Story Comments
Posted by: flyonthewallzz 5 months, 3 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Barrels per day………………20,000,000
Reply
BTU's per Barrel………………5,600,000
BTU's per day………112,000,000,000,000
Population………………………3,000,000
BTU's Per person per day……….37,333,333
Cubic feet per day per person @ 1 degree… 597,333
212 degrees - 68 degrees
Cubic feet per day per person brought from 68 degrees to boiling point
4,148
Size of pool 25' x 25' x 6'-6"
Gallons in the pool 31,111
Pounds of CO2 per billion BTU of energy:
Coal……………. 208,000 pounds
Oil………………164,000 pounds
Natural Gas………………117,000 pounds
United States — Area: 9,161,923 SQ KM
9,184,000-tons of CO2 per day from oil only.
There are 8.741 scf in one pound of CO2
1 square kilometers = 10,763,910.4 square foot
Now my figuring could be wrong…but I figure we lay a 1/64”+ blanket of Co2 over this country each day. Or in a Euclidian world it would be a little thicker than 7” over the course of a year.
Now that does not take into account cows farting, or burning coal, I believe we burn and fart enough to contribute a measurable amount.-
-
100%
nostalgia5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Even IPCC knows it's a sham
Reply
By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature “savings” of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming. By the year 2100, the emissions pathways become clearly distinguishable, and so to do the impacts of Waxman-Markey. Assuming the IPCC mid-range scenario (A1B) Waxman-Markey would result in a projected temperature rise of 2.847ºC, instead of 2.959ºC rise— a mere 0.112ºC temperature “savings.” Under the IPCC’s high-emissions scenario, instead of a projected rise of 4.414ºC, Waxman-Markey limits the rise to 4.219ºC—a “savings” of 0.195ºC. In either case, this works out to about 5 years’ worth of warming. In other words, a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years—a scientifically meaningless prospect.
The total increase in China’s emissions since the year 2000 is 50 percent greater than the total increase from rest of the world combined and is growing by leaps and bounds. And consider that India carbon dioxide emissions haven’t started to dramatically increase yet. But it is poised to do so, and an Indian official recently stated that “It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce [carbon dioxide emissions] when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity.”
Without a large reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from both China and India—not just a commitment but an actual reduction—there will be nothing climatologically gained from any restrictions on U.S. emissions, regardless whether they come about from the Waxman-Markey bill (or other cap-and-trade proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulations.
http://masterresource.org/?p=2355-
100%
nostalgia5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then read what OMB said about regulating greenhouse gases - is it something we really what to do in a recession?
Reply
Republicans Pounce on OMB Memo
Republicans pounced Tuesday on a White House document that said regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act “is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”
The document, a combination of government agencies’ comments that the Office of Management and Budget sent the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, presents a grim view of the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
Asked about the memo at a Senate hearing Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson emphasized that the agency’s declaration is preliminary and might not lead to regulations. She reiterated the administration’s preference for legislation such as Rep. Henry Waxman’s plan to cap and gradually reduce emissions, while allowing companies to buy and sell emissions permits.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/12/republica...
-
-
Neutral
Georgia505 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the stat liberals need to explain. Al Gore made this very point.
Reply
US population as percentage of world population: 3%
US energy consumption as perc. of world consumption: 25%
All well and good until we consider:
US GDP as percentage of global GDP: 75%
So, liberals, how is it that Americans use only 25% of the world's energy to produce 75% of the world's GDP, yet the rest of the world, 97% of earth's population, is so utterly wasteful and inefficient that it can produce only 25% of the world's GDP from 75% of the world's energy?
If you liberals had a clue and a brain cell to go with, it would be eminently clear that the surest, best path to efficient utilization of the earth's resources is whatever in the hell America is doing right.
Oh wait. That can't possibly be the answer. You hate America.
Bumpersnicker:
"P--- Off A Liberal - Celebrate the Fourth of July!"-
100%
bluetexasvalley5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If I understood your comment correctly, you're saying that the U.S. has "bought" the right to have the world's largest energy consumption.
Reply
So it would follow that the U.S.'s largest energy consumers should "pay" for that right, too. Am I correct? -
100%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, no. The US accounts for 20% of the world GDP, second, actually, to the EU.
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_... -
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (3)
Will1313
mesodude
bluetexasvalleyPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.