U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2015, 01:18 AM
 
39,496 posts, read 40,823,172 times
Reputation: 16309

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Cap and trade is the most effective program EPA has ever administered for the reduction of SOx and NOx. It was a great idea suggested by Republicans. It establishes a market and allows the market to work.
Just becsue a solution worked well in on area does not mean it work well for something else. It's a completely different ballgame with CO2. While reduction in pollutants had many avenues like simply using lower sulfur coal there is very limited amount you can do with CO2.

  • Increased Efficiency - do we need and incentive for companies to become more efficient?
  • Recycle - Use it as a feed stock for bio fuels. This is probably one thing that has potential.
  • Capture - Could prove to be very expensive, you are now going to store CO2 forever.... that's forever. Did I say forever?..... There is also a huge liability concerns and this would ultimately require the same type of indemnity given to nuclear plants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2015, 06:31 AM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,466,290 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Just becsue a solution worked well in on area does not mean it work well for something else. It's a completely different ballgame with CO2. While reduction in pollutants had many avenues like simply using lower sulfur coal there is very limited amount you can do with CO2.

  • Increased Efficiency - do we need and incentive for companies to become more efficient?
  • Recycle - Use it as a feed stock for bio fuels. This is probably one thing that has potential.
  • Capture - Could prove to be very expensive, you are now going to store CO2 forever.... that's forever. Did I say forever?..... There is also a huge liability concerns and this would ultimately require the same type of indemnity given to nuclear plants.
Fiction.

Sequester -- plant tree , place under control of Nature Conservancy.
Efficiency -- Plug in hybrid vehicle credit
Repower -- Shut down coal fired plants and replace with low carbon technology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2015, 09:30 AM
 
39,496 posts, read 40,823,172 times
Reputation: 16309
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Fiction.

Sequester -- plant tree , place under control of Nature Conservancy.
Forests are a cycle, they release CO2 either through decay or fire. Fire is required for a healthy forest, trees like Sequios'a require it to regenerate naturally. Unless you are going to suggest returning farm land and the property people live on to the forest this is not really a solution. Any amount of trees you can plant in dense areas is really insignificant.


Quote:
Efficiency -- Plug in hybrid vehicle credit
You moving the goal posts now. Thius is not a market based solution that you were arguing for. I will only increase demand on electricity production and I'm getting just a little bit tired of paying for everyone else's novelty items. How about this, instead we force urban dwelling yuppies that drive BMW's to pay a tax.

Quote:
Repower -- Shut down coal fired plants and replace with low carbon technology.
Not going to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2015, 10:45 AM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,466,290 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Forests are a cycle, they release CO2 either through decay or fire. Fire is required for a healthy forest, trees like Sequios'a require it to regenerate naturally. Unless you are going to suggest returning farm land and the property people live on to the forest this is not really a solution. Any amount of trees you can plant in dense areas is really insignificant.


You moving the goal posts now. Thius is not a market based solution that you were arguing for. I will only increase demand on electricity production and I'm getting just a little bit tired of paying for everyone else's novelty items. How about this, instead we force urban dwelling yuppies that drive BMW's to pay a tax.

Not going to happen.
There is a lot of open land not used for farming that can be planted. When a forest is totally mature it can be harvested if desired and run again. A mature forest just stops being a net absorber. It is certainly a market based solution because the people planting the trees under appropriate conditions get to sell the CO2 sequestered.

And the car manufacturer of a hybrid car can sell the credits he gets for producing a zero emission car. Electricity, even from coal produces fewer GHGs than an ICE power vehicle. In cap and trade your taxes won't pay for that, the industry that needs the credits will pay for that.

And the shutting of coal fired plants is happening as we speak. In 2013 7 thousand megawatts of coal fired capacity was retired in the US. 54 hundred megawatts of renewable were brought on line.

Last edited by DCforever; 10-22-2015 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2015, 08:30 PM
 
39,496 posts, read 40,823,172 times
Reputation: 16309
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
There is a lot of open land not used for farming that can be planted.
If it's open land it's being maintained like that for a reason, it doesn't take long for surrounding forest to reclaim land naturally. I can take you too reclaimed mine areas that were nothing but dirt and grass 20 years ago and are now covered with saplings. In addition to that there is already tax incentives in many states to maintain areas as forested.

Such a plan sounds like it's wide open for abuse, you're going to pay the forestry industry to do something they are going to do anyway or allow to naturally occur?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2015, 09:01 PM
 
Location: New York Area
15,936 posts, read 6,271,820 times
Reputation: 12383
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwong7 View Post
Wealth redistribution isn't a bad thing. I see taxes and conspicuous consumption as benign agents of redistribution. My main reason for this is because there's a tendency for the wealth to head in one direction; The rich get richer and the poor get poorer without intervention. It use to be the proletariat versus the owners of production. But a middle-class emerged through policy intervention including labor regulations, financial engineering, emergence of a service industry, social welfare systems, and retirement planning. I believe we are in the tired late stages post New-Deal and we are regressing back to a proletariat/bourgeois paradigm. However, the difference is that middle-class folks have a way to buy into the means of production by entrepreneurship and stock ownership…the lower-middle class and working class are greatly disadvantaged and the wealthy have a huge advantage.
Thoughtful though we disagree almost 100%. I still repped the post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwong7 View Post
In regards to the OP's post, I think we evaluate things in terms of economics too often. I guess it's natural being a capitalistic society, but there are other perspectives to consider. Renewables were not economically viable for years, but through government subsidies, production improvements, and consumption, we are seeing some renewables take off. Solar is so much better and cheaper than it was 40 years ago and I think it's the ultimate solution for local energy production. You're right that businesses and utilities have the power to pass their costs onto the consumers unless there are alternatives available to the consumer.
The problem with not seeing things in terms of economics is that the U.S.'s poor is affected disproportionately. Cap and trade wealth will flow to Third World potentates, not really benefiting the poor. Our poor will suffer more from increased energy costs than the rich. Still a good, thoughtful post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2015, 07:45 AM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,466,290 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If it's open land it's being maintained like that for a reason, it doesn't take long for surrounding forest to reclaim land naturally. I can take you too reclaimed mine areas that were nothing but dirt and grass 20 years ago and are now covered with saplings. In addition to that there is already tax incentives in many states to maintain areas as forested.

Such a plan sounds like it's wide open for abuse, you're going to pay the forestry industry to do something they are going to do anyway or allow to naturally occur?
In the last 20 years I've been to all 50 states, mostly the rural areas. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of deforested land, not being used for much in agriculture. There are similarly huge swaths of land in the 3rd world that have been clear cut and not reforested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2015, 09:07 AM
 
39,496 posts, read 40,823,172 times
Reputation: 16309
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
In the last 20 years I've been to all 50 states, mostly the rural areas. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of deforested land, not being used for much in agriculture.
Just because it wasn't in use at that time doesn't mean it's not in use or won't be in use in the future. Firstly a common practice is to not plant a field every X years. More importantly the population will continue to increase as will the need for more agriculture land. That population increase in areas like California will continue to divert more water resources making farming in those areas difficult. There will be shift in the coming decades back to areas like Pennsylvania where water is not an issue.

The value of that land is substantial especially in a condition where it can be planted tomorrow, it's not expensive to maintain it that way either. Land that is already cleared will have been chosen to begin with because it was desirable for farming.







Quote:
There are similarly huge swaths of land in the 3rd world that have been clear cut and not reforested.
I'm expected to pay higher utility bills to plant a tree in some other country? Perhaps that country needs to reconsider their land management practices.

FYI, the forested area in the US has increased slightly since the 1900's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2015, 01:30 PM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,466,290 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Just because it wasn't in use at that time doesn't mean it's not in use or won't be in use in the future. Firstly a common practice is to not plant a field every X years. More importantly the population will continue to increase as will the need for more agriculture land. That population increase in areas like California will continue to divert more water resources making farming in those areas difficult. There will be shift in the coming decades back to areas like Pennsylvania where water is not an issue.

The value of that land is substantial especially in a condition where it can be planted tomorrow, it's not expensive to maintain it that way either. Land that is already cleared will have been chosen to begin with because it was desirable for farming.







I'm expected to pay higher utility bills to plant a tree in some other country? Perhaps that country needs to reconsider their land management practices.

FYI, the forested area in the US has increased slightly since the 1900's.
Allow a farmer to earn money by planting trees and you are going to see a lot more forests in this country. If you knew a farmer, you would understand the truth of that statement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2015, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,188 posts, read 13,368,226 times
Reputation: 7369
Anything the government has a hand in, will not go well....that's a guarantee and a well-proved fact.

Taxing something only COSTS everyone...it won't decrease the amount of anything...just makes it cost more....

Humans cannot change the climate. Did anyone try and change the dust bowl in the 30's? No...but now, today, it gets the rain it used to get....courtesy of Mother Nature!

The climate changes...it's cyclical....we have nothing to do with it. I'm not advocating dirtying our planet, but trying to change what we have when we aren't ready???? Nope
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top