CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

[kpitcher]

Carbon Emissions are at a 20 year low for the US. An article says it's mainly due to cheap natural gas. What an amazing insight this person has...

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado."

Who woulda thunk?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiAA4g1Rux_vlMhI1dxbazNbGneg?docId=da1399eda b7b42ef9f0269ea5a3ca224


Also discussion on slashdot http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08...it-20-year-low

[Nickels]

yikes, that means the carbon tax propaganda already worked!

[Weston White]

But that just cannot be, because Al Gore, through "science" has proven otherwise.

Nonetheless, the real danger is neither CO2 nor H2O, but CO.

[Swarmed]

Nonetheless, the real danger is neither CO2 nor H2O, but CO.

Colorado?

[angelatc]

But that just cannot be, because Al Gore, through "science" has proven otherwise.

Nonetheless, the real danger is neither CO2 nor H2O, but CO.

The real danger is liberals trying to take over the world's energy supply by making up global warming.

[rpwi]

I wonder if part of the cause in the drop in local CO2 production (if that is accurate) is due partly to how a good deal of manufacturing has moved overseas which indirectly produces a lot of CO2.

I'm not sure why so many libertarian types are so hostile to the idea of global warming... I do not believe the rational comes first from a scientific analysis of the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere...but a reverse rational. That the popular prescribed 'cures' involve an infringement on liberty, therefore the disease must be wrong.

Negative externalities happen...and IMO are one of the few justifications for government interference. The typical libertarian response to negative externalities it to just privative everything and emphasis the tort system. Not only has the tort system clearly demonstrated over the years how flawed it is...but privatizing everything (air/ground water/rivers) just is not practical.

[Lindsey]

Perhaps CO2 emissions are dropping, but many people believe that the H2O supply is being destroyed and earthquakes are being encouraged in the pursuit of the natural gas, by means of hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking.)

[Travlyr]

I wonder if part of the cause in the drop in local CO2 production (if that is accurate) is due partly to how a good deal of manufacturing has moved overseas which indirectly produces a lot of CO2.

I'm not sure why so many libertarian types are so hostile to the idea of global warming... I do not believe the rational comes first from a scientific analysis of the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere...but a reverse rational. That the popular prescribed 'cures' involve an infringement on liberty, therefore the disease must be wrong.

Negative externalities happen...and IMO are one of the few justifications for government interference. The typical libertarian response to negative externalities it to just privative everything and emphasis the tort system. Not only has the tort system clearly demonstrated over the years how flawed it is...but privatizing everything (air/ground water/rivers) just is not practical.

Because the science behind it is flawed. If global warming was real, and scientists were honest about it, then the roadways would be designed for efficiency rather than control. For example, millions upon millions of vehicles across the land waiting at stoplights is unnecessary but it is required by design for control purposes.

If global warming was real, and the scientists behind it were honest, then they would be united behind an effort to legalize hemp. Hemp would go a long ways toward greening the planet. Nobody hears a peep from the environmental scientist community about legalizing the most green plant known to man.

Global warming science is junk science.

[Dr.3D]

Why would it matter if CO2 emissions dropped in the U.S. if it isn't controlled in the other countries? It may have increased in many other countries and thus made no difference at all.

Spend all you want to make a difference in one country, making it go broke in the process while the other countries could give a crap and just spew out more than before.

[rpwi]

Because the science behind it is flawed. If global warming was real, and scientists were honest about it, then the roadways would be designed for efficiency rather than control. For example, millions upon millions of vehicles across the land waiting at stoplights is unnecessary but it is required by design for control purposes.

If global warming was real, and the scientists behind it were honest, then they would be united behind an effort to legalize hemp. Hemp would go a long ways toward greening the planet. Nobody hears a peep from the environmental scientist community about legalizing the most green plant known to man.

Global warming science is junk science.

I agree that hemp should be legalized and would help a lot with a number of environmental issues. But just because society as a whole is not very intelligent at spotting practical and clever cures...doesn't mean they don't have a disease.

Out of curiosity (and somewhat of a side-issue) what did you mean by efficient roadways? More round-abouts? Being able to turn left onto a blank street at a red light, even if you already came to a stop? More one way streets? The last is actually quite efficient...because it eliminates cross traffic turns, makes parking more efficient and enables syncing of traffic lights.