Driving along I see a RAV4 driving like a maniac, and when it gets in front of me (and I was already movin' right along) I see some TerraPass stickers on the hind end telling the world that their CO2 emmissions are being offset by TerraPass. What's TerraPass? I wondered too.

I punched in www.terrapass.com and found out that I too can counter my CO2 emmissions by sending them some money. How much and what do you get?

Punch in your car and your estimated annual mileage, and they'll suggest a "product" which is an Around Towner, a Cross Towner, an Around Towner, or a Road Tripper. They recommended for me an Around Towner for $49.95/yr based on my car and mileage. (shipping and tax included!!) They said I puked out 9,872lbs of CO2 a year, and they'd invest my money to balance out my filth.

What a deal.

You give them money, and they invest it in some kind of green manner, making everything all peachy. Being somewhat a skeptic, I went lookin', and guess what I found.

Their partners are shown on this page, http://www.terrapass.com/about/partners.html and when you look carefully, you'll realize that all you're doing is giving THEM money to invest, and THEY OWN THE INVESTMENT. You get a sticker.

They get stock in Capricorn Management. You don't, they do. You get a sticker. See this on Cap's website:

The following is a snapshot of our primary asset classes:

Cash and Equivalents
Capricorn’s strategy is to seek stable income with little or no risk to principal. We invest domestically and internationally in a variety of securities and currencies.
http://www.capricornllc.com/investment_activities/index.php

"A variety of securities and currencies"??? I can't think of anything greener, can you??

Take that $49.95 you were thinking about giving to TerraPass, or any other green scams, and invest it yourself. You'll own the stock, and if you really need a sticker, fer chrissakes, just print one out.

....Their partners are shown on this page, http://www.terrapass.com/about/partners.html and when you look carefully, you'll realize that all you're doing is giving THEM money to invest, and THEY OWN THE INVESTMENT. You get a sticker.....

But you're not supposed to look carefully!!!!!!

Sorry, just can't help myself. :)

Looks like they've got a lot of competition, which is a good thing in an open market, especially when you're talking CO2!!

TerraPass is charging about $12/ton, but over at Carbonfund.org you can pollute a ton of CO2 for only $5.50.
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/

One big difference is that at TerraPass at least you get a bumper sticker!! At Carbonfund.org it is a donation, so it's tax deductible. I guess you could stick a copy of your tax return in your car's window to impress everybody.

Better yet...get one of these!!
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/bumpersticker2.jpg

Lets see.
Amazing Tornado......check.
Electric super charger....check.
Terra pass sticker.......check.

Road Trip!!

i'm in the wrong business

how does the CO2 Greenback Coalition sound for my new contribution to the structure
pm me if you would like to help me make a difference, no donation is too big or too small , as long as you feel good about making a "difference" , but trust me the more you pay the better you will feel

We're ALL in the wrong business!!

"...Businesses are advised to check the offsetting companies' credentials. One hedge fund manager, who asked not to be named, said he had been offered credits he did not trust because the intermediaries could show only a spreadsheet to prove their existence. "There are plenty of carbon cowboys out there, looking to make a quick buck," he said......

.......The risk of companies selling the same credits several times over. Under the Kyoto mechanism, carbon credits are tracked through the UN's International Transaction Log, which records every purchase or sale. When companies are buying credits for offset, the credits should be "retired" and not used again. But on the voluntary market, there is no central register, so unscrupulous companies could "double count" or sell the same credits more than once...."

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6385&Method=Full

Carbon credits are a hoax, but they could be used like cash, if a proper system were devised for the average person to use them.

Currently, if you carpool, you deserve a carbon credit equal to the fuel saved by the extra person. However, is there any place that is going to recognise this kind of carbon reduction?

I have to say at this point, that I think some sort of fuel rationing is in order, not necessarily due to shortage, but to get some kind of a handle on usage, and to provide an incentive for some to cut their usage, in order to profiteer by selling their ration to someone else. This puts carbon credits in the hands of the public, rather than some far off big corporation/big government scammers (aka, the filthy rich) lining their pockets, which we all know full well is exactly what is going to be the outcome of carbon credits.

Shoot me down if you like, I never really put a lot of thought into the aforementioned statements. But, that's kind of the hazy notion I've been carrying about of late.

I can whip up some real nice looking green peace stickers (Cheap @ .10 Per ton.

Oh, now I see.

Send me $49.95, and save your polluting soul, before world peace breaks out and the third temple to mother nature is rebuilt, with universal carbon credits under the watchful eye of the all knowing U.N. world government, and a dread locked treehugger beats his drum three times at the pearly carbon sequestering gates. Stand tall and be recognized by Saint Muir, and cast off you evil gas combustion engine. For all those who walk shall be cast unto heaven on the back of a hybrid prius.

Forgiveness at such a reasonable rate. :)

You can see that any company dealing "carbon credits" within the US is doing so as a pirate. There is no legal regulation, no accountability, and all based on a kiss and a promise. It's even better than 3-card Monty, or a well crafted pyramid scheme.

At least with Amway, you know what you're getting.

The prerequisites a carbon credit business are:

1) Your country must have signed the Kyoto Protocol (the United States has still not signed it as of March 2007). These credits are made possible by the Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). That's why sometimes this new line of trading is also referred to simply as "CDM" business.

2) You have to register your "carbon saving" project with the United Nations before you can sell your credits to other international purchasers.

"Selling the "right to pollute" can buy time for companies in developed countries that have not yet reduced their carbon emissions. The price of carbon credits will rise as companies and individuals buy carbon credits and raise the market value. The raising price will give an incentives for western companies to buy less credits and become more efficient. The money generated from this system will help developing countries improve their efficiency where they meet the standards to be eligible to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

Carbon credits are becoming a lucrative growth market, and giving incentives to businesses and politicians to join the carbon market. Western companies from countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol who have not reduced their carbon emissions will continue to buy these credits from countries that have an excess."

Carbon credits are a hoax, but they could be used like cash, if a proper system were devised for the average person to use them.

Currently, if you carpool, you deserve a carbon credit equal to the fuel saved by the extra person. However, is there any place that is going to recognise this kind of carbon reduction?

I have to say at this point, that I think some sort of fuel rationing is in order, not necessarily due to shortage, but to get some kind of a handle on usage, and to provide an incentive for some to cut their usage, in order to profiteer by selling their ration to someone else. This puts carbon credits in the hands of the public, rather than some far off big corporation/big government scammers (aka, the filthy rich) lining their pockets, which we all know full well is exactly what is going to be the outcome of carbon credits.

Shoot me down if you like, I never really put a lot of thought into the aforementioned statements. But, that's kind of the hazy notion I've been carrying about of late.

I thought we had fuel rationing already, unwarranted prices at the pump. I don't see a realistic way of moving carbon credits into the public. Verification, qauntification and pushing the everyday paperwork would require a new governtmental agency, or branch to an existing agency that would require tax money to fund and the additional CO2 expenditures to build the infrastructure, power the lights and office machines not to mention the extra paper generation (more CO2 from logging/recycling hauling transporting of the final product and then issuance of documents).

Doing away with carbon credits and holding all industries accountable to a reasonable standard would be more realistic, and we already have agencies for that in N America. Trade sanctions and refusal to trade with countries like China that refuse to adopt reasonable standards would go far, doing away with supposed carbon offsets that allow them to pollute without concern.

I personally believe GW is a bit of a paper tiger, but knowing that tens of thousands of children are suffering the effects of pollution from factories in China so that Wal Mart can sell substandard merchandise sickens me. That is pollution control that the everyday comman man can get behind.

My .02
Scott

9,872lbs of Co2 ?
How much gas do you burn ?

The numbers they spew always seem as some sort of "law of thermal dynamic" violation .

Hey ,don't E'gore own 30% of one of the carbon credit scams ?

Dave

9,872lbs of Co2?

Gasoline is C6H14 and C12H26, but a good "average" compound is C8H18. So you take the C(atomic weight of 12) + O(atomic weight of 16) * 2 = 12 + 32. So the carbon is 12 / (12 + 32), or 27% = 2700 lbs of carbon. Now for ever carbon atom, you add 2.25 hydrogen atoms (18/8). Hydrogen has an atomic weight of 1. So 2700 / 12, would be 225 moles of carbon. Now add 506 moles of hydrogen, or 506 + 2700 = 3206. At 6.3 lbs per gallon, or 508 gallons of gas. There, wasn't that something, I hope I did that right.

And yes, I know about carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxides, and the other results of an incomplete reaction. Assuming the reaction is perfect, is close enough for me.

Wade, if you are still in a calculating mood how much gasoline equivalent is the carbon contained in the wood of a typical softwood tree say 120 feet high and about 3 feet diameter at the base. I come up with about 1000 gallons but don't know if my assumptions are valid.

I thought we had fuel rationing already, unwarranted prices at the pump.
Scott

That is not really a ration. A ration is based on your rights as an individual to a certain portion of something.

The rich do not care what the price of fuel is, they will get their share, so long as all they have to do is outbid the other buyers.

....The rich do not care what the price of fuel is, they will get their share, so long as all they have to do is outbid the other buyers.

Hu your only solution is get rich quick :D .

And when you have figured out how to do that ethically without ripping anybody off let me know.

MEET Queensland's first carbon farmer.

"Peter Allen, pictured, a third-generation farmer from Moura, has signed a $1 million deal for doing nothing at all.

In a historic transaction, mining company Rio Tinto bought the rights to carbon dioxide stored in 3500ha of Mr Allen's heavily vegetated property, 575km northwest of Brisbane.

Instead of clearing the land to run cattle, Mr Allen will preserve the trees for 120 years to ensure they soak up carbon dioxide. ......."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21796335-2,00.html

(....and if there's a forest fire and it all burns down????)

--------------------------
btw, it's generally given that a kilowatt-hour (from coal) generates about 2-2.5lbs of CO2, and a gallon of gas = 18-20lbs of CO2.

According the National Forest Service http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nc141.pdf

Specific Gravity of a Pine is about .76, half of that is water, so .38 dry. At 62.4 lbs/cubic foot (specific weight of Water) x .38 = 23.7 (lbs/cubic foot) dry weight of wood.

According to Southern Research Institute: http://www.treepower.org/fuels/analysis.html

carbon is 50% of the weight of dry wood. So, 23.7 x .5 = 11.8 (lbs of carbon/cubic foot of wood).

1.5ft (radius) X 1.5ft X 3.14pi x 120ft = 847 cubic feet of wood. 847 x 11.8 = 10,000 lbs of carbon in your tree.

C8H18 (from below), 2.25 hydrogen atoms per carbon atom. Hydrogen atom has an atomic weight of 1, carbon has an atomic weight of 12.

10,000 lbs of carbon would make how much gasoline?
10,000 / 12(atomic weight of carbon) = 833 mole units of carbon. 833 X 2.25 = 1874 moles units of hydrogen. So 10,000 lbs of carbon + 1874 lbs of hydrogen would be 11,874 lbs of gas, at 6.3 lbs per gallon.

1884 gallons of gas.

That's a lot of gas per tree. With trees that size, I'd guess you might have 20 trees per acre. Lot's of variables though.

Wade; You come up with about twice what I did and I think the difference is here:

....1.5ft (radius) X 1.5ft X 3.14pi x 120ft = 847 cubic feet of wood. 847 x 11.8 = 10,000 lbs of carbon in your tree....

The tree is not 3 feet in diameter all the way to the top. I assumed at the top the diameter was much smaller; I think I might have used an average diameter of 2 feet or something like that.

I also simply assumed that on a dryweight basis wood and gasoline have about the same carbon content per unit weight. (Basically lazy and don't like number-crunching.)


fizzisist; To use an Aussie expression; what a bloody farce. The carbon is already stored, if the land is already heavily vegetated it will not store any more.

But then again about par for this whole stupid situation.

Yha, I was looking at that, didn't know what you wanted, so I just showed how to convert volume to gallons of gas. Some trees around here don't taper, my Japaneses maple can't even be described as a taper. So, just adjust for volume, and you have it. Use a ratio.

1x1x3.14x120 = 376
376 / 847 = 0.44
1884 x 0.44 = 828 gallons of gas.

Don't forget the branches, leaves, and root. That's half the weight of a tree.

Wouldn't it be better to cut down the trees and build 120 year homes out of it, and then plant more trees, to soak up more carbon?

So, how long can you keep taking trees out of a forest, before the land won't support any more, due to mineral and nutrient depletion?

Wouldn't it be better to cut down the trees and build 120 year homes out of it, and then plant more trees, to soak up more carbon?

So, how long can you keep taking trees out of a forest, before the land won't support any more, due to mineral and nutrient depletion?

Your second point is an interesting one. Research has been done on it and it is not so much nutrient depletion as disruption of the symbiotic bacterial/fungal relationship between the tree roots and soild micro-organisms. Subterranean lichen, to draw a loose parallel, that mobilize minerals locked up in the soil particles and make them available to the trees.

The land will always support more but the time frame changes for the trees to grow to maturity, like lots longer.

Does BS help to balance CO2 ......If so then washington DC should offset it by itself in one term.....LOL Problem solved

Al Gore = Father of internet

Research on sequestration by plants of CO2 suggest that young plants sequester more as they're growing, and the rate tapers off as they become mature. The Idso Bros. have posted stuff on that on their website....

Equating tree mass to gass is interesting, I hadn't given it any thought. Equating biomass though gets fairly easy if you look at ethanol. An acre of corn yields about 320+gal. Processing the other corn growth byproducts will increase that slightly, but so far it doesn't look really commercially viable.

Research on sequestration by plants of CO2 suggest that young plants sequester more as they're growing, and the rate tapers off as they become mature. The Idso Bros. have posted stuff on that on their website....

Young trees may be growing faster but if the tree is 6 inches in diameter and it puts on an annual growth ring of 3/8" it is still sequestering less carbon than an older, bigger tree with a diameter of 18 inches that puts on an annual ring of 1/4".

...Equating tree mass to gass is interesting, I hadn't given it any thought. Equating biomass though gets fairly easy if you look at ethanol. An acre of corn yields about 320+gal. Processing the other corn growth byproducts will increase that slightly, but so far it doesn't look really commercially viable.

It is commercially "viable" if you get wanking great subsidies :) .

Energetically it only comes out ahead if you make some dubious assumptions about the energy value equivalent of the by products that theoretically can be used for high protein animal feed. But if these are dumped or have to be trucked thousands of miles to where there are cattle to eat them this benefit is questionable.

One figure I have looked for and never found is the net energy used in the distillation. You are evaporating a lot of the stuff with the highest latent heat of vaporization of anything. In a correctly setup system some of the heat energy can be recovered when the water vapor condenses but Big Daddy entropy doesn't let you get it all back.

Turpenes,

Martin

Turpenes,

Martin

Terpenes, dammit! Terpenes! How many times do you have to be told!!!!!:D

Terpenes, dammit! Terpenes! How many times do you have to be told!!!!!:D

Dear Geof,

I am not worthy to sit at the feet of a spelling master... (enter room backwards).

I thought it had something to do with turpentine. Wrong again. It won't be the last time.....

Best Wishes,

Martin

Dear Geof,

I am not worthy to sit at the feet of a spelling master... (enter room backwards).

I thought it had something to do with turpentine. Wrong again. It won't be the last time.....

Best Wishes,

Martin

Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia:

"Turpentine (also called spirit of turpentine, oil of turpentine, wood turpentine, gum turpentine) is a fluid obtained by the distillation of resin obtained from trees, mainly pine trees. It is composed of terpenes, mainly the monoterpenes alpha-pinene and beta-pinene. It has a potent odor similar to that of nail polish remover. It is sometimes known colloquially as turps, but this more often refers to turpentine substitute (or mineral turpentine)."

So now I am confused: Are you right when you are wrong or wrong when you are right?

Perhaps this gives you some inkling of why some people detest chemistry.

Terpenes, dammit! Terpenes! How many times do you have to be told!!!!!:D

Turpines are what eat the foundation of the nuculer plants, that's why the need to get inspected allthe time.

Don't let pests or turpines get the best of you! Call the Orkin man today!

That is not really a ration. A ration is based on your rights as an individual to a certain portion of something.

The rich do not care what the price of fuel is, they will get their share, so long as all they have to do is outbid the other buyers.

Your right it isn't. Just a running bitter little joke I have with some people. Although the prices are forcing people to make the wise use decisions that rationing would also cause, only problem is the oil companies are profiting and only their stockholders reap any real benifit. An economics professor once told our class, if all the world's wealth was equally distributed to the entire population the same 20% would end up with the majority of it again in short order. Short of a socialist system the rich are just going to keep on keeping on how they please, and in a socialist system they are simply subsituted for a ruling class of politicians so it is the same effect.

The biggest problem I see with a true rationing system is something like a prohibition era criminal element popping up. The rich would still have an abundant supply while the everyday little guy got the shaft from every side. The oil companies would hike prices, claiming reduce market share requires higher prices to compensate. What we did get would only be sustainance level existance. Meaning we would be forced into purchasing blackmarket fuels if we went over our allotment for a given time, easily done if say your loved one is in the hospitial and you are staying the nights with them as an example. The standard of living would drop since goods would be so expensive just in the transport costs alone it would probably be regressive to the entire economy, add to that the tightening of belts that have consumers not spending and there is another blow to the consumer market that costs jobs. There is a solution, I just don't know what it is. Just my opinion of course.

Scott

Scott,
I was not thinking in terms of prohibiting the production of fuels, that would be a different scenario.

Rather something more along the lines of an national energy assessment would be carried out. This effort would be made to try to come up with an annual 'minimum energy consumption per capita', suitable for our climate. It would probably have to be regionally adjusted.

In most cases, this figure would be quite conservative, and most of us would have to go and buy additional fuel at the going rate, or purchase ration tickets from those who do use them, such as the elderly, those without vehicles, those who do not have excessive heating/cooling needs.

IMO, there needs to be tangible rewards for 'going green', and a good way to do that is to make it possible to make a few bucks by not using your share of fuel.

I do not see that the rise in fuel prices has yet advanced the cause of the green Earth crowd. It is about to burst into a rise in inflation (IMO), but paying more for energy is not going to curb consumption if we think the problem is dealt with by a wage increase.

Why the hell didn't I think of this?

Scott,
I was not thinking in terms of prohibiting the production of fuels, that would be a different scenario...

OK I'm seeing your point better now. I did understand not a reduction in production, I was refering to a higher pump price to pay for a glut in storage that is costing money rather than paying for itself. Last time I saw a comparision our (USA) usage was outragous when compared globally. Some curtailing of that is warranted. Improved infrastructure would go a long way, more mass transit for example. The Japanese have a good model to examine for strength and weakness to build off of. Mass Transit is a joke in many less than metro areas. I believe a transfer to diesel engines in passenger cars would help, and you may soon see this. Cleaner, more effecient and less refined fuel means more fuel per gallon of crude oil with lesser emissions, plus supplemental biodiesel mixes would further extend the crude oil supply while alt energy is being studied.

Alternitive engery sources are IMO the only real solution. If anyone reads Popular Mechanics they probably read the article about Jay Leno's antique alt energy cars. I agree the the comment made by the gent that manufactured an electric car back before the production of the Model T to Mr. Henry Ford, "The electric car is dead". I think we are going down some bad roads right now. Luckily scientist globally are working on it. I believe a lot of the hype, dooms-day predictions and refusals to listen to facts on both sides are more a result of the resistance to cultural change we are starting to go through.

We do need a monetary incentive to go green, without it your right that it would be hopeless to try. Money lubes everything and the rich ARE definately going to keep getting richer and they have the best government that money can buy to see to it.

Green Earth factions:
The increase prices do seem to be effecting their cause, if they don't acknowledge it then it is for their own reasons. MSNBC had an article a few weeks ago about the average amount of driving people where doing, some poll or study (sorry don't remember the specifics) that showed people have been curtailing excessive driving, ipso facto less CO2 emmisions. It is only a change on average of the people included of around 15%, but it is a real number. If we have an increase in the minimum wage to keep up your right people will start traveling again. However I do feel that this is a short term problem that everyone is inflating. Conservation of resources needs to be the by word for all societies, but not to the detriment of society as a whole.

Scott

Hu's concept makes one hell of a lot more sense than the Carbon Credit scams. There is going to be inflation out of all of this but his idea in essence makes it possible for the people who choose to conserve or who have limited income to benefit from the extra amount paid by the ones who can afford the higher costs without cutting their consumption.

Hu's concept makes one hell of a lot more sense than the Carbon Credit scams. There is going to be inflation out of all of this but his idea in essence makes it possible for the people who choose to conserve or who have limited income to benefit from the extra amount paid by the ones who can afford the higher costs without cutting their consumption.

Most definately more sense. I'm just not sure it is workable considering human nature and the cost of getting it started. During WWII Americans accepted gas rationing, with so many Americans overseas needing fuel for their war effort, and the fact that those at home for the most part where fully behind the effort, it worked. Today most/many people wouldn't be behind it at all. What I see happening in this era is bootleg gas runners that steal fuel and sell it on the blackmarket with all the associated criminal complications. Also I see speculators buying up ration tickets at todays value and selling them next week for a profit at that price. This isn't going to help you or me, it will help the rich get richer.

I'd have to assume we would all be issued fuel cards that will be read by the pumps credit card reader, possibly some sort of national database similar to the credit card companies that citizens can access to prepay for their ration similar to upping the minutes of a phone card. All this could be done right there at the gas station, just like the phone cards are today. To make things fool proof and difficult to hack I can't believe the gov't would make it possible for someone to actually transfer credit unless they are present to input their card at the pump for the person buying their credit.

I'm all for killing the carbon credit schemes, they just make fat cats fatter without a bit of improvement and even open the doors to the con games like the terra pass as posted earlier. I just have to agree to disagree that rationing will be the way to go, my opinion anyway. That and 2.50 will buy you a small cup of coffee :)

To help reduce and conserve I've heard of an idea of alternate days driving privilages. In effect it is a rationing system and would half fuel consumption and CO2 output immediately. Of course you have to have mass transit to make it work as well as a system for emergency/hardship exceptions. RFID chips with a fast pass type system as well as color coded holographic decals for easy visual inspection would be needed. That would be nearly revenue nuetral once it was started and those people with privilages could sell rideshare services or barter them as they saw fit and then the private citizen could make a nice underground economy that keeps money in the community and away from fat cats and politicians. Just a thought.

Scott

Does this mean I don't get to be King? :D

I would imagine that the whole rationing concept could be handled within the income tax/gst/child tax credit system of the CCRA, aka Revenue Canada. All the subjects, er, I mean taxpayers need to do is keep their energy receipts and let the royal computers autocalculate the potential refund. Of course, I will be needing new gold plating for my castle stonework ;)

Does this mean I don't get to be King? :D

I would imagine that the whole rationing concept could be handled within the income tax/gst/child tax credit system of the CCRA, aka Revenue Canada. All the subjects, er, I mean taxpayers need to do is keep their energy receipts and let the royal computers autocalculate the potential refund. Of course, I will be needing new gold plating for my castle stonework ;)

Sire ;)

I could see a system like that being workable, one question though. I assume Canada has a public assistance program similar to the US's welfare system in some form or fashion. How do we refund their unused credits? File a return and recieve a credit on only those expenditures minus perhaps the discounts (applicable in USA at least) they recieve on heating oil? How would you track and assess (sp) penalties for over usage?

Bowingly yours,
Subject Scott :P

Here is another alternative which should appeal to Hu because he's agin us...whoops I mean them...rich people getting all the perks.

Just let prices go as they will and then institute an energy surtax. If you are receiving more money you must be responsible for more energy consumption: I mentioned this in a thread Hu started, energy consumption is synonymous with economic activity. So it is reasonable the the biggest earners pay the biggest surtax. Then just cut taxes on low incomes and if someone is already below the taxable limit they get a negative tax, i.e., a subsidy.

You guys are killing me. I hope I stepped into the middle of a long running joke.

We don't need another excuse for middle class to pay through the nose while the Ophra watchers sit at home in their government housing, and get a check for not moving. And, the rich come up with a way to skim the cream off the top. There's only two things wrong with the current system.

one: we let the oil companies merge. Reverse that. And, quit making it impossible for new oil companies to start. Like, hand out some permits to build refining plants. We got rid of the competition side of our capitalist system. Think Southwest, after deregulation.

two: we need a space race, of energy. We need to find some ways to create energy at home, and conserve. No more middle east purchases. Wind mills, fission, fusion, tital currents, solar mirror collectors, solar thermal, solar voltaic, solar reflective streets and roof tops, wind chimneys, dams, building houses more efficiently, set MPG limits that push technology, fund LED/SED lighting research, shut off the damn street lights, set limits on power usage by DVD players etc., it will all add up to more than anything else your talking about.

And, a lot of the simple conservation stuff, will not cost the government anything. It will put people to work, creating designs that meet specifications.

Heck, you have any idea why a high-end computer processor pulls 60 amps of current, partly because of the E = number of gates * frequency * gate capacitance * (voltage^^2). But mostly, because they don't shut off the 95% of the chip that isn't being used. There's no "advantage" to making the chip efficient.

Since I'm in the middle of rant, why not tell those idiots, that I despise more than words can describe, that buying some carbon offset bumper sticker, or shutting motorized access to the national forest down, is not a way to make up for your fat lazy up-ity butt driving a giant SUV, or living in a 4000sq-ft home. Anyone, that keeps their house at 80+ degrees shouldn't be allowed to even speak to me about the environment. But sure enough, you follow the loudest environmentalist around, and you'll find out he is the worst energy hog there is. Oh, and one more thing, the only thing causing all of these problems is the world is over populated. You fix that, you fix the problem.

In short, you can't trust the governments with more tax money. You can't trust the governments with the new universal currency, carbon credits. The whole carbon dioxide thing is a complete joke. There's nothing wrong with this country using lots of energy. You just need to engineer your way out of the problem, not throw your hands up and surrender. Don't tax people that work, put people to work fixing this.

.....Anyone, that keeps their house at 80+ degrees shouldn't be allowed to even speak to me about the environment....

I take exception to this!!!! I keep my house at 80 degrees sometimes and I would still claim the right to preach to you about the environment if I so chose. Why do you think the temperature at which my house is at has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of my opinion?

I will concede I only choose to keep this type of temperature for a short time each year, generally when the outside temperatures are above 80 degrees.

You are most correct.

During the periods when the ambient air temperature is below 60 degrees, I hereby take exception to persons keeping their homes at 80+ temperatures.

Wade,

Maybe not a joke but I was having fun exploring my opinions and maybe broadening my perception.

We all signed NAFTA so build the refineries right across the border in Mexico, run two pipelines, one for crude one for refined fuels and the refinery problem is fixed. What isn't fixed is the fact big oil doesn't want to build them since that would end one excuse they have to rob people. Breaking up the oil companies would work a little, until the upstarts got in league with the others. Nationalization, such an ugly term to an American as it is, would solve more problems until bogged down by bureaucracy. Heck the oil companies owe the US taxpayer anyway, if my understanding is correct they don't pay taxes like other corps do.

An energy race would be great, but the financial incentives are all speculative at this time so you don't see a lot of funding dumped into it by the private sector like the govt did with the space race. Also that was all in house bringing in the best and brightest, you'd have to do the same thing again to keep from wasting funds on duplicate research and to ensure all information is available to every division. What might be worthless to the fusion guys might end up being the holy grail to the wind guys, that kind of thing. As I said earlier conservation should be the watch word, more efficient engines, cleaner exhausts, better utilization of what we have now.

Rant away! Al Gore is Head Fox in Charge of Security at Chicken House Inc, not to mention all the lesser publicized jack@$$e$ that think they have a divine right to squander resources while dictating to others what they should or shouldn't do since they are "preaching the gospel".

Trust the Govt???? To waste, mismanage and divert funds while perverting the spirit of the laws or regulations maybe. Private sector will always serve the public interest providing sufficient competition and enough real profit in the market. To paraphrase, intentions don't kill economies, regulations do.

Scott

Yes, a energy space race is a tricky problem.

How to fund such a thing? How do you keep the Government Welfare Contractors from sucking all the funds out of the project? How do you get the best and brightest to come forward, for little pay, and make something like fusion work?

After all, fixing this is worth what, a couple trillion dollars. Potentially millions of American lives. Maybe the government offers an X prize. 1/2 a trillion dollars to anyone that can figure it out, and make it work.

Yes, a energy space race is a tricky problem.

How to fund such a thing? How do you keep the Government Welfare Contractors from sucking all the funds out of the project? How do you get the best and brightest to come forward, for little pay, and make something like fusion work?

After all, fixing this is worth what, a couple trillion dollars. Potentially millions of American lives. Maybe the government offers an X prize. 1/2 a trillion dollars to anyone that can figure it out, and make it work.

It will be funded, it just will take longer at the current levels of funding to make the break throughs that will be definitive enough to get the major funding that will accelerate the pace. Look at the hybrid car market now. When I was a teen in the mid 80's I remember reading about the cars of the future, hybrids and straight electric. 20 years later they are here for mass consumption. Why so long? IMO people weren't aware on a deep level of the problems with emmisions and the limited nature of oil so the market didn't exist. No one anticipated the current demand for fuels, coal oil etc, so it was considered a problem for the future when other tech would be easily substituted, which never did miraclously appear. That attitude has changed and now we have a market so we are seeing new tech enter the market. I would prefer to see the tech developed sooner rather than later, like after Mexico city become uninhabitable due to smog or the national power grid takes a major one.

I'd like to see an international effort from Universities to push for some kind of co-op program funded through all the gov'ts that have a tech base to contribute. That would make it a public property and to address Hu's concerns, it would prevent private ownership of the resulting tech. The gov'ts involved can then license it for use in their own countries, let the energy companies bid for the rights to produce the energy and sell it and the license requires that a surcharge amount be added to every kWh as a flat charge royalty that goes to the gov't. Then the gov't has a new income source that is actually pretty fair since the more energy you use the more you will pay just like a flat tax system. With as many consumers as the US has a very small amount of surcharge per consumer would add up to real money. Just a thought.

Scott

Honestly, all I'm hoping for is to make it out of this whole fiasco financially intact, and with the absolute minimum in losses to my civil liberties.

Every single "solution" to this problem comes with heaps and piles of new government controls. National RFID tags on your car, national registration and gas cars to get fuel anywhere at all, personal ID this, GPS tracking that, accountable, traceable, locatable, real time, etc, etc, etc.

Boil it down and it equates to never being able to be out of the governments gaze without resorting to seriously drastic measures. I for one see no reason why anyone should need to know where I'm at or what I'm doing at any time for any reason.

When you can no longer drop your credit cards and blend into the background whenever you please for whatever reason you please, you might as well tattoo a number on your wrist.

IMO the whole CO2 = Global Warming scenario is bull****, but even if it wasn't, I'd rather drown at the top of Pike's Peak as a free man than be safe and sound and cataloged and accounted for at all times. You might as well be a veal in a crate at that point.

IMO the whole CO2 = Global Warming scenario is bull****, but even if it wasn't, I'd rather drown at the top of Pike's Peak as a free man than be safe and sound and cataloged and accounted for at all times. You might as well be a veal in a crate at that point.

I heard a news report last week in fact (CNN or something like that), where some Canadian professor of planetary physics has said that he now has proof that all of the warming we have been seeing (the 0.5 degree) is due to the sun and solar cycles and that by the mid 2020's everyone will be crying about a mini ice ace.

Sounds like the 40 year cycle idea strikes again.