|
|
|
May 21, 2009
Back To 1620
Keith O. Rattie gave a speech at the 22nd Annual UVU Symposium on Environmental Ethics at Utah Valley University about America's energy future under cap and trade. The long term goal with cap and trade is "80 by 50" - an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Let's do the easy math on what "80 by 50" means to you, using Utah as an example. Utah's carbon footprint today is about 66 MM tons of CO2 per year. Utah's population today is 2.6 MM. You divide those two numbers, and the average Utahan today has a carbon footprint of about 25 tons of CO2 per year. An 80% reduction in Utah's carbon footprint by 2050 implies a reduction from 66 MM tons today to about 13 MM tons per year by 2050. But Utah's population is growing at over 2% per year, so by 2050 there will be about 6 MM people living in this state. 13 MM tons divided by 6 MM people = 2.2 tons per person per year. Under "80 by 50"‟ by the time you folks reach my age you'll have to live your lives with an annual carbon allowance of no more than 2.2 tons of CO2 per year.So the plan is to reduce us to a subsistence level in about forty years. You say you want a revolution? Now is the time. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 05.21.09 at 12:57 PM
Comments
Every time I see the year "1620" I'm reminded of a simplistic history rhyme for children, In 1620 please remember, But history is now largely irrelevant. If children are taught anything about 1620, it involves their culpability for past "genocide." The important issue today is carbon genocide! Americans with car exhaust, Eric Scheie · May 24, 2009 08:44 AM Let's say we could immediately reduce CO2 emissions to zero, what is the impact on temperatures? At most, an almost unmeasurable 0.27F decrease in global temperatures by year 2100. What about 80% reduction by 2050? It's a whopping 0.09F degree lessening of the temperature decrease. Here's some add'l info on impacts: So, not only does the reducing our CO2 emissions to a low carbon footprint put us proverbially back to a pre-industrialized world, it does almost absolutely nothing for the global temperatures. To make matters even worse, the increasing emissions of China/India will wipe out any CO2 sacrifice we make in 6 years or less. The Obama-Waxman-Markey CO2 reduction legislation is the best example of politicians totally divorced from reality and from the welfare of the electorate. C3H Editor, www.c3headlines.com C3H Editor · May 24, 2009 08:47 AM Let's say we could immediately reduce CO2 emissions to zero, what is the impact on temperatures? At most, an almost unmeasurable 0.27F decrease in global temperatures by year 2100. What about 80% reduction by 2050? It's a whopping 0.09F degree lessening of the temperature decrease. Here's some add'l info on impacts: So, not only does the reducing our CO2 emissions to a low carbon footprint put us proverbially back to a pre-industrialized world, it does almost absolutely nothing for the global temperatures. To make matters even worse, the increasing emissions of China/India will wipe out any CO2 sacrifice we make in 6 years or less. The Obama-Waxman-Markey CO2 reduction legislation is the best example of politicians totally divorced from reality and from the welfare of the electorate. C3H Editor, www.c3headlines.com C3H Editor · May 24, 2009 08:48 AM |
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• It's An Absolute Disgrace
• The Seeds Of Stupidity • Remember D-Day • Newton's Cradle • Taxes Send Jobs Offshore • The law is the law! • A teaching moment? • You Can't Do It At Random • In debt to Islam? For Western thought? • David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"When was the last time America's carbon footprint was as low as 2 tons per person per year? Probably not since the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620."
This is probably wrong. Burning trees, even hundred-year-old trees is releasing carbon that was taken from the atmosphere fairly recently, so it doesn't count toward a carbon footprint. For that you need to burn fossil carbon. When did coal mining get started in America? Maybe c.1820.
"Anthracite (or 'hard' coal), clean and smokeless, became the preferred fuel in [U.S.] cities, replacing wood by about 1850. ... By 1840, hard coal output had passed the million-short ton mark, and then quadrupled by 1850."