I was dismayed to hear on the news some prediction of home heating fuels doubling in price by 2010, the cost being somehow attributed to the cost of conforming to the Kyoto agreement.

I thought the prices were already high enough, thank you very much :D

So as a result of that, I've been wondering where do our basic human rights cut in and supercede this Kyoto Krapola? In most of Canada, there is a need, and it should be a right to heat your home for a good portion of the year. Taxes on the fuels used in that manner should be refunded.

Attempting to exact some sort of environmental penalty from a homeowner exercising a basic human right is an atrocity. Its akin to taxing the air you breathe out, because there is CO2 in it. It is akin to taxing your groceries.

It may be that some sort of 'basic unit of home heating' needs to be derived as a basis for the tax free threshold on fuel consumption.

Maybe I'm over-reacting?

I was dismayed to hear on the news some prediction of home heating fuels doubling in price by 2010, .......etc, etc


Maybe I'm over-reacting?

Nah, you just live someplace that is really too cold for human habitation. :D :D

Geof,

Maybe I should start buying up scrap magnesium doodads and spend my evenings turning them into chips. I hear that stuff burns pretty good, might be the new fuel of choice for machinists ? ;)

Geof,

Maybe I should start buying up scrap magnesium doodads and spend my evenings turning them into chips. I hear that stuff burns pretty good, might be the new fuel of choice for machinists ? ;)

It would be a better economic proposition to sell the scrap magnesium and use the income to buy fuel oil.

Or depending on how many machines you have building, your house above the shop and run 24 hour shifts so you get the waste heat from the machines.

That would have the added advantage you would be so irritated by the machine noise and so stressed out by running a business 24 hours a day you wouldn't have time to fuss about Kyoto taxes.

This could be an incentive for building an eolic plant (plenty of DIY designs) and fitting it mostly with dump loads. Revise the isolation of the home and maybe using existing and new forms for home heating.
Have you heard of infrared heating panels?

Have you heard about the Zero-Point energy? Its interesting. Concerning heating things up there is a water heater that allegedly uses less energy to create steam from water, the output heat is greater in sum that the energy put into the electric motor that spins the device. You could find many videos about this on Youtube.

Konstantin.

P.S.
By 2010 things are going to be so bad that the perspective of paying taxes wont even be on the horizon. The Sun's activity is building up and is going to peak by 2012, which is coincidentally the end date of the Aztec's calendar. The Sun activity affects everything, with the global warming being only one of the issues, the sanity of man is another issue, with more wars on the horizon the global tension could well explode into the ww3.
I know my reply is apocalyptic happy and goes beyond your topic and imho the alternative energy sources are worth checking.

You Canadians only think of your own comfort. What about the bunnies?:)




I would love to see several websites based on the idea that warm is good:


www.siberiansforglobalwarming.com (http://www.siberiansforglobalwarming.com)


www.scandanaviansförglobalwarming.org (http://www.scandanaviansförglobalwarming.org)


www.justsaynotocapandtrade.co.ca (http://www.justsaynotocapandtrade.co.ca)


www.kyotoharakiri.co.jp (http://www.kyotoharakiri.co.jp)


Swift Vets for Truth on John Kerry and Global Warming
http://www.swiftvets.com/

You can get free power from the earth just by flying a kite on the end of a wire. And you can get free power from thermocouples, too.

Now that's alternative energy.

--97T--

I'm going to start selling carbon credits to fund my solar array of 400million Type R thermocouples that will power my porch light.

:)

And I thought my two posts were flippant and not helpful. Obviously I am well out of the running.

I was dismayed to hear on the news some prediction of home heating fuels doubling in price by 2010, the cost being somehow attributed to the cost of conforming to the Kyoto agreement.
I thought the prices were already high enough, thank you very much :D
Maybe I'm over-reacting?

Your not, because taxes on conventional fuels should be offset by tax breaks and allowances on alternative fuels.

The people in developed countries no longer control their destinys and democracy is a veil and is becoming essentially a myth. The politicians are either so removed from average everyday life, or so entwined in their donation contributors pockets that they pass laws just for the sake of passing laws and maintaining the veil of necessity for their position. Protests and marches do nothing because the politicians dont care. Do you really think that Joe Minister on 1/4 million € per year cares if you walk outside his office for an hour, in the rain, with a wooden placard?

Over here we had manageable (As in we could make the payments) energy prices until a few years ago when they introduced an 'Energy Regulator'. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but it's since proven that the regulator is only there to rubber stamp and provide an air of necessity to the consecutive price increases we have suffered.
Oil prices went up --- energy prices went up.
Oil prices came down --- energy prices went up.

We have since learned that the government has been artificially increasing energy prices in order to attract private companies and competition into the Irish energy market.....
.....Now thats a misnomer if ever I heard one....we want competition to reduce prices but the prices are so low no private companies will come in, so lets pump up the prices by 100's of % until we have private competition, then they might drop by a few tens of %. This is not a joke, its what they've done in Ireland for the last 7 or 8 years. When will they learn....PRIVATISING PUBLIC UTILITIES DOESN'T WORK!!!!
At least it doesn't work in a very small and limited economy like Irelands. There is just not enough people to have effective competition in large scale operations.

The people we elect dont give a damn about us, pollution, or anything else.

For some things I'm an optimist, for others, I'm a pessimist, what ya gonna do!

Off topic, sorry.

:mad:

That would have the added advantage you would be so irritated by the machine noise and so stressed out by running a business 24 hours a day you wouldn't have time to fuss about Kyoto taxes.

Working 14-16 hour days and running a bank of screw machines had me more worried about my ears ringing and my feet killing me.....never mind worrying about recievables....There was beer for that.

I was dismayed to hear on the news some prediction of home heating fuels doubling in price by 2010

That's why god made sweaters, they grow wild in Walmarts and other places.

Geof,

Maybe I should start buying up scrap magnesium doodads and spend my evenings turning them into chips. I hear that stuff burns pretty good, might be the new fuel of choice for machinists ? ;)

And you left with magnesium dioxide then it is burnt. Dissolve it in water, add a little flavour and you have "milk on magnesia", you have to think up another name for your antacid though. That one is already taken.

I was dismayed to hear on the news some prediction of home heating fuels doubling in price by 2010, the cost being somehow attributed to the cost of conforming to the Kyoto agreement...

....Maybe I'm over-reacting?

Maybe you are maybe not. Did you see the lead article in today's Globe and Mail. What you have become aware of is part of the true cost of 'combatting Global Warming'.

So far most of the news media publicity has been about plans to tax industry, a carbon tax which somehow or other is supposed to reduce CO2 emissions?? But higher heating fuel costs are only a minor part of the economic upheaval that will occur if there are any serious effective measures put in place to reduce CO2 emissions.

The figure of a 20% reduction has been bandied about but no one has analysed what this really means. Here is an analysis; people might quibble with my numbers but I will be very surprised if I am off by more than plus or minus about 25%.

What does a real 20% reduction in CO2 mean? Simple, you use 20% less fossil fuels; these are natural gas, petroleum products and coal. There are differences between these in how much CO2 is released per unit of energy made available with natural gas being the lowest. But the difference is not huge and they can all be lumped together for simplicity without making this analysis invalid.

There is a simple relationship; CO2 emissions are tied to availability of energy, if you want to reduce one you have to reduce the other. I saw a graph in some magazine recently which showed that on a global scale about 75% of the energy used comes from the three CO2 producers, with the remaining 25% from hydro, nuclear, biomass, wind, solar.

As I stated the only way to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% is to use less fossil fuel; one fifth less. Because 75% of total energy useage comes from fossil fuels this means total energy useage has to be reduced by one fifth of 75% which is 15%.

What would it take for a 15% reduction in worldwide energy use; simple everyone consumes 15% less energy. But this does not mean you just reduce your gasoline consumption by 15% it means you reduce your total energy consumption by 15%. You reduce your energy consumption for heating or cooling your home by 15%, your energy consumption used in cooking, heating water, lighting, watching TV or playing on the computer, all by 15%. You reduce your purchases of essential or non-essential items by 15%; because everything you use or consume needs energy for its growth, manufacture, processing or distribution. If you don't want to reduce some particular item by 15% then you have to compensate by reducing something else by more than 15%.

Perhaps it can be argued that some of the reduction can be obtained by improved efficiency. Yes, maybe. You could get a small and very economical car but remember if you buy a new car that means you have to forgo buying something else to compensate for the energy expended in making the car you bought. So probably you should choose to drive your existing car 15% less. Which is probably the easiest way to do it. After all the easiest way to reduce the energy consumption in your business is to simply cut back your hours of operation by 15%; just stay home and do nothing for 3 days out of every 20 working days. This also helps your employees because they have to cut back by 15% and it also helps your customere because they have to cut back their orders by 15% . So everything balances out; you make 15% less money but you pay your employees 15% less and because you turned everything off at the business and did not waste energy heating an unoccupied building. And because your customers are cutting back 15% it means that you didn't have anything to do on those 3 days out of 20 anyway. Remember, however, you have to stay home, not go anywhere and not spend anything on these 3 days otherwise your total energy consumption is not being reduced.

In short, economic activity which is tightly linked to energy consumption would have to be cut back, worldwide, by 15%. I think this qualifies as economic upheaval. And I defy anyone to explain how energy consumption can be cut back by the amount needed to give the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions without creating this economic upheaval.

And for the diehard pie-in-the-skyers who bleat on about alternative energy sources check the statistics; if alternate sources were doubled, without requiring an up-front increase in CO2 emissions then it may be argued that the economic upheaval would be only a 10% reduction. I think that still qualifies as an upheaval and it is impossible anyway; up-front increases would be needed.

To put it bluntly IF the IPCC is correct we are in very deep doo doo.

Further, if the reduction in energy usage is brought about by a carbon tax, on the assumption that a higher cost will discourage usage, everyone will see their standard of living fall all out of proportion to the decrease in energy usage. This is because while they use less, they will still be paying more. Much more. Why? Because energy is at the root of what it takes to live. So people will cut anything else out before they drive to work less, or heat their home less, or eat less. Their energy usage cannot fall to such a significant extent until after all other non-essential spending is eliminated or cut back. That is because your energy bills are considered essential, not luxuries. So the tax will be 'enhanced' again and again until the economy sickens to the point where the energy usage falls. It would take a tax of much more than 15 or 20 percent to get usage to fall appreciably.

While this is all going on, you can expect that your government will consider the services that they provide to be essential. So don't look for net decreases in energy consumption by government, especially the military, who have a huge appetite for it. In order to get that 15% reduction, someone else is going to have to give up more -- YOU.

The effects of such a change in the economy are not hard to predict. The higher cost of energy will be reflected in the cost of everything you can buy, because everything you can buy takes energy to produce it. Couple higher material costs with falling demand, and you see smaller businesses folding one after another. Politically connected businesses will be protected, the rest of them will just wink out of existence. Fewer jobs mean less demand, and the entire paper money system is at risk of collapse. Consider the link between energy usage and gross domestic product. If GDP doesn't increase, there is cause for alarm, with good reason.

The other aspect of all of this is that it is to be accomplished through the transfer of all of these higher costs into the pockets of those who seek to rule you by strangling your supply of energy - the energy you need to survive. It will be the hugest transfer of wealth in human history. They will be well supplied while they lord it over you. They will be the ones to whom people have to come begging in bread lines. Once they have control over your energy, they have control over you. And they will not be inclined to relinquish it lightly.

--97T--

So everyone needs to reduce by 15%......what about having alternative energy (Wind turbine, solar panels etc) on each house (Of course in built up estates or areas you'd have to have one large turbine for a number of buildings) producing maybe 30% to 50% of household energy, then buy that smaller car, or just put a smaller engine into your current car. I figure in developed nations that household energy, and motoring energy useage are probably the two largest one's for any individual person, so if you can reduce these by about 50% between them, in whatever proportion, then that would meet about 15% or more of your overall consumption.

Of course initially energy has to be used to produce the sources of alternative energy...alternator for turbines etc, but that energy will be offset after the production of the sources within their first few years of operation.

I did just pull the numbers out of my head so they may not be entirely accurate. And of course, the develop'ing' countries are a whole other story.....

....waiting for someone to point out the holes in the logic.....:)

It is akin to taxing your groceries.

Erm.. you don't get taxed on groceries???? we in the UK do, it's called VAT (or value added tax)

Erm.. you don't get taxed on groceries???? we in the UK do, it's called VAT (or value added tax)

I'm not so sure about that....I think groceries are VAT free....some foods are definately zero rated...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0201a.html

This chart shows energy usage by sector in the U.S., considered to be the world energy hog. A couple of interesting things can be noted from the data in it.

First, industrial and commercial usage dwarfs residential usage, which looks like it increases with the number of houses. You might be able to get a few meager percent out of residential usage with windmills and solar. As Geof noted above, the energy consumption to make the windmills and storage systems (batteries probably) and inverters and control systems would show up in the industrial sector. These sources will not break even on energy until some time after they are put into service. And they won't be as inexpensive as they are now if the energy used to produce them gets price-jacked out of range. (They are already expensive now.) It takes a lot of energy to make things. Especially metal.

Industrial alone accounts for more usage than transportation, and transportation includes trucking, rail, ships, etc. Trucking accounts for perhaps 15-20% of the total transportation usage, shown here:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/htm/mf21.htm

Bottom line: If you want to see a 15% overall reduction in energy usage, it isn't going to happen by 15 to 20% reduction in your residential and personal transportation usage. You will need to significantly cut your purchases of manufactured goods as well. It WILL happen with a broad-based tax like a carbon tax (the broadest and most regressive tax ever conceived), because industrial and commercial use will fall as prices rise and demand falls, the economy sickens, people buy fewer things, and shops and factories close. That's the ONLY way it can happen.

Remember that this is proposed on top of the burdens already imposed by governments in industrial economies at present. None of these economies are robust now. There are already fewer producers than consumers in all of them, and a business crash will bring economic depression very quickly.

As the process unfolds, people will do whatever they can to maintain their lifestyle. Goods that are priced out of existence locally will be produced in jurisdictions that do not have the crippling taxation and regulation. These goods will be bought with money that is obtained by the sale of assets or borrowing against assets, as opposed to money earned from creating goods locally. This net drain of actual wealth will continue until the assets are essentially gone. For an example of how this happens, look at North America shipping its manufacturing base wholesale to communist countries where there is more freedom for business than there is in the 'land of the free'. Factories close, the shops and restaurants and gas stations around them close, and people refinance their residences to buy consumable goods like imported cars. Eventually the number of foreclosures begins to set records, after which real estate prices begin to fall. More people go on 'assistance'. There is more demand to increase taxes to support the bloated welfare state which is constantly in fiscal crisis. Businesses flee the jurisdiction if they can, while scores of business owners retire early and move away from the taxes. It's going on where I live right now, even before the next blow to our industrial sector, which will essentially be the final blow if they get their way. Good money can be gotten from selling used industrial machinery to scrap dealers. These scrap dealers pay by the ton, but the machinery isn't melted down anymore, it is crated up and shipped to China, where it will be recycled much more efficiently by patching it together and putting it back to work making products to sell to the same customers as before.

People who live in countries that have cold winters might want to consider an escape plan in case the environ mentalists get their way. It takes energy, a lot of it, to support a modern division-of-labor economy in a cold environment. If all of the efficiencies of such an economy are squandered by theft on such a grand scale, things are likely to turn out badly.

--97T--

Erm.. you don't get taxed on groceries???? we in the UK do, it's called VAT (or value added tax)

In my state (I can't speak for a lot of other states in the union) we get taxed on everything as long as it is not a raw foodstuff. The only foods we do get taxed on are that which is prepared by others for us, as in a restaurant.

Here's one for Geof,

I saw an ad on the news last night for a flameless solar powered grill that is being sole as an environmentally friendly BBQ. IMO flameless = tasteless. That should be huge in cleaning up the environment. Guaranteed to cook your steaks in just under 6 hours.

...Here's one for Geof,

I saw an ad on the news last night for a flameless solar powered grill that is being sole as an environmentally friendly BBQ. IMO flameless = tasteless. That should be huge in cleaning up the environment. Guaranteed to cook your steaks in just under 6 hours.

Ugh!!!! I am vegetarian. Not Vegan, vegetarian. :) So I don't foul up the environment with burnt flesh smells.

I only eat animals that are vegetarians....
(...oh, the screams of the gentle potato as you cruelly peel away its skin)

How energy efficient are induction furnaces? I have a plan to replace all conventional and microwave furnaces with induction furnaces... I would have an array of say 25 off 9" nails which would be lowered into the foodstuff to be heated with an induction coil and associated electronics providing the heat.

Along with my plans for the Dead Press (tm) I should be immensley rich in not too long a time :)

The beast below can heat an M12 nut to around 740 deg C in 45 secs... shouldn't take that long to heat a baked potato or a roast joint with nails in it... I think.

The power is only 400W used over 45 secs which dun seem like a great amount to me :)

http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html

I'm gonna call it the "Nail Gun Ovun"

Cheryl Crow, the singer, had a great idea that she made public recently. One square of toilet paper whenever you go. Saves paper, saves trees, good for the environment.

Of course I don'e know how that compares to her demand for 3 tractor trailers, 4 busses and 6 SUV's whenever so goes on tour.

..The beast below can heat an M12 nut to around 740 deg C in 45 secs... shouldn't take that long to heat a baked potato or a roast joint with nails in it... I think.

The power is only 400W used over 45 secs which dun seem like a great amount to me :)

http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html

I'm gonna call it the "Nail Gun Ovun"

In your spare time look up the Specific Heat for Iron compared with water.

It takes almost ten times as much energy to heat water (at room temperature) by 1 degree Kelvin as it does iron....

Iron 0.450 Joules per gramme per deg Kelvin
Water: 4.1813 --"--- -"- ---"--- -"- -"- --"--

So heating the iron would be more efficient than heating the water since the heat has to go somewhere and would go into the water (foodstuff). Red hot iron is gonna heat a potato.

Or! we could seed the food with iron pellets and extract them magneticaly afterwards.. I'll call this "Iron Rations".

Sorry lol can you tell I'm bored? I've got the machine all setup and it's just a case of pushing the big green button, load another lens, push the big green button lol, like flipping burgers (cycle time is too short to go do anything else)... I need a beer.

:confused: so the general impression I get from those seriously talking here is...
The problem is too expensive to fix... lets ignore it

Without giving a stuff for the enviroment (hell a warmer canadia would be a good thing yes??) prices for fuel is going to rise, and rise steeply and it has nothing to do with global warming

At the moment most of the worlds oil reserves are easy to get, pretty much a case of drill a hole and let it squirt out... this an't gona last and with the world using more per anum its only gona run out sooner. When this happens its going to have to be pumped out meaning increased cost to the user... us so quite whining its gona happen anyway

The intent of Kyoto was to incorrage industry to look at renuable resorces (giving them carbon credits to sell) and to incorrage those that pollute to decrease the amount of pollution (buy forcing them to pay fines or buy carbon credits)... we all know this what most don't know is (and to my knowledge) there isn't a goverment out there that signed it that hasn't ham strung it and stopped it working.
The goverments have done this by managing the carbon credits internally themselves which dosn't give the renuable resorce industry's any help to produce an economic alternitive. The protocol shouldn't have much impact on consumers other than to incorrage them to use alternatives that are more enviromentally friendly... by making things like petro chemicals and steel more expensive but making bio-fuels and wood products cheaper

How would this impact on your rights ?? Not really.... if it hadn't been kicked in the (nuts) don't blame Kyoto, its the goverments that are too scared of the short term impact on industry at least the Australian and Americans were honest and didn't bother signing it... I'm just waiting to see what happens when as we get closer to the deadlines signed to

I've also heard locally there is a legal move being made to force the goverment to give up the carbon credits to the forest industry.... if this happens they will have to do the whole hog or tax those that would have had to buy credits... without global support it could cause serious economic problems for New Zealand

Cheers Reece

Actually Kyoto effects different countries disproportionately. It was written over 12 years ago and took 10 years to ratify. But the polution limits are 12 years old.

Look at the german economy 12 years ago and today. Very little change. A cutback of a few percent in emissions based on 12 years ago's numbers mean little to them.

Same for the French, English, Italians. In fact this is the case throughout most of Europe.

Now look at the US 12 years ago and today. Huge difference in the economy and manufacturing base. A cutback of a few percent based on the levels from 12 years ago would be crippling to the economy. Therein lies the problem with Kyoto.

If it were only a cutback of a few percent in emissions based on when it was signed into law then it would have already been implemented here. But it's not. Signing it into law means a rollback of our economy to the levels of 12 years ago and then an additional cut of a few percent.

A cutback of a few percent based on the levels from 12 years ago would be crippling to the economy. Therein lies the problem with Kyoto.




Crippling the economy is a secondary problem: According to the UN's own reports, global temperatures will drop by about 1/10 degree C by 2050 if Kyoto were fully implemented. The latest UN reports have reduced the predicted rise if nothing is done from 5 to 2 degrees C by the end of the century.

In other words, the Kyoto protocol is an ineffective but costly solution to a non-existent problem.

Have any of you noticed that fruit trees are dormant in Winter and that it is rising Spring temperatures that trigger blooming and growth? Some greenhouse growers increase CO2 concentrations artificially to boost plant growth. I mention this because I don't think a little warming or a little more CO2 is a problem; it is a good thing. That is unless you think that there are too many people and that making food more affordable will only encourage them to multiply further.

the polution limits are 12 years old.
Didn't know that!! Makes China a surprise signing then... with the boom in there economy over the last 10yrs it will make the US problem look small

I don't think a little warming or a little more CO2 is a problem
making food more affordable
Hmmm on international news recently, farmers are talking about abandoning farms in Australia becouse of changing weather patterns that have left large areas in the worst drought in recorded history... and what about africa the sudan is going through drought and famine, aid agencies are calling the worst yet

and I've read scientific reports in magazines that say 2 deg could be enough to start melting the glaciers in antartica, raising sea level by as much as 10m
also heard recently 80% of asia's population is within 10m of sea level

I think might be a wee bit wrong...

Cheers Reece

farmers are talking about abandoning farms in Australia becouse of changing weather patterns that have left large areas in the worst drought in recorded history... and what about africa the sudan is going through drought and famine, aid agencies are calling the worst yet

and I've read scientific reports in magazines that say 2 deg could be enough to start melting the glaciers in antartica, raising sea level by as much as 10m
also heard recently 80% of asia's population is within 10m of sea level



When have there not been droughts in Australia and Africa? I suppose the farmers in these areas want the chief offender (USA) to pay them restitution for their losses? Why are they farming in drought prone areas anyway?

If the sea level were to rise 10 m it will not occur overnight, but rather over 4 generations. If the coast moves inland so can the people. When you move out of your parents' home you can move to higher ground and so forth.

If all this "extreme climate change" is happening, how come there isn't an exodus to Alaska and other places that are currently too cold for civilized life? Or at least a massive demand for land to develop in anticipation of the coming exodus? Talk about an investment opportunity.

Scaring people with the "possible consequences" is not the same thing as proving that there is a real problem, caused by man or correctible by man.

The very fact that carbon credits are part of the "solution" proves that the whole deal is about the redistribution of wealth and nothing else. Net "pollution" is not reduced; energy costs will simply increase for Americans.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8027/04-25-Cap_Trade.pdf


Regardless, we are going to pay more:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Facts&ContentRecord_id=71d7ea1f-802a-23ad-47d6-eeb1dabe3d24&Region_id=&Issue_id

Why are they farming in drought prone areas anyway?

Many thousands of years ago people could migrate, and cross non-existant borders just like a fox or a rabbit still does. Nowadays we have borders, passports, and border police. People cannot just set out on foot and spend a few months walking to the nice green fields up north or down south.
Entire countries (Defined by man made lines on a piece of paper) in Africa are striken by drought. The people can't just move to a different area to farm because there is no good arable land within their borders. They farm in drought prone areas because they are the only areas they have!

Wouldn't it be nice if countries were just areas defined for management of resources and society, but that there was worldwide free movement of people?

I for one would love to just set out and try to make it to Asia like the silk trains did in days gone by. Maybe stop for a few months here and there along the way, head onto New Zealand and Australia....... :)

:confused: so the general impression I get from those seriously talking here is...
The problem is too expensive to fix... lets ignore it

It's a manufactured problem. Warming and cooling happens because of the sun. And warmer times are better times. That's what the evidence shows.

Without giving a stuff for the enviroment (hell a warmer canadia would be a good thing yes??) prices for fuel is going to rise, and rise steeply and it has nothing to do with global warming

At the moment most of the worlds oil reserves are easy to get, pretty much a case of drill a hole and let it squirt out... this an't gona last and with the world using more per anum its only gona run out sooner. When this happens its going to have to be pumped out meaning increased cost to the user... us so quite whining its gona happen anyway

The price of fuel reflects the fact that regulations and opposition have prevented the construction of any new refineries. Refineries are running at 100% capacity, and prices rise whenever there is a fire or other damage to a refinery, or when demand rises. There is not much hope for improvement here because the regulators think we should be paying more, not less. Even oil rich countries without refineries have to import their fuel. And there is a lot of oil. We aren't in any danger of running out.

The intent of Kyoto was to incorrage industry to look at renuable resorces (giving them carbon credits to sell) and to incorrage those that pollute to decrease the amount of pollution (buy forcing them to pay fines or buy carbon credits)... we all know this what most don't know is (and to my knowledge) there isn't a goverment out there that signed it that hasn't ham strung it and stopped it working.
The goverments have done this by managing the carbon credits internally themselves which dosn't give the renuable resorce industry's any help to produce an economic alternitive. The protocol shouldn't have much impact on consumers other than to incorrage them to use alternatives that are more enviromentally friendly... by making things like petro chemicals and steel more expensive but making bio-fuels and wood products cheaper

I disagree about the intentions of Kyoto. The intent was to push the world into a new world order, with a supranational government complete with a taxing mechanism to fund it. The carbon credit hoax is nothing more than a new tax, which funnels money from those who produce something to those who do not. The governments that signed it know that cutbacks in energy use will cripple their economy and kill the poorest of their citizens. They signed it because they figured it was a way to bring the U.S. economy to its knees (not that it needs much help there). And finally, you cannot go from an efficient energy source to a less efficient source without it being a total waste of money. This scheme funnels part of that waste into the regulator's pockets. It would be better spent just flushing it down the toilet. High school chemistry should be enough education to give anyone enough common sense to know that low density energy sources suck. Do you heat your house with wood and ride a horse to work?

How would this impact on your rights ?? Not really.... if it hadn't been kicked in the (nuts) don't blame Kyoto, its the goverments that are too scared of the short term impact on industry at least the Australian and Americans were honest and didn't bother signing it... I'm just waiting to see what happens when as we get closer to the deadlines signed to

I've also heard locally there is a legal move being made to force the goverment to give up the carbon credits to the forest industry.... if this happens they will have to do the whole hog or tax those that would have had to buy credits... without global support it could cause serious economic problems for New Zealand

Cheers Reece


How would this impact your rights? If someone has a hand on the throttle for your access to energy, they might as well have you handcuffed. By controlling energy, they can control everything you do, from what you eat to whether or where you work. In times past, land ownership gave liberty, because in the end, everything was solar powered (horses and wood). What land have you to fall back on to raise horses and cut forests to heat your house? You don't. You will simply be forced by circumstances to comply in order to survive. The oil and coal will still be supplied, but you will just pay a hefty tax in order to live a lower lifestyle than you could without their interference.

The funny thing is, even without taking over the world as they would like, these fat cats are collecting all of this money off a huge propaganda campaign that is based on lies. And sixth grade chemistry training is enough to show the lies. Says a lot about the gullibility of the population.

--97T--

....The people can't just move to a different area to farm because there is no good arable land within their borders. They farm in drought prone areas because they are the only areas they have!....

Mr Exterior-To-The-Container-Cogitater;

Pick up and read a copy of Jared Diamonds, "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed".

He has a fairly good analysis of the Australian condition among other things.

Geof,

I read with interest Mr. Diamonds' previous book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel". His point about newcomers unwittingly wiping out indigenous populations by bringing common illnesses is particularly interesting.

On the other hand, his new book, according to reviews, is pointedly 'envirocentric'. Not that this factor should be ignored, of course, as there are some huge examples at hand.

I think his view would best be tempered by keeping the information he presents in context with the realities pointed out by such writers as Adam Smith and Ludwig Von Mises. I mention this because another thing most empires have in common when they topple is the debasement of their fiat currency, and when the currency finally fails, so goes the empire. By this kind of analysis, we can see that ruination can come without any environmental catastophe at all. And by extension, we can see that limitations on liberty imposed by taxation, regulation, or dictatorial tyranny encourage overutilization of resources and limit the ability of people to adapt to changing conditions, through a variety of means, but essentially because people are trapped in the situations they find themselves in.

I believe he acknowledges a good portion of this viewpoint in his new book while making some good points about people's unwillingness to change in the face of looming disaster.

--97T--

Mr Exterior-To-The-Container-Cogitater;

Pick up and read a copy of Jared Diamonds, "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed".

He has a fairly good analysis of the Australian condition among other things.

:) I just bought it from amazon, it wasn't expensive......hope its worth my while!

Geof,
I read with interest Mr. Diamonds' previous book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel". His point about newcomers unwittingly wiping out indigenous populations by bringing common illnesses is particularly interesting.

I also bought that one with it using the 'Buy With' thing that amazon do fairly cheaply. Glad I did now, looking forward to reading them.

L8rs.

My cavalier attitude towards those who will be affected by a 10 m increase in sea level is partly because any change will be slow enough for humans to move or build dykes. Mainly, my attitude is because I have seen no compelling evidence that any real problem exists. Stated more clearly, a 10 m rise is a gross exaggeration.

As I said in an earlier response, asking what we are planning to do about the coming calamity presupposes that it is coming. I believe that the world's climate is constantly changing, but I don't see anything to be afraid of or react to.

Most of the glaciers melted a long time ago and no humans complained about it. Nature is just finishing off its work before the next ice age rolls around.

What is real about "global warming" are the taxes Europeans are paying in the name of saving the planet. Also real, are the efforts to slap the same taxes on the US.