lichess.org
Donate

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

I hope there will be future human beings to look scientifically and with more clarity to our environmental mistakes.

This is not guaranteed.

I hope there will be future human beings to look scientifically and with more clarity to our environmental mistakes. This is not guaranteed.

@tpr said in #37:

<snip>

"Should we just kill all the cows" * Yes.

<snip>

Umm, any Hindus here?
You might get punched for saying that where I live :)
(meant as a joke to lighten the mood, carry on arguing by all means)

@tpr said in #37: > <snip> > > "Should we just kill all the cows" * Yes. > > <snip> Umm, any Hindus here? You might get punched for saying that where I live :) (meant as a joke to lighten the mood, carry on arguing by all means)

Climat changes is not combined with the recent carbon dioxide level. This is a cosmic cycle. The planet's core is heating up, hence the increase in seismic and volcanic activity, the heating of the ocean. And the influence of carbon monoxide is negligible compared to the real factors. Taxing it is more of a way to make money and a way to explain what they cannot explain.

Climat changes is not combined with the recent carbon dioxide level. This is a cosmic cycle. The planet's core is heating up, hence the increase in seismic and volcanic activity, the heating of the ocean. And the influence of carbon monoxide is negligible compared to the real factors. Taxing it is more of a way to make money and a way to explain what they cannot explain.

There are no cows in China. There are cows in India, but they do not eat them. In some other countries they eat beef every day.

As for the science:
Warming up the Earth causes ice to melt, exposing darker rock and soil, causes less Sun energy reflected, causes more warming.
Warming up the Earth causes permafrost to melt, causes methane emission, causes more warming.

Warming up the Earth causes ice on volcanoes to melt, causes magma to erupt, blocking sunlight and cause cooling.

There are no cows in China. There are cows in India, but they do not eat them. In some other countries they eat beef every day. As for the science: Warming up the Earth causes ice to melt, exposing darker rock and soil, causes less Sun energy reflected, causes more warming. Warming up the Earth causes permafrost to melt, causes methane emission, causes more warming. Warming up the Earth causes ice on volcanoes to melt, causes magma to erupt, blocking sunlight and cause cooling.

Another subject is war.
The production and operation of those tanks, warplanes, drones, trucks, jeeps release CO2.
Each explosion of a bullet, grenade, shell, bomb, rocket releases CO2.
If they set each other's fuel storage on fire, more CO2.

Another subject is war. The production and operation of those tanks, warplanes, drones, trucks, jeeps release CO2. Each explosion of a bullet, grenade, shell, bomb, rocket releases CO2. If they set each other's fuel storage on fire, more CO2.

@tpr said in #37:

  • First there was an atmosphere with all CO2 and no O2 like on other planets. Then came plants and they converted CO2 and water with sunlight to wood and O2. So the O2 level gradually raised to well over the present 21%. When those plants died, under pressure they converted to coal, oil, and gas. Then came animals, feeding on plants and on O2. That stabilized the O2 level in the atmosphere to the present 21%. If we were to burn all coal, oil, and gas, then we would restore the original atmosphere with zero % O2.
  • Thats a nice hypothesis, but that is not in any way evidence for our predicament. There are so many factors contributing to the lack of life on other planets, that saying "Oh well, it has a 0% o2 factor- therefore lack of o2 is the reason" is an understatement at best, and a misnomer at worst. - Lack an internal magnetic pole, position relative to the sun and subsequent solar winds/storms, day and night cycles, lack of a moon, etc. - You can hypothesize a theory based on the metrics you provided, but it is in no way evidence. You must understand that Earth is habitable based on many factors, and reducing those factors to carbon emission is fallacious.

"we can't use it- aside from burning coal or wood" * You can burn wood, but also use it as a construction material instead of concrete or steel, that release huge amounts of CO2 in their production process.

Just so you know, wood is the preferred building material for most construction assemblies, aside from heavily engineered projects that require steel and concrete for structural stability. 94% of residential buildings are framed with lumber. As for commercial establishments, many of them utilize mixed material. There is always a reason for the material used, whether it be code, affordability, or accessibility. With wood being the cheapest and easiest material to attain, most buildings that utilize other material do so for the sake of code; be it for structural or fireproofing.

  • Needless to say, wood is used for building; but that detracts from our conversation on fuel emission. It is hard to use wood for fuel, aside from burning it, which creates emissions. You cannot electronically convert the energy that plants and trees harness, therefore, it as a form of energy is simply inefficient. Solar, which tries to imitate the photosynthesis process is simply inefficient, and requires a lot of mining to attain material to build. what does mining do? destabilize the earth core and worsen climate conditions. Not so green now, is it?

"Should we just kill all the cows" * Yes.

Should we then kill chickens? Rabbits? Pigs? I thought you guys believed that animals met a carbon neutral standard? Oh well. Forget the fact that these animals create fertilization that fuels the ecosystem. It is in no way a symbiotic relationship, wherein if animals do well, plants do well. Forget it. Just kill all animals. Face it, your argument is no different from @GlafiraSliznyakova 's. At this point, people should just kill each other to mitigate co2 emissions. "Bring Back Eugenics!" is what the climate extremist hailed.

"more energy sources to third world countries" * Would lead to more floods, draughts, wildfires and hurricanes.

Did I not list a multitude of ways that fuel utilization could mitigate natural catastrophe? Do you not believe in ecology preservation and maintenance? or civil engineering?

"wind and solar, which are not reliable" * These are intermittent. Nuclear power is more reliable and almost carbon neutral.

Agreed. However, you have to face the fact that the reason nuclear is not openly accepted in our society, is because people like you saw the emissions that came from nuclear breakdown, and caused a mass hysteria around the utility of nuclear power.

"with less people, there will be less co2 emission" * Indeed, the growing population as well as the rising standard of living releases more CO2. To be sustainable we should all consume less: walk or ride a bicycle or horseback instead of cars, trains, planes; become vegetarians instead of eating meat and dairy products every day; live in wooden structures instead of steel and concrete.

  • Like i said; your argument at this point comes to a close on Eugenics. How many debilitated people in hospitals, eating hamburgers, are you going to sacrifice to meet net 0?
    Do you think less of a person if they eat meat or consume dairy? (Also, how tf is consuming dairy contributing to climate change???)
    People need to drive to get where they need to go. instigating 15 minute cities and enforcing people to confide only in them is simply oppressive to the freedoms of individuals. What if I want to travel the world? What if that is a passion of mine? How am I supposed to compete in chess tournaments if I don't have local clubs? It takes me an hour to compete, and an hour drive back. Are you going to withhold my USCF/FIDE rating from me? for the sake of co2 emission????? Ridiculous.

At what point do you sacrifice the comforts of other people to satisfy your qualms of net 0? It sounds like a Mao dictatorship to me, and I personally don't want to live in a society that promotes earth wellness over civil liberty, and the sanctity of human life.

@tpr said in #37: > * First there was an atmosphere with all CO2 and no O2 like on other planets. Then came plants and they converted CO2 and water with sunlight to wood and O2. So the O2 level gradually raised to well over the present 21%. When those plants died, under pressure they converted to coal, oil, and gas. Then came animals, feeding on plants and on O2. That stabilized the O2 level in the atmosphere to the present 21%. If we were to burn all coal, oil, and gas, then we would restore the original atmosphere with zero % O2. - Thats a nice hypothesis, but that is not in any way evidence for our predicament. There are so many factors contributing to the lack of life on other planets, that saying "Oh well, it has a 0% o2 factor- therefore lack of o2 is the reason" is an understatement at best, and a misnomer at worst. - Lack an internal magnetic pole, position relative to the sun and subsequent solar winds/storms, day and night cycles, lack of a moon, etc. - You can hypothesize a theory based on the metrics you provided, but it is in no way evidence. You must understand that Earth is habitable based on many factors, and reducing those factors to carbon emission is fallacious. > "we can't use it- aside from burning coal or wood" * You can burn wood, but also use it as a construction material instead of concrete or steel, that release huge amounts of CO2 in their production process. Just so you know, wood is the preferred building material for most construction assemblies, aside from heavily engineered projects that require steel and concrete for structural stability. 94% of residential buildings are framed with lumber. As for commercial establishments, many of them utilize mixed material. There is always a reason for the material used, whether it be code, affordability, or accessibility. With wood being the cheapest and easiest material to attain, most buildings that utilize other material do so for the sake of code; be it for structural or fireproofing. - Needless to say, wood is used for building; but that detracts from our conversation on fuel emission. It is hard to use wood for fuel, aside from burning it, which creates emissions. You cannot electronically convert the energy that plants and trees harness, therefore, it as a form of energy is simply inefficient. Solar, which tries to imitate the photosynthesis process is simply inefficient, and requires a lot of mining to attain material to build. what does mining do? destabilize the earth core and worsen climate conditions. Not so green now, is it? > "Should we just kill all the cows" * Yes. Should we then kill chickens? Rabbits? Pigs? I thought you guys believed that animals met a carbon neutral standard? Oh well. Forget the fact that these animals create fertilization that fuels the ecosystem. It is in no way a symbiotic relationship, wherein if animals do well, plants do well. Forget it. Just kill all animals. Face it, your argument is no different from @GlafiraSliznyakova 's. At this point, people should just kill each other to mitigate co2 emissions. "Bring Back Eugenics!" is what the climate extremist hailed. > "more energy sources to third world countries" * Would lead to more floods, draughts, wildfires and hurricanes. Did I not list a multitude of ways that fuel utilization could mitigate natural catastrophe? Do you not believe in ecology preservation and maintenance? or civil engineering? > "wind and solar, which are not reliable" * These are intermittent. Nuclear power is more reliable and almost carbon neutral. Agreed. However, you have to face the fact that the reason nuclear is not openly accepted in our society, is because people like you saw the emissions that came from nuclear breakdown, and caused a mass hysteria around the utility of nuclear power. > "with less people, there will be less co2 emission" * Indeed, the growing population as well as the rising standard of living releases more CO2. To be sustainable we should all consume less: walk or ride a bicycle or horseback instead of cars, trains, planes; become vegetarians instead of eating meat and dairy products every day; live in wooden structures instead of steel and concrete. - Like i said; your argument at this point comes to a close on Eugenics. How many debilitated people in hospitals, eating hamburgers, are you going to sacrifice to meet net 0? Do you think less of a person if they eat meat or consume dairy? (Also, how tf is consuming dairy contributing to climate change???) People need to drive to get where they need to go. instigating 15 minute cities and enforcing people to confide only in them is simply oppressive to the freedoms of individuals. What if I want to travel the world? What if that is a passion of mine? How am I supposed to compete in chess tournaments if I don't have local clubs? It takes me an hour to compete, and an hour drive back. Are you going to withhold my USCF/FIDE rating from me? for the sake of co2 emission????? Ridiculous. At what point do you sacrifice the comforts of other people to satisfy your qualms of net 0? It sounds like a Mao dictatorship to me, and I personally don't want to live in a society that promotes earth wellness over civil liberty, and the sanctity of human life.

"therefore lack of o2 is the reason" * It is the other way around. All O2 on Earth is of biological origin: made out of CO2 by plants.

"It is hard to use wood for fuel" * You can convert it to methanol and combust it in a combined heat and power plant.

"which creates emissions" * Yes, but sustainable: only emissions that previously have been removed by the tree.

"You cannot electronically convert the energy that plants and trees harness" * Yes, in combined heat and power plants or in fuel cells.

"Should we then kill chickens?" * The metabolism of the cows is known to emit methane with more global warming potential than CO2.

"Bring Back Eugenics!"* No, but birth control is necessary. The natural birth rate balances with high child mortality, but thanks to medicine the child mortality has gone down and hence the birth rate should go down too. China implemented a one child policy. India did not and now has more inhabitants than China.

"a multitude of ways that fuel utilization could mitigate natural catastrophe?" * Flood, build a dam, use steel and concrete, more CO2 emissions, more global warming. Draught? Pump water, use fuel, more CO2 emission, more global warming. Wildfire: use aerial firefighting planes, consume fuel, emit CO2, cause global warming. Hurricane? Use bulldozers with fuel to remove the rubble. Use concrete and steel for new buildings. Emits CO2 causes global warming. The mitigation of effects aggravates the problem.

"how tf is consuming dairy contributing to climate change?" * Dairy comes from milk, comes from cows, emit methane, high global warming.

"At what point do you sacrifice the comforts of other people" * For the sake of the people whose house got flooded, who starve because their harvest went down from a draught, whose house went up in flames from a wildfire, whose house got smashed by a hurricane.

"therefore lack of o2 is the reason" * It is the other way around. All O2 on Earth is of biological origin: made out of CO2 by plants. "It is hard to use wood for fuel" * You can convert it to methanol and combust it in a combined heat and power plant. "which creates emissions" * Yes, but sustainable: only emissions that previously have been removed by the tree. "You cannot electronically convert the energy that plants and trees harness" * Yes, in combined heat and power plants or in fuel cells. "Should we then kill chickens?" * The metabolism of the cows is known to emit methane with more global warming potential than CO2. "Bring Back Eugenics!"* No, but birth control is necessary. The natural birth rate balances with high child mortality, but thanks to medicine the child mortality has gone down and hence the birth rate should go down too. China implemented a one child policy. India did not and now has more inhabitants than China. "a multitude of ways that fuel utilization could mitigate natural catastrophe?" * Flood, build a dam, use steel and concrete, more CO2 emissions, more global warming. Draught? Pump water, use fuel, more CO2 emission, more global warming. Wildfire: use aerial firefighting planes, consume fuel, emit CO2, cause global warming. Hurricane? Use bulldozers with fuel to remove the rubble. Use concrete and steel for new buildings. Emits CO2 causes global warming. The mitigation of effects aggravates the problem. "how tf is consuming dairy contributing to climate change?" * Dairy comes from milk, comes from cows, emit methane, high global warming. "At what point do you sacrifice the comforts of other people" * For the sake of the people whose house got flooded, who starve because their harvest went down from a draught, whose house went up in flames from a wildfire, whose house got smashed by a hurricane.
<Comment deleted by user>

Here, from Gemini: "Your observation about CO2 is correct: the carbon a cow releases in the form of CO2 through respiration and waste is the same carbon that plants absorbed from the atmosphere. This cycle is considered neutral in terms of the carbon balance, as it doesn't add new carbon to the atmosphere. However, the same doesn't apply to methane".

The cows eat plants, that absorbed co2 from the atmosphere, they emit that carbon through Metane (CH4) and CO2, through breathing, like us. It's neutral for CO2, because even methane breaks into CO2. If it's not neutral, from where did the cow takes the Carbon?

The problem is, Methane absorbs so much heat, that it creates a mid-term effect of temperature increase, which adds pressure on the global warming. We emit 200x less Methane than cows, why would I care about a fart?

Here, from Gemini: "Your observation about CO2 is correct: the carbon a cow releases in the form of CO2 through respiration and waste is the same carbon that plants absorbed from the atmosphere. This cycle is considered neutral in terms of the carbon balance, as it doesn't add new carbon to the atmosphere. However, the same doesn't apply to methane". The cows eat plants, that absorbed co2 from the atmosphere, they emit that carbon through Metane (CH4) and CO2, through breathing, like us. It's neutral for CO2, because even methane breaks into CO2. If it's not neutral, from where did the cow takes the Carbon? The problem is, Methane absorbs so much heat, that it creates a mid-term effect of temperature increase, which adds pressure on the global warming. We emit 200x less Methane than cows, why would I care about a fart?

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