideological blinders and intellectual sloth so well exemplified in this thread may well make the duration of human civilization on this planet many millions of years shorter than the reign of the dinosaurs, and unlike the dinosaurs, we'll be the primary agents of our own demise.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

I knew we would get here. I offer an effective and timely alternate solution to pay to address climate change in a controlled and equitable manner and I am accused of being greedy and a dinosaur. Why not be flexible in how we fund a solution and just push to commit more resources now.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

So you say to levy a big energy tax, collected by the feds, then let them use the funds to create a new low carbon energy infrastructure? And you call this "an effective and timely alternate solution???" More palatable than a carbon fee and dividend program that levies the fee at the source and distributes that fee directly back to the citizens thru a dividend for them to spend as they see fit?

I find it somewhat humorous that you are the first person to call yourself a dinosaur, George, (Bozo wasn't referring to you) and you back it up with the evidence to prove your point.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Hey now,

I think Moderate is right, that a federal program to do that would be better, and I'm not at all convinced that this tax/dividend program is so great.

The problem with his suggestion is that it won't ever be done, at least not by this Congress. And, it's open to problems with big government programs.

But, in theory, it's a much better idea. This is a national (global) issue, and it should be dealt with on a national level. If we could get the government to implement it, we'd be more in line with the various countries that are way ahead of us in this aspect.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Getting implementation is the major hurdle with whatever measures are proposed.

While I have no objections to direct federal programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, in the near to medium future, such programs will never get support among Republicans and conservative Democrats. That's why the market-based, revenue-neutral approach of a tax-and-dividend program is so attractive. It can also be used to create incentives for other countries to reduce their carbon footprint, unlike the federal programs you and George are advocating.

Does that mean that it's going to miraculously cure the problem of global warming? Of course not. That will require a dramatic effort along many fronts, government and private, with both carrots and sticks. The sooner we start the better (or better said, the longer we wait, the more disastrous,) so if tax-and-dividend can be that start, I'm all for it.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Well, we could still implement tariffs on other countries based on emissions - these things aren't mutually exclusive.

I predict that the tax/dividend idea will be almost as difficult to get passed as the other one. And, we've had numerous lengthy debates about the program, so it's clear what my concerns/objections are, and how you feel about it.

Welcome back - I wondered where you were.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

No doubt, implementation of tax and dividend would be complicated, with lots of devils in the details. But one of its most attractive aspects is that it doesn't have to be perfect to be very effective. And let's face it, doing something soon, very soon, is much more important than doing something perfect.

Sadly, getting implementation of anything may only come after it's too late.

" I wondered where you were."

Just busy-- too busy to wonder what rule any bit of humor or sarcasm might have violated in the increasingly pc decorum around here.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

jafs, One problem that you seem to neglect to consider when you say in theory a top-down federal program is a better idea than a carbon fee and dividend program is that assuming the feds come up with a viable plan, chances are that it will be dominated by the centralized solutions developed by the folks who got us here, i.e. instead of an emphasis on energy efficiency and a decentralized, distributed energy grid, you'll see big mega carbon sequestration "clean coal" projects, more centralized nukes, huge solar thermal concentration projects and the like, built by the Haliburtons, BPs and Exxons of the world. Is this really the kind of alternatives we want to develop?

And as far as what other countries are doing, the ones who are getting in over their heads are the ones who are building mega projects like I described, not those who are changing their feed-in-tariff policies and streamlining the processes for building distributed energy grids and thereby transforming the energy production and distribution system into a more resilient network, not more centralized and therefore brittle.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

That's a good point.

I hadn't thought of it.

Perhaps any government solution would be too flawed, because of the influence of money, and corruption in government.

Even more reason to do stuff like TerraPass individually, then.

But, in theory, the government could implement effective nationwide solutions to this issue. You're just saying that it won't do that, because of how messed up our political system has become.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Federal, state and even local policies can go a long way toward creating an environment where good behavior is rewarded or at least given the same advantages as those status quo folks have. They can also encourage innovation that rewards or allows new players in the game, or set the rules such that only the same players can play, over and over. Policies could also do the same to recipients of the fee, i.e. households: make it easier to just use the monies to keep paying the ever higher costs of energy, or reward households to use that money to become more energy efficient and invest in low carbon alternatives.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, but the same influences exist now on politicians - the same ones that make it likely any large scale solution would be flawed.

Why do you think it's any easier to pass decent legislation with policies like the ones you suggest?

Heck, we "could" pass legislation or regulations that simply require all energy producers to lower their emissions to an acceptable level - much simpler and more direct. But, I imagine that won't happen, due to the influence of business on government.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

The nature of change is typically on a host of small fronts happening over time, and so I'm not sure why you are saying that it's as difficult to make a host of smaller changes vs. mounting a huge change all at once. None of it is easy; in fact in the polarized environment of today's politics, even small changes are very difficult indeed. Part of any reform package would be for each branch of government assess what it can do on its own, so that, for instance, the executive branch can accomplish certain things without any new legislation or laws, and so on. Many small policy changes through executive policies, legislative actions and judicial rulings lay the groundwork that make much bigger changes feasible.

Jim Phillips 1 year, 11 months ago

As was stated previously, the 1970s introduced us to global COOLING, We were warned that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had to be removed from aerosol cans to reverse this "potential man-made disaster". So, if you truly are narcissistic enough to believe man can control climate change, the answer is simple. Infuse the atmosphere with CFCs! Problem solved!

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

You are very confused.
Most scientific papers continued to support global warming through the 1970s; those that did not were a) a minority, b) based on particulate emission scenarios that did not happen, and c) disproportionately represented in the media. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

CFCs are a greenhouse gas; more of them would cause warming, not cooling. The problem with CFCs is that they destroy the ozone layer. The ozone layer blocks UV to the point where cellular life can exist on the surface.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Come on, cg22165, he read it in an email from Glen Beck. It has to be truthy.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Arrogance make them think they can change the world.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Ignorance makes them think we aren't destroying it.

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

Ignorance makes them think You can change it.....lol

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Arrogance make them think they can destroy it.

kernal 1 year, 11 months ago

avarom, I think I'll go with the climate scientists take on this before that of a former car dealer without a valid scientific background.

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

Well you just keep buying that imaginary bridge those scientists get paid to sell you.....and when your taxes keep increasing and hidden service charges start popping up here and there........maybe you will start coming to the party.....Wake up People!

Government=Scientific Research Money=Non Profit $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Scientific Research Companies = Campaign support $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Climate has normal warm and cooling periods constantly........that is the Only Climate Change!

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

Kansas......Home of the Twisty Light Bulbs......

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

It must make you feel better when you find someone on the web who will tell you what you want to hear.

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

It must make You feel better when you Believe Everything you Hear!! Welcome to Kansas Goober!

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

You go with the Climate Change Kernal Sanders.....just prepare yourself for the Tax Wars being held against you....because you will be living on Chicken.....and remember you read it here!!

Mike Ford 1 year, 11 months ago

must let simpletons take shots at empirical science because this is Kansas and they are simpletons. maybe they too can quit like michelle Bachmann.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Empirical science doesn't use fudge factors.

50YearResident 1 year, 11 months ago

I live in a rural area and I have noticed that Snakes are disappearing. There are far fewer in the woods and yards than just 5 years ago. I think it is because of the weather changes. There are also fewer outdoor spiders making webs from trees and even horse flies have lost numbers and become smaller. Frogs, turtles, lizards and even bees and butterflys are declining also. Changes are becoming more rapid. I observe these things when walking on the paths around the area I live in that I have walked for 30 years.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Maybe in response to advice more people are walking and killing more bugs on our paths.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

We had what looked like millions of bees on our fruit trees this year.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Congratulations! Looks like my peaches made it through the frost.

50YearResident 1 year, 11 months ago

Where are the comments now that I have posted about the "real" effects of climate change?

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

The global warming made them vaporize.......lmao

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

So when all the noise and confusion ends our differences are you want a program that is run by somebody unstated where the tax is levied by somebody unstated and the tax refunds are somehow magically distributed. The government would have to do that so the government will be involved in establishing and running the program. That clearly opens the door for further government meddling – as the government almost always does where resources are to be had. Almost as soon as your carbon tax is created the Congress will be passing bills mitigating impact on one group or another. The big guys will still hold the clout.

Of course any national; program we create will be subject to the give and take of our political system. Some good ideas will be lost. Some not so good ideas will be implemented. But we did do reasonably well with the Highway System, The Manhattan Project and the Moon Landings. I bet we could do just as well with a national climate change program created to address all the aspects of climate change.

Frankly I see no difference in government meddling no matter which way we go. I also see little hope of implementing either program as long as there is no flexibility among us. I do see more inequity in the carbon tax approach. Whatever we do is not going to start big given our deficits – most of which are from other government programs that have cost more and delivered less then originally sold.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Mod, Why do you say it is run by somebody unstated? The proposal is to have the Dept. of Energy to "promulgate regulations setting forth CO2 equivalent fees for other greenhouse gases including methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) emitted as a byproduct, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride." The fees are levied at the pump/well/mine and collected by the IRS. There is no magic in its distribution, which is done the same way the IRS distributes income tax refunds--the mechanisms are already in place. The pressures to manipulate the system, if it is set up in this way, will be much easier to control than some amorphous, gigantic federal program that you have proposed. There is absolutely no chance of that not being controlled by the big guys. Does that mean that we can set up fee and dividend then walk away? Of course not. You are right that big monies draws temptation to get your piece like flies to .....you know what.

It's not a matter of the government not meddling in my book--they've been meddling for all of our lives and before. The question for me is more: what has the best prospects for getting more equitable change more quickly?

And finally, as I've said before, it's not either-or: I think our best chances are if we couple fee and dividend with more federally supported research, incentives to improve energy efficiency, level the subsidy playing field, provide incentives like feed-in tariffs, etc. Then folks can use their dividends much more effectively.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

I have spent a good part of my life watching buy in by people who want the government to do something. It is almost always for almost nothing. If this is instituted by government through regulation then who collects it? Who makes sure it is collected and is assessed correctly? Who catches the cheaters? Who tallies the income? Who determines who gets what in the form of returns? Who cuts the checks to distribute it. If not distributed but returned through the tax system who monitors that? My point is there will be costs to run the program that will have to be deducted from the income. Those costs may not be cheap.

How you get the notion that such a program can be managed without Congressional interference floors me. There will be no way to keep them out. They will add to the winner/loser lists as they have done with every other federal program. Her we are at 0100 and a bill to address pork bellies is on the floor (along with about half a dozen members). A string of amendments are brought up and adopted by voice vote. Surprise, Coal from West Virginia is exempted from the tax/fee. This is how it works now and this is how it will work then.

I am sorry but I still see this endeavor playing out as a vast income redistribution process costing innocent people a premium for what they did not do while misdirecting resources and offering the Congress plenty of opportunity to manipulate it for the betterment of certain constituencies.

It will be interesting to see if now that the courts have allowed regulation of carbon if levying a tax/fee on the sources will fly. It is sure to be challenged at every opportunity and certainly has not and will not be authorized by the Congress. Along the way it will aggravate all kinds of voters who will see it as another case of government overreach. If you do not have the support of the majority of the people for what you are doing - what makes you think you can fool them. They have been know to take retribution. If you have their support it is only a matter of time until the Congress authorizes a program.

melott 1 year, 11 months ago

75x55, you might be correct in noticing that people are deluded for arguing with the willfully misinformed. We would be if we thought we were going to change their minds. We won't be changing their minds. However, one thing I learned in the evolution "controversy" in Kansas in 1999-2002 was that other people, who aren't locked into a position, read these things. When they see the relative sanity of what is presented, most of them end up supporting the side of science. It can help a lot. Some may enjoy reading this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

kernal 1 year, 11 months ago

Good article. Thanks for posting that, melott.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Translation-- if you can't argue rationally and factually against the message, attack the messenger. And you make up whatever baseless crap you want in that endeavor.

bevy 1 year, 11 months ago

Sounds like a lot of you folks have done your research. Perhaps you can help me understand the position a family member spouts off every time this subject comes up. "China and India aren't going to stop emitting carbon, so why should we?" To me it's like saying "The other kids on the block are not gonna quit painting graffiti all over everything. It's gonna be ruined anyhow, so why can't we keep helping to ruin it?"

He's a Faux news watcher and raving right-winger, and about bursts a blood vessel whenever I try to engage him in debate. He just wants me to nod and tell him he's right.

Any help for this, guys? Or should I just give up?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Hard-core Fox News watchers aren't interested in facts, or in honest discussion of facts. It's a scary and confusing world, and they find comfort in their partisanship. All they're really interested in is anything that will reinforce their sense of membership on their "team," and Fox makes $millions providing that for them. I'd say there is little chance of your swaying any of his firmly held (but largely baseless) opinions.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

I'd say give up.

People who are so committed to positions like that aren't going to be convinced by you, and it's just frustrating to try.

If you do want to keep doing it (despite my advice :-)), you might point out that the US is one of a very few countries that hasn't signed on to the Kyoto protocol, and that many other countries are in fact willing to reduce their emissions.

I like your analogy - you might try that as well.

But, raving right wingers and Fox news watchers are very stubborn, and committed to an ideology that generally doesn't allow facts to penetrate it.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Depends on how much he is governed by his emotions versus his reason. Emotion tends to cloud reason, and it is very difficult to admit you are partly responsible for endangering the health and well being of your family. So, they waver between it's-not-a-problem and there's-nothing-we-can-do-about-it-anyway, anything to avoid taking responsibility for taking action.

The U.S. and other industrialized nations enjoy a standard of living far exceeding the average living of Indians and Chinese, and we have gotten that through several generations of consuming the cheapest energy available (fossil fuels) as fast as we can. It is unrealistic to think that the Indians and the Chinese will accept that they should be forever poorer than we are. So, he is partly right in that respect.

I don't know about India, but China appears to be struggling to achieve the goal of becoming a 1st world country while at the same time being very aware that climate change can and will destabilize their food supply, and their leadership will avoid famine and food riots at all costs, because those tend to lead to social/political upheavals. China is very aggressively pursuing renewable energy - http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/201401/china-wind-energy-more-than-coal-first-time-ever-2012

I can't guarantee that India and China will follow our lead in mitigating climate change, if we actually do something, but if we don't do anything, then they will be in the same situation as your family member says we are. They will think: The US is rich from fossil fuel use; why should we stay poor and suffer the effects of climate change so that they can maintain an advantage over us.

They will be much more likely to bring something to the table if we do, and right now our politicians aren't bringing squat.

OK, so that is a rational argument. If he has an emotional blockage to accepting that climate change is a real problem, it is unlikely any rational argument will change his mind. Seriously, there is absolutely no dispute amongst scientists who understand the physics that more CO2 results in a warmer climate, and 97% of those agree what we are doing is dangerous to ourselves, and that has been true for decades; it is at least partly delusional for a layman to think he knows more than has been discovered and investigated by researchers over the last 100 years since Arrhenius wrote his paper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_A...

kernal 1 year, 11 months ago

I don't know about India's current position on this, Bevy, but this month in China pollution and carbon and what to do about it has been much of the public discussion unlike in the past. Just this week, it seems they are looking at options which include a carbon tax. At least they've admitted they have a huge problem and know that most of their cities are barely habitable due to pollution. It helps that Japan has also been complaining about China's pollution affecting their nation.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Can you find some common ground with this guy? Sometimes it's easier to move from a point you can both agree on. As far as information sources to help you provide him some fact based information, I've found the skepticalscience.com website pretty useful, starting maybe with the Big Picture section with him. His reaction to that would give you an idea about whether it's worth moving ahead with more information.

It's human nature for folks to be threatened by data and trends that counter their values and beliefs. Perhaps finding some conservatives who are actually taking a second look at the issue and finding opportunity to support policies that mitigate the effects of climate change would catch the eye of your family member--you never know. Look above for a link I gave for an interview with Bob Ingliss, for example.

Since he's a family member, you didn't choose him, so you have to decide whether it's worth it to you to try to relate to him. These are a few possible tools and if they don't work on him, you might find that he creates a very fertile field for cultivating a more enlightened attitude with your other relatives. You'll contrast with his approach so much that they might leap at the chance to discuss the issue with you more deeply than if you didn't have a dittohead in your midst!

bevy 1 year, 10 months ago

Thanks to all of the above for the useful and insightful ideas! Finally got around to reading them today.

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

MORE LIKE HUGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEE PROFIT!!

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Ah, yes--it's time to roll out the moth-eaten, debunked claims of the Climate Change Conspiracy. Thanks for highlighting one of the classic never-published-in-a-peer-reviewed-climate-journal authors Larry Bell. For those who are taking the time to watch your little YouTube, I suggest they also take a glance at reviews of his work:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/

http://www.desmogblog.com/larry-bell

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/081400a1.html

So now we've established the beholden-ness of a few of virtually all politicians to big monied interests, what else is new? Shall we continue down the list of everyone else in Congress, the executive and judicial branches?

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Ah, yes, Forbes.com, that unapologetic global denial booster rag has done it again. When the denialists have no credible alternative theory to explain the well documented climate change dynamics without including humanity's contribution to the atmosphere's composition, try to steer folks away from that little detail by critiquing a review paper that tries to count the percentage of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting anthropogenic global warming. Well that's a really big issue that keeps me awake at night! I mean, what if only 95 or even 92% of scientific papers clearly point to our playing a significant role???? My goodness, what a conspiracy!

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Wha??? The Bush family bought low and sold high before the stock collapsed???? Oh, but we expect that from our Republican, business savvy friends, not those evil anti-business Demmercrats.

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

http://www.islandvulnerability.org/slr1989.html

This is a meeting about the vulnerability to islands that are at sea level and it was held in 1989. This concern is not new, it is valid. Entire villages in the Arctic Circle have been moved because the permafrost is melting under them and the buildings are sinking. Glaciers that feed major rivers are disappearing.

Warm water has more volume than cold water. Warm water rises and cold water sinks which creates the currents in the oceans. When there is more warm water, then what happens to the currents? Pale ice deflects sun rays, so as the Arctic ice melts, how is this going to affect how much sun is absorbed?

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

Deep ocean currents are driven by density and temperature gradients. Thermohaline circulation, also known as the ocean's conveyor belt, refers to the deep ocean density-driven ocean basin currents. These currents, which flow under the surface of the ocean and are thus hidden from immediate detection, are called submarine rivers. These are currently being researched using a fleet of underwater robots called Argo. Upwelling and downwelling areas in the oceans are areas where significant vertical movement of ocean water is observed.

Surface currents make up about 10% of all the water in the ocean. Surface currents are generally restricted to the upper 400 m (1,300 ft) of the ocean. The movement of deep water in the ocean basins is by density driven forces and gravity. The density difference is a function of different temperatures and salinity. Deep waters sink into the deep ocean basins at high latitudes where the temperatures are cold enough to cause the density to increase.

Ocean currents are measured in Sverdrup (Sv), where 1Sv is equivalent to a volume flow rate of 1,000,000 m3 (35,000,000 cu ft) per second.

An ocean current is a continuous, directed movement of ocean water generated by the forces acting upon this mean flow, such as breaking waves, wind, Coriolis effect, cabbeling, temperature and salinity differences and tides caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon and the Sun. Depth contours, shoreline configurations and interaction with other currents influence a current's direction and strength. A deep current is any ocean current at a depth of greater than 100m.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

You have demonstrated that you can copy-paste from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_cu... What is your point?

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Whether or not he realizes it, the phenomenon he describes is an area of concern because of the volume of fresh water being released from melting Greenland glaciers is diluting the salinity of the northern reaches of the current he describes, which, even counterintuitively, could stop the heat distribution in the oceans enough to cause localized changes in the climate including more severe winters in Northern Europe, among other things.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

With all the yelping above, anybody have a notion of the standard of living we will adopt if we actually reverse C02 enough to make a difference.

If I were twenty and believe the worst case I would be terrified and want all sorts of things done to protect my out years.

If I were forty and believed current projections I might be tempted to ride it out without any major changes.

If I were sixty I would be looking to limit any immediate impacts on my life as I will see little of the indicated consequences.

Sound like a big inter-generational problem. Just how much sacrifice can you demand from those who really will not be impacted? I know - the children.

Just how much sacrifice can you demand from those with little impact to protect those children who already enjoy a standard much above what their parents (on average) did??

Who should make the sacrifice and how fast?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

"With all the yelping above, anybody have a notion of the standard of living we will adopt if we actually reverse C02 enough to make a difference."

Define "standard of living."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm not going to read your link, even if you did click the thumbs-up button on your post.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Merriam-Webster: the necessities, comforts, and luxuries enjoyed or aspired to by an individual or group

But then you know that.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

OK, please tell us the difference between "necessities, comforts, and luxuries." And in terms of energy production, should the definitions of these things be determined by an Indian or Chinese peasant, or you? A school janitor, or Charles Koch?

kernal 1 year, 11 months ago

Moderate, we did not have children so that we could creat an environmental morass and throw them into it. Everyone needs to make sacrifices and can begin now.

  • Do we really need to fly all over the globe for business conferences and meetings now that we can telecommute?
  • Do we really need to drive around downtown for ten minutes looking for a parking space when it would take a shorter time to just park and walk?
  • Do we really need to run errands everyday when we could do them just twice, or even once a week by just planning ahead? -Do we really need to replace our electronics every year just because Apple, Microsoft, etal, come out with new products and upgrades and tell us we need to? -Do we need to recreate winter nights in our homes during the summer months just so we can sleep with blankets? -Is it that hard to recycle your cans, bottles and cereal boxes? -Is it so hard to give up buying cases of plastic water bottles every week instead of just buying a water bottle you can wash out every night?
    The list could just go on and on.

Also, building codes need to be changed and upgraded to lesson environmental impacts. We need to improve insulation methods to prevent energy loss in homes, look at systems such as grey water, solar panels, etc. And, finally, everyone needs to quit blaming everyone else and take responsibility for their own actions, or lack of action.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Building codes have been changed

Being smart in how we operate is a very wise thing.as long as people have some flexibility. When your twenty walking is a necessity. When you are seventy with arthritis it is a pain.

Creating a carbon tax is the issue to which I object.

rtwngr 1 year, 11 months ago

@ kernal - Yes to all of those questions. Thank you for asking.

George Lippencott 1 year, 11 months ago

Using one's head is a wise thing. Taxing people unequally without any idea of priority or goals is not.

Chris Golledge 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, please do read that, especially the part where it says:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17]

rtwngr 1 year, 11 months ago

Has anyone noticed how it isn't called global "warming" anymore. It's called "climate change' now. The other lost complete credibility after the world discovered that most, if not all, of the research date was either flawed or made up. Now they have repackaged it and are trying to sell the same crap. The wealth redistributionists point to hurricanes and tornadoes to corroborate their claims but it is still a house built on sand.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

You must have missed the memo, rt. The melting of the icecap and greenland glaciers,, combined with more water vapor, has resulted in more intense snowstorms due to the resulting shifts in the weather patterns. It has also increased the intensity and duration of other weather extremes, hence the shift away from the overly simplistic "global warming" term. Some folks prefer the term "global weirding" to better capture the unpredictability of these increasingly frequent extreme events.

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

Finally some one with a brain and good sense...Bravo rtwngr....nice to see your a sheep herder......and not a sheep...when Kansas is TAXED to Death and people can't afford even a soda pop...maybe they will understand that its a Business, with False Advertising.....to increase taxes, service charges, maintenance fees, sur charges, disposal fees...etc...etc..etc....but most of all Control. Here comes your Smarter Meters people...explaining their lies on low electric (how, it has to come from other sources) and their high fees....if you use to much electricity....never mind.....most of you are in the Dark anyway....Welcome to Kansas!!

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

avarom 1 year, 11 months ago

Plus....It can be read remotely.....putting many meter readers Out of Work!!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.