Kyoto for the Car

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

i don't understand this whole thing.

the goal is to reduce polution.


but, if all the comapny has to do is spend money to get credits, the polution level doesn't change, and once again, the rich get richer.

valiant attempt, but i'm not throwing $150 for the 3 cars i own at it, thats for damn sure.
 
Well, according to the interweb, D0VE-C heads yield a 10.5-1 CR, so I'll probably at least be running 91.
 
Originally posted by pissedoffsol@Jun 22 2005, 12:13 PM
i don't understand this whole thing.

the goal is to reduce polution.


but, if all the comapny has to do is spend money to get credits, the polution level doesn't change, and once again, the rich get richer.

valiant attempt, but i'm not throwing $150 for the 3 cars i own at it, thats for damn sure.
[post=515298]Quoted post[/post]​



Exactly. The problem with our system as opposed to Kyoto is that there's no set limit on pollution shares. If a company goes over their limit, they get as many more shares as they need on 'loan'. Yes they have to pay them back and don't have as many available for next time around, but then they just put more on loan.

No limit on shares = no limit on pollution = the system is an almost complete waste of time.
 
Originally posted by Celerity@Jun 22 2005, 12:16 PM
On a parting note, I'm not that old - But I do have a great memory. Anyone here remember Leaded gas ? Leaded Gasoline is AWESOME. Burns clean, has a high potency formula, and was nothing to refine.
[post=515256]Quoted post[/post]​


First off, are you joking about leaded gas? Sure, its great for engines; not so great for the environment.

Second, why attempt to persuade someone to do anything by using emotive words and phrases like "liberal" and "If you don't buy into this program you'll prove to be the same type of person that you have blasted for not going with the Kyoto pact. End of argument."
So you've enticed "liberals" to read your article and then forced them to feel hypocritical for not going with your plan. Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? or as an ignorant hippy? "Partisan hackery" as it is called hasn't helped unite the country yet, so why keep it up.
And considering this plan doesn't follow the kyoto protocol how could i be hypocritical?
 
Originally posted by pissedoffsol@Jun 22 2005, 01:13 PM
i don't understand this whole thing.

the goal is to reduce polution.


but, if all the comapny has to do is spend money to get credits, the polution level doesn't change, and once again, the rich get richer.

valiant attempt, but i'm not throwing $150 for the 3 cars i own at it, thats for damn sure.
[post=515298]Quoted post[/post]​



Not a waste, here is how the two are working.

The Kyoto pact has a set limit. First-world countries that run a ton of emission-producing industry get a lot of units. Developing 2nd or 3rd world countries get less. Based on industrial needs to sustain the economy. Zaire wants to create Africa's "Silicon Jungle", lets say - And they are granted 40 units (Pulling a number out of my ass). They can't afford the modern zero-emissions equipment and factories, so they buy used from Germany, say 1980's stuff. This factory burns at a rate of 30 units yearly, and the rest of the country is going to need another 15 units. So Japan sells them 5 units at an advertised 15% mark-up. 15 is a nice conservative figure, because the reality is that no one has the spares to sell, and they control prices. Zaire buys the shares to create chips and makes a ton of money to upgrade in one year. They pay back the loan, and reduce the pollution of the country. Japan makes a fucking killing, and even under regulation price gouging and unfair business tactics grows like a mold.

This is a real scenario, happening now. Zaire makes it's money from the already corrupt Diamond markets, and threatened to flood diamond and semi-precious markets because they had to to make the cut.

In the CCX when a company (not country) needs to begin with used GE equipment, they are loaned units by the CCX. It's not like Halliburton comes in and offers Tyco 10 units at a mark-up - The units aren't Halliburtons YET, until they are expended. Transportation desks of the CCX, as all utility loans, are setup to assist companies in making goals. Without this system, your computer would not be powered on now at this time of day. TRUST ME . I can describe more in private, through email only.

The loan and trade system removes the unit vouchers from the system, and companies must overall meet requirements. Whats to police this? Easy. If this system fails, then we move to a less business-friendly model that will cut the jobs of millions of americans. That model is called Kyoto.

B: The loaning that happens is not a monetary loan. It's a unit of production. There are companies that can give and give and give to pay into a money-translated-units system, But NO company can give up production figures.

When you buy units from Terra, they take those units off the CCX forever. They own them, and do not trade or loan them to companies to use. They, in turn, reduce emissions actively.

Why would a company join the CCX at all ? It's a voluntary market!

This is also one based on the fine art of prediction. To simplify (I know more than this, and if you're interested I'll go into more later), Companies need to keep up and pass competition to gain a foothold in the world or national markets. By NOT joining the CCX companies shoot themselves in the foot. Donald Trump I believe got caught by this (If not him, than a Rockefeller... Can't remember which) and some of their plants were shut down and retired because they didn't meet sustainable recycling procedures - While their competition did. What this created was a world where his professional opponents all pushed for legislature to catch up to THEM, and to knock HIM out. They lobbied the government, the government agreed and the new regulations were passed. He didn't keep up, and was shut down.

Totally fair.

-> Steve

P.S. message me for my email address, if you wish.
 
Originally posted by TommyTheCat+Jun 22 2005, 02:50 PM-->
@Jun 22 2005, 12:16 PM
On a parting note, I'm not that old - But I do have a great memory. Anyone here remember Leaded gas ? Leaded Gasoline is AWESOME. Burns clean, has a high potency formula, and was nothing to refine.
[post=515256]Quoted post[/post]​


First off, are you joking about leaded gas? Sure, its great for engines; not so great for the environment.

Second, why attempt to persuade someone to do anything by using emotive words and phrases like "liberal" and "If you don't buy into this program you'll prove to be the same type of person that you have blasted for not going with the Kyoto pact. End of argument."
So you've enticed "liberals" to read your article and then forced them to feel hypocritical for not going with your plan. Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? or as an ignorant hippy? "Partisan hackery" as it is called hasn't helped unite the country yet, so why keep it up.
And considering this plan doesn't follow the kyoto protocol how could i be hypocritical?
[post=515332]Quoted post[/post]​


Leaded gasoline, with it's high concentration of Octane (8 molecules) mixed with measured air quite well. The resulting contaminated exhaust was a problem, indeed. But the combustion process was damned near perfect. We've traded one or two hazardous emissions en masse for several smaller less threatening ones.

This system is the same principle and almost the same practice as Kyoto with the major exceptions:
1) CCX has been in function for over a decade without failure or fault. It's rock solid in it's corruption and pro-con ratios.
2) Units are controlled by businesses that lead development and curtail pwoer-struggles. Kyoto is driven by governments and royalty that do whatever possible to maintain status. Global environments do not exist in a volatile world where competition shapes the future. Notice that Capitalistic society's, in all their evils, make for the best countries. Exception is rare.
3) You can't trade Kyoto units. Sorry, you simply can't. Unless you're from within one of the countries that CAN, Sorry. But, if you live in one of those countries than the Terra deal doesn't apply to you at all.

counterargument ?

-> Steve
 
Originally posted by Celerity@Jun 22 2005, 10:11 AM
In my old age (Holy shit, I'm 29 tomorrow) I've learned that when you work WITH the system, instead of against it, you have a very real effect on the outcome - And it's lasting. That's why I'm a republican :)

-> Steve
[post=515199]Quoted post[/post]​


Ummm... since when have Pubs worked WITH the system? For the past five years all I have seen are the Pubs CHANGING the system to fit their needs, of course this makes it look like they work with it.

Come to think of it, isn't the current administration cooking the EPA books and doing all sorts of neat things to the environment? Clear skies? Healthy forests? Oxy Moron?
 
Got evidence of this stuff ?

-> Steve

I'd be interested to see cooking of EPA figures - Except that one guy that lied about global warming and was asked to leave.

Global warming sucks, But there is nothing you can do about it. And I'll explain why.

Our entire solar system is undergoing extreme changes. Observe:

Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined

Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet

Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity

Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun

This is not bad science either, these are classically observed and published findings.

-> Steve
 
Originally posted by Celerity@Jun 23 2005, 08:32 AM
Got evidence of this stuff ?

-> Steve


It's not just the EPA figures, the Right has changed the rules on several issues... remember the "Nuclear Option"? (Oh NO!!! Those mean ol Democrats won't let a couple of our far Right nominees through! Let's change the rules so the filibuster can't be used!)

Tom Delay? (Let's change the ethics committee rules so all the wrongdoings that Delay has done won't matter!)

THE WAR WITH IRAQ (They don't want us going to war... that mean ol UN. Fuck it, we'll do it OUR WAY.)

As for pollution... Betcha didn't know that the Bush admin. changed the Clean Air act so that CO2 is *NOT* considered a pollutant. The NUMBER ONE contributor to global warming (Look at Venus) is not a pollutant? Sure, in natural amounts it isn't, but we happen to be making LOTS of it. Too much of something can be a bad thing.

This is not bad science either, these are classically observed and published findings.

-> Steve
[post=515543]Quoted post[/post]​


Show me. I can pull apart a good amount of what you said as I sit, but I want to see these findings.
 
Nasa, JPL, I'll look for them when I get a new computer and can surf the web at home. It's all real fact.

Also, I asked about the Environment policy. CO2 isn't a pollutant. Co2 levels increase with an increase in anaerobic activity (People, animals, etc) and a decrease in plants to consume it. CO is a pollutant.

Venus is very hot. Venus has an atmosphere. Venus is very close to the sun. I suppose it's George Bush's fault. (I'm kidding, put down the spear)

-> Steve
 
Originally posted by Celerity@Jun 23 2005, 03:42 PM
Nasa, JPL, I'll look for them when I get a new computer and can surf the web at home. It's all real fact.

Also, I asked about the Environment policy. CO2 isn't a pollutant. Co2 levels increase with an increase in anaerobic activity (People, animals, etc) and a decrease in plants to consume it. CO is a pollutant.

Venus is very hot. Venus has an atmosphere. Venus is very close to the sun. I suppose it's George Bush's fault. (I'm kidding, put down the spear)

-> Steve
[post=515734]Quoted post[/post]​


Yes, Venus is very hot, has an atmosphere and is rather close to the sun. However, two of the three are relevant here: the fact that it is hot and the fact that it has an atmosphere.

Venus' atmosphere is 98% CO2. it's a runaway greenhouse effect. The surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury even though it is farther away from the sun BECAUSE of said runaway greenhouse effect.

Carbon Dioxide in non natural amounts is very much a pollutant. Plants convert natural CO2 into O2, giving us a cooler planet along with breathable air.

With the increased emission of CO2 from factories coupled with rampant logging and destruction of rainforests, there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere and not enough plants to convert it. The end result? Well... look at Venus.
 
Back
Top