On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:00:05 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Spend your time/money preparing for the climate shift, rather than doing
a Canute and hoping a reduction of your already tiny carbon footprint
will save the world.

There you go again with that argument again - why bother if something isn't
a significant part of the total. Of course if all the other countries which
only produce 2% or less - which is most of them did nothing then nothing would
happen. However if they all did then it would make a difference regardless
of the USA or china.

B2003

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:15:19 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Also, what no-one seems to have mentioned, geo-engineering may become an
essential tactic. We could be actively researching the various

Sticking large amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere or building
huge sunshields or other pie in the sky ideas like those arn't going to happen.

proposals, so we're in a position to benefit when they become the only
viable solution. Personally, I think this is much more likely to succeed
than persuading the large CO2 producers to cut their emissions.

China has already been persuaded in part. Of the big polluters its only the
bloody minded US that refuses to have anything to do with it unless its some
fatuous plan like bioethanol from corn which produces more CO2 than it saves
but keeps US farmers and agribusiness gainfully employed.

B2003

In message , at 12:48:42 on Thu, 13 Oct
2011, d remarked:
Spend your time/money preparing for the climate shift, rather than doing
a Canute and hoping a reduction of your already tiny carbon footprint
will save the world.

There you go again with that argument again - why bother if something isn't
a significant part of the total. Of course if all the other countries which
only produce 2% or less - which is most of them did nothing then nothing would
happen. However if they all did then it would make a difference regardless
of the USA or china.

That kind of "look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of
themself" doesn't work in this context.
--
Roland Perry

wrote in message

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:15:19 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Also, what no-one seems to have mentioned, geo-engineering may
become an essential tactic. We could be actively researching the
various

Sticking large amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere or
building huge sunshields or other pie in the sky ideas like those
arn't going to happen.

There are a number of other proposals, some more whacky than others.
None are no-brainers, but some may become esential.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:09:46 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
There you go again with that argument again - why bother if something isn't
a significant part of the total. Of course if all the other countries which
only produce 2% or less - which is most of them did nothing then nothing would
happen. However if they all did then it would make a difference regardless
of the USA or china.

That kind of "look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of
themself" doesn't work in this context.

We'll just have to agree to differ then.

B2003

On Oct 13, 1:53*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:15:19 +0100

"Recliner" wrote:
Also, what no-one seems to have mentioned, geo-engineering may become an
essential tactic. We could be actively researching the various

Sticking large amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere or building
huge sunshields or other pie in the sky ideas like those arn't going to happen.

proposals, so we're in a position to benefit when they become the only
viable solution. Personally, I think this is much more likely to succeed
than persuading the large CO2 producers to cut their emissions.

China has already been persuaded in part. Of the big polluters its only the
bloody minded US that refuses to have anything to do with it unless its some
fatuous plan like bioethanol from corn which produces more CO2 than it saves
but keeps US farmers and agribusiness gainfully employed.

Many refineries in the US are closing, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=newsarchive&sid=amg1Ou18W4wY . There is a coming shortage
of refining cappacity. Drilling in the gulf is banned http://
www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
.. Drilling in ANWR has not been allowed http://politicmo.com/
2011/03/30/hartzler-calls-for-drilling-in-anwr-offshore/ . There is
no effort to reach the vast shale deposits under the rockies http://
www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/panel-defeats-attempt-end-oil-shale-moratorium/
.. The EPA has declared CO2 a greenhouse gas and started enforcing its
regulations in that regard http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/10/
us-usa-congress-epa-idUSTRE6595NO20100610 . Under BHO's
administration the EPA has a field day. Meanwhile the US economy is
in free fall.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
.. The EPA has declared CO2 a greenhouse gas and started enforcing its
regulations in that regard http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/10/
us-usa-congress-epa-idUSTRE6595NO20100610 . Under BHO's
administration the EPA has a field day. Meanwhile the US economy is
in free fall.

So now the US enviromental protection agency is responsible for the world
recession? Thats a new one.

B2003

On Oct 13, 3:36*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:31:32 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
.. *The EPA has declared CO2 a greenhouse gas and started enforcing its
regulations in that regard http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/10/
us-usa-congress-epa-idUSTRE6595NO20100610 . *Under BHO's
administration the EPA has a field day. *Meanwhile the US economy is
in free fall.

So now the US enviromental protection agency is responsible for the world
recession? Thats a new one.

Not entirely what I was trying to say. The EPA is responsible for
holding back the energy industry within the US. This is not helping
the US economy. A robust energy sector with low prices would help the
US economy.

It is certainly not true, as you say, that the global warming fallacy
is not impacting decision making in the US. It is having a severe
impact there with gas prices @ 3.85/US Gallon. Since goods travel
vast distances, increasing gas prices impacts all Main Street prices.

There are of course other factors affecting the worldwide recession.
Bad banking practices, the dumb idea of a super national currency in
Europe, crazy work practices in Greece, et al.

As an aside the Sovereign State of Texas is hardly in recession.
Texas is drilling new deep level wells and employment is increasing.
Likewise, the Province of Alberta, CA is experiencing a boom as it
exports refined shale oil to the US.

On 13/10/2011 11:49, Bruce wrote:
d wrote:

And if you really don't believe CO2 is a greenholuse forcer but is just an
effect of warming I suggest read up on Venus.


On Venus? Can't I read up on it here? Do Ryanair fly there?

Yes, but they call it Mercury.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 13/10/2011 13:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:47:02 on Thu, 13 Oct
2011, d remarked:
The cost vs benefit is unfavourable, compared to many more useful things
one could be doing.

There's nothing like a good bit of short termist thinking. Let me guess,
education, hospitals, all the other standard issue emotive vote winners?
Fat lot of use any of them will be if the climate shifts drastically and
we're not ready for it.

Spend your time/money preparing for the climate shift, rather than doing
a Canute and hoping a reduction of your already tiny carbon footprint
will save the world.

Wasn't the point of the story that Canute himself knew that he couldn't
actually... oh forget it.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK