Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

A fully implemented CO2 global tax could reduce human emissions to ZERO.

@tpr said in #58:

"targetting only oil, coal and gas"

  • As methane has more global warming potential than CO2, the tax should first target meat and dairy products.

Looks like someone forgot to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

" going vegan would significantly lower the co2 emissions" ..... by only 2.6%

@tpr said in #58: > "targetting only oil, coal and gas" > * As methane has more global warming potential than CO2, the tax should first target meat and dairy products. Looks like someone forgot to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g " going vegan would significantly lower the co2 emissions" ..... by only 2.6%

@tpr said in #62:

A ton of methane has the same global warming potential as 81.2 tons of CO2.
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07_Supplementary_Material.pdf
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't methane last much less time in the atmosphere that CO2?

@tpr said in #62: > A ton of methane has the same global warming potential as 81.2 tons of CO2. > www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07_Supplementary_Material.pdf Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't methane last much less time in the atmosphere that CO2?

"doesn't methane last much less time in the atmosphere that CO2?"

  • Yes. Over a longer time the methane in the atmosphere oxidizes to CO2.
    Over 20 years a ton of methane has the same global warming potential as 81.2 tons of CO2
    Over 100 years a ton of methane has the same global warming potential as 27.9 tons of CO2
    Over 500 years a ton of methane has the same global warming potential as 7.95 tons of CO2
"doesn't methane last much less time in the atmosphere that CO2?" * Yes. Over a longer time the methane in the atmosphere oxidizes to CO2. Over 20 years a ton of methane has the same global warming potential as 81.2 tons of CO2 Over 100 years a ton of methane has the same global warming potential as 27.9 tons of CO2 Over 500 years a ton of methane has the same global warming potential as 7.95 tons of CO2

A man can make a mistake by driving too fast or too slow. It's an important metaphor to grasp.

Yes, we have to think about our carbon footprints. But we also have to eat and not freeze to death in darkness, as we return to a dark age.

Extremes aren't guaranteed to be correct approaches, no matter what we may be conditioned to believe, and that's really not too hard to grasp, if it's pondered.

Politics continues to breed too much certainty. Notice that after fearful decades, there's still no water skiing in Time Square. So, I hope nobody traded in their shoes for flippers.

Pouring money into government doesn't suddenly make the sun shine or the wind blow on a calm night. No matter how we might hope that it does.

Even after we get nuclear fusion someday, we still won't be able to instantly stop the combustion of fossil fuels -- and we won't likely be able to safely stop the production of petroleum for a long, long, long time to come. It's much more useful than most realize.

A man can make a mistake by driving too fast or too slow. It's an important metaphor to grasp. Yes, we have to think about our carbon footprints. But we also have to eat and not freeze to death in darkness, as we return to a dark age. Extremes aren't guaranteed to be correct approaches, no matter what we may be conditioned to believe, and that's really not too hard to grasp, if it's pondered. Politics continues to breed too much certainty. Notice that after fearful decades, there's still no water skiing in Time Square. So, I hope nobody traded in their shoes for flippers. Pouring money into government doesn't suddenly make the sun shine or the wind blow on a calm night. No matter how we might hope that it does. Even after we get nuclear fusion someday, we still won't be able to instantly stop the combustion of fossil fuels -- and we won't likely be able to safely stop the production of petroleum for a long, long, long time to come. It's much more useful than most realize.

@tpr Thank you! I tought that methane was much weaker for global warming than this:

https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-methane-is-short-lived-in-the-atmosphere-but-leaves-long-term-damage-145040

As a starting point, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report from 2013 says methane heats the climate by 28 times more than carbon dioxide when averaged over 100 years and 84 times more when averaged over 20 years.

Now I understand, the problem with methane!

@tpr Thank you! I tought that methane was much weaker for global warming than this: https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-methane-is-short-lived-in-the-atmosphere-but-leaves-long-term-damage-145040 As a starting point, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report from 2013 says methane heats the climate by 28 times more than carbon dioxide when averaged over 100 years and 84 times more when averaged over 20 years. Now I understand, the problem with methane!

@Noflaps the reserves of petroleum on Earth were already consumed in about 50%, only half is left... We are lucky with that prospect, since humans will be forced to move outside oil, when it runs out.

A CO2 tax would apply economic pressure on oil, coal, and gas. We would never turn into a dark age, we would find other ways, and we are not forced to pay that tax. At some point, we can shift to Solar Power, which is already 25% of the energy mix of Chile. As long as it gets cheaper, and it will, and a pressure is applied to CO2 emissions, a growing pressure, by a global tax on CO2, humans will change, companies will change. Cost reduction...

Yes, I also heard that the coastal cities would quickly be flooded, but the ocean has rised anyway, about 10-20 centimeters, and it will very likely continue this trend, slowly, until meters are reached. Even if we stop emitting gases right now!

Now, the main scary point, a greenhouse feedback loop, that was discussed at page 3 of this topic. You should read!!

@Noflaps the reserves of petroleum on Earth were already consumed in about 50%, only half is left... We are lucky with that prospect, since humans will be forced to move outside oil, when it runs out. A CO2 tax would apply economic pressure on oil, coal, and gas. We would never turn into a dark age, we would find other ways, and we are not forced to pay that tax. At some point, we can shift to Solar Power, which is already 25% of the energy mix of Chile. As long as it gets cheaper, and it will, and a pressure is applied to CO2 emissions, a growing pressure, by a global tax on CO2, humans will change, companies will change. Cost reduction... Yes, I also heard that the coastal cities would quickly be flooded, but the ocean has rised anyway, about 10-20 centimeters, and it will very likely continue this trend, slowly, until meters are reached. Even if we stop emitting gases right now! Now, the main scary point, a greenhouse feedback loop, that was discussed at page 3 of this topic. You should read!!

"there's still no water skiing in Time Square" * There was in New Orleans, there are wildfires, draughts (in Africa), landslides and avalanches (in the Alps).

"Pouring money into government doesn't suddenly make the sun shine or the wind blow on a calm night" * That is right: wind and solar do not suffice. Nuclear is a good option. Apart from that, we should all reduce our individual carbon footprints. Do we really need to drive and fly that much and eat that much beef and cheese?

"after we get nuclear fusion someday" * Will not happen. But nuclear fission is available as before.

"instantly stop the combustion of fossil fuels" * The sooner, the better.

"we won't likely be able to safely stop the production of petroleum for a long, long, long time to come" * But then more floods, draughts, hurricanes, wildfires, avalanches, landslides. One man's comfort is another man's misery.

"It's much more useful than most realize." * It also threatens future generations more than the present generation is willing to understand.

"there's still no water skiing in Time Square" * There was in New Orleans, there are wildfires, draughts (in Africa), landslides and avalanches (in the Alps). "Pouring money into government doesn't suddenly make the sun shine or the wind blow on a calm night" * That is right: wind and solar do not suffice. Nuclear is a good option. Apart from that, we should all reduce our individual carbon footprints. Do we really need to drive and fly that much and eat that much beef and cheese? "after we get nuclear fusion someday" * Will not happen. But nuclear fission is available as before. "instantly stop the combustion of fossil fuels" * The sooner, the better. "we won't likely be able to safely stop the production of petroleum for a long, long, long time to come" * But then more floods, draughts, hurricanes, wildfires, avalanches, landslides. One man's comfort is another man's misery. "It's much more useful than most realize." * It also threatens future generations more than the present generation is willing to understand.

A hurricane in New Orleans is not a rise in global sea levels, which have remained far below the terrified, cult-like warnings of years ago. The notion that every storm is an opportunity to scream "global warming" is just whimsical.

Eventually, we will not need to burn fossil fuels. Eventually. But imagining that the time is now is wishful thinking. And saying that the time "is now" over and over and over begins to sound like a child yelling "I won't eat my peas! No no no no!"

We can't always get what we want. No matter how much we reassure ourselves to the contrary, the sun doesn't shine at night (in the regions of darkness, of course) and the wind doesn't always blow where it is needed to blow. And taxing other people -- as fun and righteous as that might seem to some -- won't influence the sun or the wind.

Furthermore, electricity moving via real, currently practical, power lines is subject to line loss, and we do not yet have civilization-scale batteries in place. And when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing, we can't just plug in to a currant bush (pun intended).

I think renewables are great, sincerely -- but at the moment they do NOT seem to be enough, no matter how many beloved, earnest social studies teachers or attractive influencers might somberly or angrily tell themselves and us otherwise. Furthermore, they are not without problems of their own.

Thank goodness for natural gas -- without it we'd be in real trouble. And there's a LOT of it left.

Nuclear fusion will eventually get the job done (although we'll still need petroleum of other purposes). But widespread fusion use is not yet practical. I'm sure it will be, with time. But that time is not merely "a couple of years," even though a lot of progress has been made lately. To go from a sustained reaction, once obtained, to worldwide, practical implementation is a HUGE undertaking.

Like it or not, reality is what it is. And our need for electricity is growing fast. Yet, many of "the concerned" still spend hours on their electricity-burning computers, sharing that concern online, if not playing video games.

Flooding the country with new taxes won't much change the technical and logistical realities. It's just more tax. Which, unfortunately, can generate plenty of political motivation that has little to do with power generation.

I would never hope to censor anyone, but I also never advise anyone to mirror my opinions in a term paper. We all know how helpful it is to get "good grades" and in some circles the response to such opinions seems rather predictable and preordained.

But I hope nobody ever gets discouraged -- eventually most get to live in the real world, with all its delightful conundrums, challenges and opportunities for growth. And humans have proven themselves pretty good at slowly but surely solving problems with which they are faced. I, for one, have faith in the future.

By the way, giving this post a disparaging emoji unfortunately won't generate electricity -- but perhaps it will feel satisfying to some. I wish them well, nevertheless. We're all in this together, and we're all faced with the same reality.

A hurricane in New Orleans is not a rise in global sea levels, which have remained far below the terrified, cult-like warnings of years ago. The notion that every storm is an opportunity to scream "global warming" is just whimsical. Eventually, we will not need to burn fossil fuels. Eventually. But imagining that the time is now is wishful thinking. And saying that the time "is now" over and over and over begins to sound like a child yelling "I won't eat my peas! No no no no!" We can't always get what we want. No matter how much we reassure ourselves to the contrary, the sun doesn't shine at night (in the regions of darkness, of course) and the wind doesn't always blow where it is needed to blow. And taxing other people -- as fun and righteous as that might seem to some -- won't influence the sun or the wind. Furthermore, electricity moving via real, currently practical, power lines is subject to line loss, and we do not yet have civilization-scale batteries in place. And when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing, we can't just plug in to a currant bush (pun intended). I think renewables are great, sincerely -- but at the moment they do NOT seem to be enough, no matter how many beloved, earnest social studies teachers or attractive influencers might somberly or angrily tell themselves and us otherwise. Furthermore, they are not without problems of their own. Thank goodness for natural gas -- without it we'd be in real trouble. And there's a LOT of it left. Nuclear fusion will eventually get the job done (although we'll still need petroleum of other purposes). But widespread fusion use is not yet practical. I'm sure it will be, with time. But that time is not merely "a couple of years," even though a lot of progress has been made lately. To go from a sustained reaction, once obtained, to worldwide, practical implementation is a HUGE undertaking. Like it or not, reality is what it is. And our need for electricity is growing fast. Yet, many of "the concerned" still spend hours on their electricity-burning computers, sharing that concern online, if not playing video games. Flooding the country with new taxes won't much change the technical and logistical realities. It's just more tax. Which, unfortunately, can generate plenty of political motivation that has little to do with power generation. I would never hope to censor anyone, but I also never advise anyone to mirror my opinions in a term paper. We all know how helpful it is to get "good grades" and in some circles the response to such opinions seems rather predictable and preordained. But I hope nobody ever gets discouraged -- eventually most get to live in the real world, with all its delightful conundrums, challenges and opportunities for growth. And humans have proven themselves pretty good at slowly but surely solving problems with which they are faced. I, for one, have faith in the future. By the way, giving this post a disparaging emoji unfortunately won't generate electricity -- but perhaps it will feel satisfying to some. I wish them well, nevertheless. We're all in this together, and we're all faced with the same reality.

@GlafiraSliznyakova , I want to thank you for providing me with a new word for my vocabulary that seems enormously useful, even while remaining as kind and forbearing as a paternal head pat: namely, the wonderfully descriptive word "tenderling."

I don't hope to see a nuclear wasteland -- I think we'd find that less helpful and convenient than some might fantasize. But I REALLY like your word, for practical use. I love Spanish, French and English and am always looking for excellent new words -- and you've awakened me to a real beauty!

Thanks.

@GlafiraSliznyakova , I want to thank you for providing me with a new word for my vocabulary that seems enormously useful, even while remaining as kind and forbearing as a paternal head pat: namely, the wonderfully descriptive word "tenderling." I don't hope to see a nuclear wasteland -- I think we'd find that less helpful and convenient than some might fantasize. But I REALLY like your word, for practical use. I love Spanish, French and English and am always looking for excellent new words -- and you've awakened me to a real beauty! Thanks.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.