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.
If you want to call CO2 a pollutant I can justify calling water a pollutant as the greatest greenhouse gas of them all is water vapor. It trumps CO2 by many magnitudes.
You tell me, life on this planet cannot exist without CO2.
Look, if you don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that abnormally high levels of it in the atmosphere result in global climate change then obviously you won't like Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade hinges on the fact that too much CO2 is harmful.
I don't particularly care to rehash the global warming argument here since its been done in about a thousand other threads. But trust me that nobody wants to impose a cost on businesses "just because".
Look, if you don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Never said that did I?See my post before yours.
Quote:
and that abnormally high levels of it in the atmosphere
Here's the increase in CO2 over the last 50 years, note the scale is only 1%.
To put that into numbers it has risen about 100 PPM, PPM stands for parts per million for those unfamiliar with it. Or even a easier number to understand we added 1 cent to $10,000 cash.
Does this minuscule number make a difference? Possibly, what is clear is that CO2 is not the only factor in the temperature of our climate.
Never said that did I?See my post before yours.
Here's the increase in CO2 over the last 50 years, note the scale is only 1%.
To put that into numbers it has risen about 100 PPM, PPM stands for parts per million for those unfamiliar with it. Or even a easier number to understand we added 1 cent to $10,000 cash.
Does this minuscule number make a difference? Possibly, what is clear is that CO2 is not the only factor in the temperature of our climate.
The graph is misleading since CO2 is a tiny percentage of the atmosphere. Even if it doubled, you would barely notice it on your graph - it would still be well below the 0.1 marker.
Another way to look at it is to say that in 1950, CO2 was about 300 PPM -today it is close to 400 PPM. (400-300)/300 * 100% = 33%. So the concentration of CO2 is 33% higher today than it was 60 years ago. And the rate of increase is itself rising. Given that we will be dependent on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, level of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise for many decades to come. And it won't be cycled out possibly for centuries so even if we completely stopped all emissions today - present CO2 levels will remain for a very long time.
Of course CO2 is not the only factor - there are many positive and negative feedback loops. But this is precisely why we should be cautious - maybe water vapor in the atmosphere will exacerbate the problem. Maybe released methane will speed up the warming. We don't know. And I'd rather we not find out.
If the cost of delivering goods goes up, the cost of those goods will go up. People can talk about specific industries all they want, and some can even pretend that those companies will just absorb the new tax without raising prices, but the bottom line is that everything you buy will cost more. It doesn't matter what it is, or where it's made. The price WILL go up - on EVERYTHING.
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.
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.
