HOME | DD
poasterchild β Support Cap and Trade - Stop Climate Change
Published: 2013-01-23 02:20:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 1687; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 15
Redirect to original
Description
Please disseminate widely, thank you! This does not give permission to alter or claim credit for this re-mixed work, for which I retain all copyrights. The original illustration is in the public domain.If you disagree with the views expressed here, please be sure to read my Policy Statement BEFORE you post: [link]
Reactionaries like the Koch brothers have spent millions to try to convince people that a carbon tax is a bad idea for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing down climate change, while the facts show that cap and trade works to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, in New England, EPA established a cap and trade system to bring down the NOx (nitrogen oxides) and SOβ (sulfur dioxide) emissions that are the source of acid rain, and that program has been wildly successful, with even the electric power industry there supporting it. See: [link] But, when people are told that any carbon tax will double the cost of gasoline (lie) and that it is "socialism" (another lie), progress comes to a screeching halt.
So, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to provide the military security to ship oil from the Middle East, and are now in the process of digging up the Athabascan tar sands in Alberta, Canada, which will, like all other finite resources, run out sooner or later, but at a tremendous environmental cost.
In the meantime, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase, average global temperatures keep rising, and weather patterns are becoming more extreme.
Who benefits from this?
Related content
Comments: 53
Woah got some good conversations going on this one!
π: 0 β©: 0
Would a carbon tax not seriously increase the cost of gasoline? Doubling sounds unlikely, but still. I'm not entirely familiar with the carbon tax, though; would it not affect gas prices?
π: 0 β©: 1
Cap and trade is an alternative to a direct carbon tax, and doesn't affect individuals -- only companies and government organizations. But the Koch Brothers want you to believe that the cost of gas would go up as a result. The imposition of a cap and trade system on the electric companies did not cause the price of electricity to go up in New England. In any event, gasoline prices in the U.S. are low compared to what they are in Europe and Japan. Wouldn't you be willing to pay a little more at the pump to reduce the rate at which the planet is heating up because of our profligate use of fossil fuels?
π: 0 β©: 1
Fair points. I still kind of doubt that wouldn't cause prices to rise at all (companies are going to raise prices to make up for the tax). It would affect individuals, just not directly and probably not to nearly the same extent. But you are right. I think it would be worth a little extra cash to help the environment.
π: 0 β©: 0
Bleh its not worth arguing with people about the negatives of nuclear.
I am not fond of cap and trade however because while one company may go beyond standards so they can sell their surplus, other companies refuse/have no need with this system to meet the standards (instead buying the surplus)- which causes worse local pollution, even if the total CO2 emission average 'meets the standard'.
It not only shows that companies are fully capable of reducing emissions well below the standard, but it also shows the reluctance and/or refusal for others to do so, when the technology does exist and it is possible.
π: 0 β©: 1
How do you propose achieving a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions then?
π: 0 β©: 1
This is difficult.
Propose a hard cap, and companies will either re-locate to somewhere with lesser restrictions, or if they are wealthy enough simply pay through the fines and continue to pollute.
One could argue for a more systematic lowering of the cap in cap and trade, but ultimately you run into the same problem.
In the end, there would need to be a global initiative. But try getting everyone to agree to that.
Every leap and bound the EU makes, China negates. The Kyoto protocol in my opinion was a great start but ultimately failed because everyone would not sign on- which I find personally disgraceful. To top it all off, countries have now been leaving the agreement.
I don't have much hope, unfortunately. Those in power simply do not care enough.
π: 0 β©: 1
There is much truth in what you have written.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 2009 [link] that even if we were today able to effect a lower greenhouse gas emissions scenario than present trends, average temperatures in the United States will rise at least 4ΒΊ F. If emissions increase over present trends, which seems likely at this point, those increases are likely to be in the 8ΒΊ to 12ΒΊ F. range. Under those scenarios the number of days with high temperatures above 90Β°F is expected to increase throughout the United States, especially in areas that already experience heat waves. For example, areas of the Southeast and Southwest currently experience an average of 60 days per year with a high temperature above 90Β°F. These areas are projected to experience 150 or more days a year above 90Β°F by the end of the century, under a higher emissions scenario. In addition to occurring more frequently, these very hot days are projected to be about 10Β°F hotter at the end of this century than they are today, under a higher emissions scenario. So, where I live in Virginia, instead of 60 days of temperatures in the 90ΒΊ F. range, we could experience 150 days per year of temperatures at or above 100ΒΊ F.
I do not even want to contemplate the human and environmental consequences of such a dramatic increase. One thing for sure, it will pretty much wipe out agriculture as it presently exists (small scale hay-dependent cattle operations and fruit orchards).
Looking at another important region of the country, the grain belt in the Midwest would be devastated.
I think one thing to do is to make the changes you can so that you will know that you personally did what you could. I moved out of the city 15 years ago and into a 1928 farmhouse in a very rural county where I use less than half of the electricity I did previously. I bought a more fuel-efficient car. I wear sweaters in the house and keep the heat set at 66ΒΊ F., even today when the outdoor air temperature is about 20ΒΊ F. Is all of this enough? No. Do these changes in lifestyle help me feel that I am doing something positive for the planet? Yes. Strive to do what is right and what you can; peace of mind is priceless.
π: 0 β©: 1
The scientific data on this is quite staggering. unfortunately, the US in particular has such a negative opinion on scientific research that it is more often then not disregarded. The american public doesn't know how to value scientific data let alone analyze it for its conclusions. The voices against the results are far louder and more of what people want to hear, so that's what they will turn to- even though the US and the world both got a hefty taste of what is to come during 2012.
I worry for this summer, my relatives in the Midwest already have dry empty wells and have to go into town for water and necessities. I don't think people understand the seriousness of another far worse drought that I am subconsciously expecting for this year (I hope I am wrong). But it will spark conflict on all fields.
We personally can do our best to prepare ourselves for what is to come, but it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that it could have been prevented if people had cared beyond themselves to do something about it earlier on. Instead they oggle over tv stars. sigh.
π: 0 β©: 1
Future generations will curse us. Just be glad you're not living in China. I've been there 14 times since 2003 and when the SHTF there people will die by the tens of millions. Maybe here too, but we're better positioned to survive what is coming.
I hate to say this but I am in my sixties, and frankly glad that I won't be around to see what happens after 2050. [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks. Here's the original World War II propaganda poster if you're interested: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
yes , i like the WWII art, but more the soviet art
π: 0 β©: 1
I've done a few, but it is difficult to find Soviet era posters that are useful as the basis for the re-mixes I do on the themes with which I am concerned. Here's a few that worked well, I think: [link] [link] and [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
nice ones , i like the Fall Out posters too, they have a very similar style
π: 0 β©: 1
Post the links to a couple of them and I'll take a look. Maybe I can use them. It is getting more difficult for me to find really good World War II (or I, for that matter) originals to use in my work. Thanks.
π: 0 β©: 1
look up here [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Or we could switch to a proven clean technology, Nuclear, until the renewable energy sources become viable. If you do some digging, especially on world-nuclear.org, you can find that we have reactor designs that can use all of our old fuel rods as new fuel, rendering them nearly inert, with half-lives measured in centuries or less.
Imagine, only having to worry about the carbon emissions from cars, trucks, trains, aircraft, and boats instead of also from the coal and gas power plants.
π: 0 β©: 2
This issue with that is worrying over weither or not it'll be beneficial to the people living near the plant.
π: 0 β©: 2
Can you explain to me how it would not be beneficial?
π: 0 β©: 2
And more to the point even is the problem with the disposal of the spent uranium fuel rods which continue to be highly radioactive and dangerous for thousands of years. There was a plan to take all of them from all reactors in the United States and buy them in a salt cavern at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, until it was demonstrated that this site was not safe. So, today, all sent fuel rods are stored in the reactor pools of the reactors which "burned" them. This method was never intended to be a permanent solution, and many, many studies have pointed to the inherent risk in doing so. Yet, that is the system we have today.
Can you say "Fukishima?"
π: 0 β©: 2
Using Thorium based <[link] > or accelerator based designs <[link] >, it is possible to use the spent fuel rods in new reactors, getting energy out of it. Doing this changes the spent fuel from the Actinoid series that has a half-life measured in millenia to the Lanthanoid series. The Lanthanoids have a much shorter half-life, usually measured in years (or more often in seconds). It may even be possible to render it into a non-radioactive isotope.
All of this is being researched and developed in Europe, all because they are not afraid of nuclear power. They are worried about the long term consequences, but that is why they are actively researching solutions.
Here in the US, we have a allowed organizations like Greenpeace to make us so afraid of nuclear power that we can't even discuss it calmly. There have been precisely three major problems with nuclear reactors.
The first, Three Mile Island. It had a coolant leak, the safety systems and training got the system shut down before anything was even at risk. No radioactive material was released.
Chernobyl. This was an obsolete reactor design that never would have even been built in the US. Most of the technicians would not have passed high school in the US. Add to the mix, very poor communication among the maintenance, control room, and directors and you have the perfect recipe for a disaster. This was the first one to have claimed any lives.
Fukushima was to built to all current standards at the time. The fact that it was not the earthquake that brought down the buildings is a testament to the building codes. It was the tsunami that did the damage that led to the larger problems. However, at the time it was designed and built, nobody had really thought of tsunamis having that kind of power. They knew they happened, but thought it was an extremely rare event. Having had this happen has led us to newer designs that are more survivable. We are also taking location into much higher consideration than we did before.
I am not saying we can make a reactor completely safe. There will always be a risk. But there is a risk that the boiler at a gas power plant could explode causing deaths and destruction as well. With proper training, safety protocols, and regular inspections, the risk can be minimized.
I'm also not suggesting that it is a long term solution. I'm saying it should be used for the fifty to one hundred years while we get our green and renewable production systems into mass production and distribution. I know that length of time does sound long, but given the time we have been relying on fossil fuels, it is very short.
Frankly, I'm willing to accept this short term risk for if it can lead to a much longer sustainability than anything else being discussed right now. Nuclear power is the bridge that can get us from the fossil fuels to the sustainable systems.
π: 0 β©: 1
For argument's sake, I'll accept everything you say, but you still have not addressed the problem, which, to take your view, isn't the reactors; it's the mining of the uranium.
My position on this issue is based on my experience in South Dakota where I have lived and personally visited the Cave Hills in the northwest region of that state. There, I have seen first-hand the lasting and incredibly destructive after effects of the uranium mining that took place in that area in the 1950s. Today, some 60 years later, the Forest Service warns visitors not to camp in the areas closest to these sites because of the amount of radiation that one will receive as a result of even a brief overnight stay. Studies done far downstream on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation continue to document radiation levels much higher than what one would expect from background radiation alone. The deleterious health effects on residents who live in the towns and on ranches nearest the Cave Hills have been well-documented.
Of course, the climate here in Virginia is much different than that found in the semi-arid Cave Hills of South Dakota, and this is what concerns me most. Our much wetter climate assures that no matter what sort of containment system is implemented, radiation from the tailings that are the inevitable result of any uranium mining operation will inevitably leach into our groundwater contaminating not only adjacent areas in Pittsylvania County, but areas downstream including the heavily populated communities of the Tidewater.
Developing the uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County is simply not worth it. I'd take your statement about "accept[ing] the short-term risk" more seriously if you're willing to move to Pittsylvania, Halifax, Mecklenberg, or Brunswick Counties, Virginia, and draw your well water from the watersheds of the Bannister or Dan Rivers, which, if the Coles Hill deposit is mined, will be the epicenter of the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of the Commonwealth, when it comes. You will note that I said "when," not "if." See: [link]
To keep this serious discuss on the light side, I have a joke for you:
There's bad news and good news from Three Mile Island.
The bad news is that the trout in the Susquehanna River have grown to 18 feet long.
The good news is that they glow in the dark and they're easy to catch.
π: 0 β©: 0
I meant "bury," not "buy." Sorry.
π: 0 β©: 0
For starters, What will it cost for repairs? if it's going to affect the area? If the plant will be secure? How far a way will it be? How many houses will it really power up? How much per reactor? Etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
The cost of repairs, is more expensive simply due to the components being used. But reactors tend to be lower maintenance than fossil fuel plants. Not to mention that people will be needed to perform those inspections and repairs, it provides jobs to the area.
The location is always up for debate. Not a single coal plant is really located in a convenient place. Right now, coal is being shipped from here in Montana to plants in California. And considering that most coal plants need nearly a full train every 24 hours ( An average coal train consists of about 110 cars each carrying 110 tons of coal.), and a nuclear reactor of the same output will use only about two tons of uranium in a month, is it really that hard to see how much of a difference in efficiency and cleanliness there is? Look at the XKCD comic that graphically represents the energy density of our current fuels. <[link] >
And given how secure the existing plants were before Sept. 11, 2001, and the way the measures were upgraded after words, I would say that the reactors are pretty damn secure. Honestly, it would be easier to take out several fossil fuel plants than it would be to take out a single nuclear plant. Our infrastructure can't handle anything like that.
The reactors are more expensive to build than other power plants. Mainly, this is due to the much higher safety and training standards that they are held to compared to other power stations. I would estimate that close to 80% of the people that work at a nuclear power plant have a college degree. conversely, I would say that only about 20% at a fossil fuel plant have the same. But you can't just simply look at the build cost. You have to look at the long term cost. Comparing the amount of CO2 released, the mining of the fuels, tranpsorting the fuels, and long term clean up of the waste, I would say the nuclear comes off pretty cheap (if done correctly).
For instance, we will be dealing with the output of the fossil fuel plants for centuries. If we use something like this <[link] > or this <[link] > we can recycle all of our old fuel rods and render them nearly inert. No longer would we have to find a place to store it for thousands of years, we would only have to store it for a decade or so. Doesn't that sound better than having to figure out how to handle the soot, CO2, sulfur, and other chemicals that have been getting released from the coal plants for over a century?
And all the issues you brought up are valid for any type of power generation. If you think they only apply to nuclear, then I suggest you attend planning meetings for any public works facility in your area. Each and every building, even homes, go through this process. Admittedly, for some buildings it is much more in depth than others, but it is all a part of the process.
π: 0 β©: 1
Now begs the question, what happens if there is an error?
π: 0 β©: 1
I do believe you mean,"raises the question"
Begging the Question
The term βbegging the questionβ is often misused to mean βraises the question,β (and common use will likely change, or at least add this new, definition). However, the intended meaning is to assume a conclusion in oneβs question. This is similar to circular reasoning, and an argument is trying to slip in a conclusion in a premise or question β but it is not the same as circular reasoning because the question being begged can be a separate point. Whereas with circular reasoning the premise and conclusion are the same.
The classic example of begging the question is to ask someone if they have stopped beating their wife yet. Of course, the question assumes that they beat their wife.
So you are basically assuming that a mistake will be made. It can happen. I think instead of asking what if a mistake is made, we should ask, "What plans can we make for if the unthinkable happens?"
This, combined with all of the strict standards we already have in place is how we prevent something like Fukushima happening again. We learn from the past, make plans, and adapt to changing conditions.
We can always minimize the risk that something will go wrong, but we will never be able to say nothing will happen. This applies to any human endeavor. But if we allow fear to rule us to the point that we won't even consider using it, then as a whole we are no better than the far right being afraid of the "Homosexual Agenda."
Don't let fear of the potential disasters paralyze you into inaction. Do some research on your own and then make up your own mind. If after doing this, you still feel the risks outweigh the benefits, then I will let that be. I will agree to disagree at that point. But if you are simply speaking from a fear reaction, I have to try and educate then.
π: 0 β©: 1
The reason why I'm thinking this way is because of natural disasters.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is where the planning comes in. But those same disasters you are so worried about harming a nuclear plant could end up destroying a hydroelectric plant, causing the dam to fail, emptying the contents of the reservoir in a matter of minutes. Simply the ecological damage caused by this would be devastating, much less all the people that would be killed simply because they would have no warning, much less even the time to get out of the way.
A nuclear plant, on the other hand, can be built with all current disasters accounted for. Obviously, some possibilities will be ignored, such as asteroid strikes. It is looking to the past that made the Fukushima plant able to take the earthquake with no damage. It was the tsunami that did the damage. Now, all coastal plants will take this into account. But does a reactor in Montana need to worry about tsunami? No. We average nearly a half mile or more in altitude, and at least a thousand miles from the nearest shore. Any tsunami that can reach us will be so devastating that there would be nothing that could be done. and the reason I bring this up, is shortly after the Fukushima problem, a small town wanted to know if the reactor being built near them was safe from a tsunami. The reactor was at an altitude of about 1000ft and over a hundred miles inland. They were allowing fear to dictate their reactions.
And discussing the potential of any type of disaster helps us make plans to each clean up or prevent it from happening. But simply saying that the potential for disaster means we shouldn't even discuss it shows cowardice.
π: 0 β©: 1
Unfortunately, I live where flooding can happen.
π: 0 β©: 1
As do I. If the local drinking water reservoir were to fail, it would destroy the entire town, not to mention probably taking out other dams downstream causing even more destruction.
π: 0 β©: 1
Is Montana's water that bad?
π: 0 β©: 1
No, we actually have very good water. In most areas, anyway. Some of them have very ad water due to mining that took place over a century ago.
Read up on Berkeley Pit: <[link] > <[link] >
But it is easier to set up a reservoir that collects runoff from lakes that are fed by natural springs than it is to try and drill wells that will provide enough water for a city.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know much about Montana besides what my friend tells me.
π: 0 β©: 0
Everyone near the proposed mining site in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, has stated public opposition to the proposal to left the moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia. See [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
I know what uranium can do to a person.
π: 0 β©: 1
Care to elaborate on that?
π: 0 β©: 1
Uranium can cause people to get sick or cause deformation in young children.
π: 0 β©: 2
Antimony, arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, cerium, chromium, cobalt, copper, gallium, gold, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, platinum, silver, tellurium, thallium, tin, uranium, vanadium, and zinc all cause that. It is called Heavy Metal Toxicity.
People are in general more concerned about the radiation associated with uranium than they are the other problems.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, and in particular, uranium ingestion is strongly associated with kidney disease and daughter products of uranium include known carcinogens like radon and radium. Radon is an element and a radioactive gas that is known to cause lung cancer. Granite often contains uranium which decomposes into radon. If your house is located over granite rock, and abatement efforts are not undertaken to vent the radon out of the home, it is very risky.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh wow. I like I said, I can see why they want to keep the ban. They want to leakage from happening.
π: 0 β©: 0
Just so long as you don't mine the uranium in Virginia: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
So mining is more dangerous than having a wild fire go over the exposed vein spreading the dust into the atmosphere, possibly contaminating thousands of square miles? That scenario nearly happened here in Montana back in 2000. A wildfire was approaching the exposed portion of a low grade uranium vein, and the government was worried about the radioactive dust the fire would throw into the atmosphere.
π: 0 β©: 1
I believe so, yes, because leaching of radioactive material into the environment due to water infiltration would continue for as long as the tailings were exposed to the elements, while the wild fire you describe would presumably be a one-time event. Of course, the answer is speculative and would depend on the specific physical characteristics of both scenarios. According to the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, "approximately 85% of the radioactivity present in the ore would remain in the waste, known as "tailings," and more than 100 tons of this waste would be stored on site in perpetuity. During the process of mining, much of this waste would be exposed to the elements." www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13266
π: 0 β©: 0
I was working for a geothermal company and we sure wanted cap and trade.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>