Yuku free message boards

>> I would like to know what you would do differently?

Let companies fail that can't complete, the market will self-correct; term limits for congress; let the states decide on social issues; congress and the executive branch need to only concern themselves with their powers granted by the constitution.

>> Most environmental experts have assessed that the damage to our environment caused by the GWB administratin will take at least 50 YEARS to undo

Might you have a reference to this? We can't agree on (alleged) global warning...how do we measure what 8 years did (or did not do) to the environment given the long history of 'dirty" industrialization (i.e. the wide use of crude oil starting in the late 1800s)

>> here is a link to a very informative timeline from the Natural Resources Defense Council

Thanks; I'll check it out later on when I have a bit more time.

>> ...result being some of us believe the 99.9% of legitimate and qualified scientists who have agreed that global warming/climate change is happening and is happening because of greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere by man.

I'm not sure so sure the latter part ('is happening because of...being caused by man') is true, but that's another topic as you said.

>> would you have let GM fail

Short answer: yes.

In both issues economics play a major part: How much is the US willing to pay (actual and quality of life costs) to reduce greenhouse gases when the rest of the world does not seem willing to? Is the government take-over of GM a 'bad' long-term economic fix vs letting GM fail and having pieces picked up by Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc?

As for Fox News, MSNBC, etc; I have found they are equally annoying and consequently watch/listen very little. Both parties don't seem to be solving problems, just self perpetuating their own jobs, pensions, and positions of power. I really like the idea of term limits...

-Jim

(FYI: I have a science background; the only economic background was what I was required to take in university)

>> far LESS cost than first projected, to cut down on sulfur emissions and acid rain. Why do you think it's a bad idea for carbon??

I don't know what the estimate or final cost was for sulfur reduction, but I guess why sulfur reduction 'worked' and carbon reduction won't. The government tells oil companies what the base gasoline product must be. Individual companies add their additives (to differentiate themselves in the market) at the terminal where the tank trucks load up and deliver to the local gas stations. This means: 1) reducing sulfur meant all companies had to do so 2) there were no changes needed in the infrastructure (pipe lines, tank trucks, gas stations) and 3) no changes needed in the cars and trucks that use the fuel. Finally, the process/chemistry needed to reduce sulfur was known and viable....and it was decided (I don't know by whom) the value of sulfur reduction was worth the both the initial cost (refinery upgrades) and on-going cost (a little extra cost in processing the crude oil).

To remove carbon, that is, switch from a hydrocarbon-based fuel to something else like hydrogen or electric the entire infrastructure has to change...and this is only after more research is done to make batteries more efficient and to make hydrogen distribution possible and safe to use. Then, we have to swap out all the cars.

Replacing hydrocarbons as fuel is a huge task. Consider: 1) According to the EPA, the US consumed ~138 billion gallons of gasoline in 2008 distributed by 162,000 gas stations.
2) According to the department of transportation, as of 2007 there were 136 million cars, 110 million trucks, about 1 million buses for a total of 247 million registered vehicles. 3) While I don't have data on this, anecdotally I believe cars are lasting much longer on the road and therefore it will take longer to replace cars that require hydrocarbon fuel in the absence of incentives.

-Jim