US Could Cut 28% of CO2 Emissions Relatively Cheaply, Study Reveals

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have fluorescent light bulbs in my room - although my parents claim they don't like the color of the light they produce - I could care less.

The main problem is that people look @ initial cost for everything, and that's also one of the reasons Americans are so in debt - they see "100,000 for X when the price is normally $250,000" but don't pay attention to the 50% interest - Americans at large don't look at anything through the eyes of the future - and it hurts them financially and also in ways like this.

Yes... because though they are spending money and pumping the economy up a bit.. most of that interest will eventually end up in the pockets of the rich and sit in a bank account somewhere... certainly not trickling down to anyone.

The government and rich people should be wasting their money because that creates jobs and those jobs create wealth and prosperity for more people which raises the median income which then raises the amount of money being spent in the economy because middle class and poor people will spend more of their money as a percentage of their total income.. so the more money is changing hands and everybody is doing better... very Keynesian, I know...

But rich people don't spend money.  They hoard it.  Most rich people I know are incredibly stingy and cheap and that's how they stay rich:  They spare every penny they can and then spend their money in other countries where there is no benefit to Americans.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I give you this, also from NOAA:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071126_carbonrecord.html

In particular, this:

"Carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases produced by humans and very likely responsible for the observed rise in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century. The Mauna Loa and South Pole data were the first to show the rate of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. In 1974, NOAA began tracking greenhouse gases worldwide and continued global observations as the planet warmed rapidly over the past few decades."

[Ban my account ffs!]

The NCDC is not responsible for monitoring climate in a way that gives them to right to make a strong conclusion on the causes of climate change.

They monitor temperature records for the U.S., and it would be pretty stupid to try and claim that CO2 is is solely responsible in the climate trends of the U.S. as there are a myriad of things that can influence the U.S. climate, just like any other region of the world.  The fact that the global temperature, as an average of ALL measurements, has risen is the significant part.

And of course we are not dead certain that Co2 is the only cause.  The climate is very cyclical and CO2 likely plays a significant role, but we cannot be 100% certain whether that role is major or rather minute without first understanding how other things affect climate.

As far as other effects that high Co2 concentrations can have on climate:

About half of the Co2 we emit into the atmosphere is ultimately soaked up by the oceans, causing a chemical reaction with calcium in the ocean which creates calcium-carbonate.  This is all fine and dandy except it drastically reduces the amount of calcium available for organisms in the ocean to create exoskeletons , the most important being plankton which act as the bottom of the food chain in our world's oceans.

It also promotes plant growth which increases humidity, which then warms the planet.  The planet is getting greener thanks to our CO2 and that has been recorded.  This could also be responsible for warming in a more roundabout way.

Much of the warming in Europe, which has warmed faster than the global average, has been pinned down to increases in water vapor in the atmosphere.  Water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Much of the warming in Europe, which has warmed faster than the global average, has been pinned down to increases in water vapor in the atmosphere.  Water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

Obviously the solution to global warming is a cold shower.

I find it rather alarming that European governments (the U.K in particular) go on and on about the extra deaths caused by the 2003 heatwave, which was, if anything, a freak event that hit an unprepared populace.

What is alarming is that there was article after article on this heat wave, and almost nothing about the fact that 10 times as many people die each year due to the effects of cold weather.

The BBC put out so many articles on the heat wave but quietly published an article that stated that nearly 25,000 people died that next winter (2,000 died in Britain thanks to the heat wave) due mostly to strokes and heart attacks related to cold weather and that the government should provide more heating fuel for people in rural areas.

So, if you look at the future and assume that every other summer will be like 2003 in Britain, and also assuming that we will not adapt at all, an extra 2,000 people will die each summer, but presumably many more lives will be saved during the milder winters, resulting in a net reduction in weather-related deaths.

But that is not the way the media will spin it, of course.. they will continue to show footage of Monsoonal floods in Bangladesh and pluck your emotional strings as much as possible to get your support for largely symbolic legislation that will do almost NOTHING to reduce global warming so you can place all the blame on the U.S. when they call foul smelling agreements foul.

Screw Kyoto.. let's actually do something about global warming.