Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Loyal Opposition

Are you a Carbon Criminal?

Advertisement

A few days ago, I learned from the BBC a new term, Carbon Criminal. It speaks to excessive use of resources. Well, in my 66 years I have been a significant resource consumer. I benefit from coal. I have owned a number of SUVs. I commuted to work all by myself. I use air-conditioning. I heated my home to 72 degrees. I drove cross-country many times. I have many flying miles under my belt. Overall, my carbon footprint has been significant. It would appear that I am a carbon criminal. I should be ashamed

Well, I am not! Frankly, what I did was legal and was done by countless others at the time. Actually, I am angry at the very notion that I did anything wrong. To retrospectively criminalize a way of life is ridiculous. Not only does it fail to achieve anything useful; it creates a very hostile atmosphere that precludes any dialogue and destroys basic civility.

There seems to be an increasing tendency in recent times to retrospectively criminalize actions that some people find offensive. Let us prosecute Bush for a war that Congress authorized. Let us undo contract law because we do not like the outcome. Hey, why not tax those we disagree with – oops we are doing that. How about criminal actions against those who are now judged to have been carbon criminals? Where does all this stop? Am I to be in fear of the World Court?

Many believe that a major factor in our success as a nation can be attributed to our respect for the law. Are we now to abandon that commitment in the passions of the moment? For those of you so quick to judge people retrospectively remember that approach cuts both ways. Someone may judge you by his or her personal beliefs and not by any duly enacted laws. Just think, we then can have our own version of ethnic cleansing right here in the United States. Is this what we want?

Comments

HermioneElliott 5 years ago

Well this is just great. All the good old boys in one place. I think we should move all of you to somewhere like, say, Wyoming, put a dome over it. That way the rest of us can work on a way to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Humans are managing to destroy to animal species, now we can start to work on ourselves. But, the planet will still be here.

0

Centerville 5 years ago

It's all a scam to raise taxes and some of the usefuls have fallen for it. 0'blahbblah will do a lot of talking (surprise) and talking and talking. But even he knows it's silly.

0

ibroke 5 years ago

you can make fun of this topic all you want but obama will probably setup a plan to prosecute or tax people or companies that emit too much co2

0

oldvet 5 years ago

Boy, this has me so upset that I think I will drive alone in my large, V-8 powered, SUV all the way to the gun club and blast away at some silhouette targets...

0

Jim Phillips 5 years ago

We must eliminate all methane producers to save the planet and to keep ourselves from dying off! Everyone-eradicate all living mammals and yourselves immediately! It's the only way we can survive!

0

devobrun 5 years ago

There are two reasons to move away from fossil fuels.
1) CO2 production is said to cause increased temperature due to a feedback mechanism that causes more water to evaporate into the atmosphere. CO2 alone is not enough to worry about, so the feedback mechanism is emphasized as the culprit. Never mind the other mechanisms like cloud formation and solar output, and cosmic ray deflection by solar magnetic fields......

2) Oil is a limited resource and concentrated in unstable countries of the world. Politically and economically, oil is a problem for the west because the money we send to these countries winds ups buying guns for terrorists.

1) is a lie. It is science done by politicians who have an agenda. The agenda is to shift power from western free market business to global top-down management.

2) has now a very good chance of being solved by a new technique of converting coal to oil.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids.html

We are saved.

0

Chris Ogle 5 years ago

No methane gas taxes.... even tree huggers emit those gases.... or do they.... second thought... they probably do, but won't admit it... heaven forbid.

0

devobrun 5 years ago

Paul, tree huggers don't get taxed or arrested. Carbon criminals do. That is what I meant.

0

tunahelper 5 years ago

I burn at least 20 cords of red oak every winter! I love the smell of burning wood on a cold winter night!

p.s. algore is the biggest hypocrite on the planet.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…

Marion, if you end up in the ditch, call me. I'll throw the chain in the back of my 13mpg F-250 and come pull you out."

Marion writes:

You got it!

0

RoeDapple 5 years ago

Marion, if you end up in the ditch, call me. I'll throw the chain in the back of my 13mpg F-250 and come pull you out.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

Just bought a low mileage 1963 Chrysler New Yorker which I intend to drive a lot for daily transportation.

Rare care; has dealer installed 30 in cross-rams and twin fours.

413 cubes, 375 BHP. 2.76 Sure-Grip..

Should average around 20 if I keep my foot out of it but where would be the fun in keeping my foot out of it?

"Carbon footprint" my Heinie a**!

Eat my dust!

0

RoeDapple 5 years ago

Good call Tom ---GWO. could become a household phrase.

points for Tom!

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

There's a new sheriff in town: Albert Gore, Jr. and he will bust your bank account and seize your assets for violating the new laws of Global Warming Ordinances,

0

jumpin_catfish 5 years ago

I am. Catch me if you can!

0

RoeDapple 5 years ago

When Al gore rides a bicycle all over the country to preach about environment instead of a 747 I'll know it's a serious issue. Otherwise, keep the pumps running...........

0

Jim Phillips 5 years ago

You can tell the Libs are in charge! How Narcissistic can you be? The Earth was here before we were and it will be here long after we're gone.

0

classclown 5 years ago

When you outlaw carbon, only criminals will emit carbon.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

And Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

0

viewfromahill 5 years ago

There are no carbon criminals... only little criminals.

0

classclown 5 years ago

How many carbon credits will I use up whenever I pass gas? Is it a floating scale depending upon the severity of each situation?

0

classclown 5 years ago

Would you be ashamed if I wag my finger at you?

We've all become immune to the name calling as that's pretty much all anyone is capable of doing anymore in an attempt to denigrate those with which they disagree with.

A good finger wagging however... Now that will set a shaming upon someone.

0

75x55 5 years ago

"Now that we've identified that there are stupid people who call people who they don't agree with nasty names, why don't we ignore them?"

Doug said what? Oh, never mind him.

0

tonymontana 5 years ago

I have a big pit in my back yard where i dump jet fuel and burn it.

0

Paul Decelles 5 years ago

Actually Devo in a sense tree hugger and carbon criminal as terms are similar since they are both meant to pigeon hole people whose view one does not like. That is what I meant....

DougCounty gets it.

0

George Lippencott 5 years ago

A thought - Each individual has a carbon footprint. We can not make that zero We can have fewer individuals Maybe those of us who are older can go back and eliminate our self-serving offspring who created the term "Carbon Criminal" and thereby make a real contribution to mitigating Climate Change

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

cont'd(Whew!):

In an influential but highly controversial paper called "Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change," British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, has declared that industrial economies would need to cut their per capita carbon dioxide emissions by "at least 80% by 2050," while the biggest economies, like the U.S.'s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent.

Stern also calls for "immediate and binding" reduction targets for developed nations of 20 percent to 40 percent by 2020.

To meet Stern's 2050 goals, he says, among other things, "most of the world's electricity production will need to have been decarbonized."

Click here for Stern's paper.

By way of comparison, according to the U.S. Department Of Energy, roughly 72 percent of U.S. electrical power generation in 2007 was derived from burning fossil fuels, with just 6 percent coming from hydro-power and less than 3 percent from non-nuclear renewable and "other" sources. And even then, those "other" non-fossil sources included wood and biomass — which, when burned, are major emitters of carbon.

George Russell is executive editor of FOX News.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

cont'd:

"Indeed, only rarely does the "information note" attempt to inform readers in dollar terms of the impact of "spillover effects" from the potential policy changes it discusses. In a brief mention of consumer subsidies for fossil fuels, the note remarks that such subsidies in advanced economies exceed $60 billion a year, while they exceed $90 billion a year in developing economies."

But calculations of the impact of tariffs, offsets, or other subsidies is rare. In a reference to the impact of declining oil exports, the report says that Saudi Arabia has determined the loss to its economy at between $100 billion and $200 billion by 2030, but said nothing about other oil exporters.

One reason for the lack of detail, the note indicates, is that impact would vary widely depending on the nature and scope of the policies adopted (and, although the note does not mention it, on the severity of the greenhouse reduction targets).

But even when it does hazard a guess at specific impacts, the report seems curiously hazy. A "climate change levy on aviation" for example, is described as having undetermined "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce," as well as "tourism services." But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

In other cases, as when discussing the "increased costs of traditional exports" under a new environmental regime, the report confines itself to terse description. Changes in standards and labeling for exported goods, for example, "may demand costly changes to the production process." If subsidies and tariffs affect exports, the note says, the "economic and social consequences of dampening their viability may, for some countries and sectors, be significant."

Much depends, of course, on the extent to which harsher or more lenient greenhouse gas reduction targets demand more or less drastic policies for their achievement.

And, precisely because the Bonn meeting is a stage for negotiating those targets, the note is silent. Instead it suggests that more bureaucratic work is needed "to deepen the understanding of the full nature and scale of such impacts."

But outside the Bonn process, other experts have been much more blunt about the draconian nature of the measures they deem necessary to make "effective" greenhouse gas reductions.

cont'd:

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

cont'd:

"The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.

• Click here for the information note.

Among the tools that are considered are the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; "carbon taxes" on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered "environmentally sound."

Other tools are referred to only vaguely, including "energy policy reform," which the report indicates could affect "large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports." When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have "positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels."

In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes "may induce some industrial relocation" to "less regulated host countries." Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies.

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

There are also entirely new kinds of tariffs and trade protectionist barriers such as those termed in the note as "border carbon adjustment"— which, the note says, can impose "a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically" under more strict environmental regimes.

Another form of "adjustment" would require exporters to "buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically."

The impact of both schemes, the note says, "would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers." (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is "foreign.") The note adds that "If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged." Nothing is said about the consequences if such fairness was not achieved.

cont'd:

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

Don't worry; the "United" Nations of Third Wrold Crapholes is taking care of this for us!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

From the citation:

"U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy Friday , March 27, 2009

By George Russell

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Getting that deal done has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.

Just how ambitious the U.N.'s goals are can be seen, but only dimly, in the note obtained by FOX News, which offers in sparse detail both positive and negative consequences of the tools that industrial nations will most likely use to enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

cont'd:

0

Robert Kiefer 5 years ago

It is my goal in life to leave the biggest carbon footprint known to man, I will not feel guilty about it, nor appologize for it. In the end mother nature will take care of any mess I leave behind, not science, not government, & definately not carbon winded enviro-cops!

0

XD40 5 years ago

I will not be dimming the lights tomorrow night. In fact, I'll be sure to have everything electric that I own turned on. The psuedo-religion of the fascist environmetal left holds no allure for me and I will fight it to my last CO2 laden breath.

0

sinverguenza 5 years ago

I never knew people were trying to insult me when they called me a tree hugger. Whew! Why would you insult someone who hugs trees? Trees are good people and they never did anything to hurt anybody, except in the twisted mind of M. Night Shyamalan.

0

devobrun 5 years ago

Between 8:30 and 9:30 pm tomorrow night we are being asked to reduce our energy needs. Turn down the lights, etc.

Around this time all citizens of Lawrence should listen toward the Lawrence Energy Center north of town. There will likely be a loud rumble from the steam release from boilers. These boilers are used to drive steam generators that make electricity.

With the reduced demand from 8:30 till 9:30, the generation will be reduced as well. If demand drops significantly, then steam will have to be released, thus wasting energy that came from coal. If demand doesn't decrease much and the steam isn't available, we will experience a brown out.

Each time zone in America will, in turn, reduce electrical demand, and then resume their lights at 9:30. If there are many compliant electrical users, we will see a ripple through the grid that will cause havoc.

Good thing the Jayhawks are playing at 8:30 tonight and not tomorrow.

Foolish notions result in foolish actions.

Don't worry George, there is plenty of guilt resulting from ignorance to spread around.

0

devobrun 5 years ago

Cappy: Here is what will happen:

The UN will form a study group to investigate the formation of a committee to mitigate the problem of carbon visa vie economic and social diversity. Meetings will be held in Bali, Monaco, and Paris (summer) to come up with inclusive economic schemes to redistribute carbon criminality and economic sanctions.

Emerging economies will benefit and Europe and the U.S. will pay for India, Brazil, and China in terms of carbon. Just like slavery, America will be blamed for carbon because of past carbon sins.

Redistribution of wealth complete, the new evidence from IPCC will show that global warming has not occurred because of CO2, but because of other factors. Power will be concentrated in global government, and the dominance of the U.S. will have faded. Decisions about your life will be made by people from Ghana, Tuvalu, Ukraine, and who know where else.

Banality will rule: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf

Mission accomplished.

0

Ken Lassman 5 years ago

Carbon criminal, tree hugger, redneck, enviro-nazi....they are all stupid insults, they should all be forsworn, and anybody who uses them are guilty of the same stupidity--does everyone agree?

Now that we've identified that there are stupid people who call people who they don't agree with nasty names, why don't we ignore them?

0

smartestmanintheworld 5 years ago

I just thought of a great money maker. If they do start giving out carbon credits I shall open several business that have a high carbon output. Of course these will be phoney businesses that do nothing but I will be selling my credits and make some money.

0

jonas_opines 5 years ago

"Every time a militant environmentalist exhales, our planet dies a little."

http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/33/l_1ce096095649b134253ddcc7b6911186.gif

I might have to put that on a T-Shirt. I'll message you to set up the royalties if I do.

0

Mixolydian 5 years ago

It's all the mouth breathers exhaling inordinate amounts of CO2 that are ruining this planet.

Every time a militant environmentalist exhales, our planet dies a little.

0

RoeDapple 5 years ago

George - my inlaws asked my opinion on them getting more efficient vehicles. She has a mid size crossover @ 21mpg. He has a pick up @ 19mpg. they were looking at different models that get upwards of 36mpg.These wonderful people are in their early eighties. we calculated that at current gas and vehicle prices with the number of miles they drive, all things staying the same they would have to drive the new vehicle 37 years to break even. Their carbon footprint is about nothing. At your age and mine I seriously doubt any changes we made now could "redeem" us Who coulda known.....................

0

grammaddy 5 years ago

Cappy, You're absolutely right. Now that we are facing the consequences of our past "sins" what can we do differently in the future?

0

jonas_opines 5 years ago

/carbon criminal = insultingly stupid term

0

jonas_opines 5 years ago

"There seems to be an increasing tendency in recent times to retrospectively criminalize actions that some people find offensive."

I thought of a great Godwin for this, and then didn't. . . .

"Let us prosecute Bush for a war that Congress authorized. Let us undo contract law because we do not like the outcome. Hey, why not tax those we disagree with – oops we are doing that. How about criminal actions against those who are now judged to have been carbon criminals? Where does all this stop? Am I to be in fear of the World Court?"

. . . but man, after this escalation to absurdity. . . nah.

Let's drop a step.

"There seems to be an increasing tendency in recent times to retrospectively criminalize actions that some people find offensive."

Like slavery!

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

I have come here to chew bubblegum and emit fluorocarbons... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

0

viewfromahill 5 years ago

"Frankly, what I did was legal and was done by countless others at the time."

(Present company excepted, but...)

What a shallow morality, legality... not deepened by the ruts of the bandwagon.

0

Benjamin Roberts 5 years ago

A few years back I used carbon paper on a regular basis. I stepped on a piece once and doubled my carbon footprint. I no longer use carbon paper and thus have eliminated any chance of another carbon footprint.

0

devobrun 5 years ago

Paul, perhaps you also hate the judgmental aspects of carbon footprints? Tree hugger is mild compared to carbon criminal.

0

Paul Decelles 5 years ago

Don't worry George I forgive you.

Just kidding. Personally though most people think of me as an environmentalist type, I hate this kind of judgmental term. It's right up there with tree hugger or left leaning liberal or conservative wacko or Darwinist as a way of demonizing people.

Paul..walking on somewhat medium sized carbon feet...;-)

0

Kirk Larson 5 years ago

No one cares what you DID. What's important is what are you going to do. You know, the future?

0

devobrun 5 years ago

Oh, gee, how could I have forgotten. George, you are guilty of original sin. You used carbon all your life in a wanton way.

We all have. We are not worthy of redemption, but we ask it nonetheless. Buy a Prius. Confess your sins and feel better.

I would break into a penance of hail.... or our..... but I am not here to ridicule the Catholics, only the newly minted guilt trippers.

Isn't it strange how people create reality?

0

devobrun 5 years ago

That which goes as environmental science these days is an overt attempt to replace religion. The opiate of the masses is to be replaced by guilt, redemption, salvation, and the new way via "experts".

Yep, the intelligentsia figured out that merely arguing against god wasn't working. So they decided to enhance their social power by becoming a new religion. Environmentalism is more than a political movement. It is a religion in every way. 1) Look at carbon as sin, cap and trade or tax as absolution. 2) It has proselytes and evangelists like Al Gore. 3) It has demagogues and hypocrites. 4) It has infidels and apostates 5) It has sacrifice and ritual. 6) Prophecy 7) Puritans 8) Confession and salvation 9) It promises a cure for the sickness that inhabits the human spirit.

Cast off your sins of the evil carbon. Join us in turning off your lights for one hour this weekend. Send money to Al Gore. Repent, the end is near.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.