Quote:

---

The U.S. Military Emits More Carbon Dioxide Into the Atmosphere Than Entire Countries Like Denmark or Portugal
But no one knows exactly how much, because the Pentagon’s reporting is spotty. A Humvee gets between four and eight miles per gallon; an F-35 requires 2.37 gallons per mile.

...
But when she went to look up the figure, she couldn’t find anything reliable. Instead, she found scattered and incomplete data on how much fuel the military consumed and how much carbon it emitted. The information that did exist largely didn’t include overseas operations, even though the United States had been at war for nearly two decades. Major categories of fuel consumption, like much of the fuel used for aviation, seemed to be missing.


In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol—the world’s first legally binding, international climate treaty—created a reporting loophole for militaries, exempting many of the greenhouse gases emitted during military operations from counting against a country’s emissions totals. While the 2015 Paris Accords did away with this exemption, they didn’t replace it with an obligation. Rather, the decision of whether to report military emissions—and how to calculate them—was left up to individual countries.
...

On the final evening of negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of an all-night session in December 1997, U.S. negotiators pushed through one last demand. The final draft of the climate agreement included two sentences that exempted emissions from multilateral operations—activities that involve more than two countries—and from ships and aircraft involved in international transport. That meant that much of the carbon emitted during U.S. military operations overseas would not need to be tracked and reported to the United Nations—which was effectively the negotiators’ goal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

That's why it needs to be LOOKED AT. AUDITED. An ENERGY AUDIT. I believe that's what I posted.

Troll

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

That's why it needs to be LOOKED AT. AUDITED. An ENERGY AUDIT. I believe that's what I posted.
Troll
SECOND The only audit that counts is at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You're behaving like a bully, THUGR: wanting to take something... ANYTHING... away from the other kid, even if you can't possibly use it and and even if it costs you too much to grab it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You're behaving like a bully, THUGR: wanting to take something... ANYTHING... away from the other kid, even if you can't possibly use it and and even if it costs you too much to grab it.

THUGR: You always post as though the west is at fault.

---

Quote:

---

THUGR: Well, Russia is not going to get what it wants. Instead, it's going to get and is getting, what it deserves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

That's why it needs to be LOOKED AT. AUDITED. An ENERGY AUDIT. I believe that's what I posted.
Troll
SECOND The only audit that counts is at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii,

---

you're arguing with someone who used to control air pollution for a living, son. successfully, i might add.

there are several steps to controlling greenhouse gas emissions, just as there are severa steps to controlling other forms of air pollution.

first, you have to measure the air: what is the current concentration? there are sensors all over the planet, there are even research planes that fly through remote airpaces and take samples, as well as weather balloons and satellite sensors. bc the concentration changes in different locations and altitudes.

then you do what is called an emission inventory : what are your BIGGEST SOURCES? attempting to control emissions from smalll sources is a pointless exercise. attempting to control greenhouse gas emissions from the poorest billion people, for examples, is unlikely to have much impact on climate change

then you start exploring technologies and approaches to control the problem. from my experience, while trading 'credits' for this and that pollutant may appeal to the 'capitalist', 'free marketeer', and libertarian amongst us, it NEVER WORKS bc that aproach is far too vulnerable to scams and corruption:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Oh, and BTW THUGR: That's how we* fight ALL of our wars.

We* decide to topple some government and we* think up of a rationalization/ excuse afterwards that will prompt YOU, dear friend, to jump up and salute.

Do you REALLY think that our government believed that Saddam had WMD, or that Qaddafi was massacring his own people, or that Assad gassed his own people, or that Yanukovich was some big tyrant rounding people up and killing them, or that N Vietnam really "attacked" a USA in the Gulf of Tonkin?

BTW, blowback is why I want to harden the USA defensively and especially economically bc we're more like likely to see blowback in the financial and economic realm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The world rejoices that you are not President.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, and BTW THUGR: That's how we* fight ALL of our wars.
We* decide to topple some government and we* think up of a rationalization/ excuse afterwards that will prompt YOU, dear friend, to jump up and salute.

Do you REALLY think that our government believed that Saddam had WMD, or that Qaddafi was massacring his own people, or that Assad gassed his own people, or that Yanukovich was some big tyrant rounding people up and killing them, or that N Vietnam really "attacked" a USA in the Gulf of Tonkin?

BTW, blowback is why I want to harden the USA defensively and especially economically bc we're more like likely to see blowback in the financial and economic realm.


THUGR: Poor Signym and yes Jack as well. They desperately want to put on bootjack type uniforms; so they can start beating others with clubs for no good reason.

---

Quote:

---

THUGR; Sorry but it isn’t going to happen here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND, you claim to have a degree in engineering and experience designing chemical plants. And yet, you throw out practical approaches and logical steps when tackling real -world problems.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I've SEEN pollutant pricing in action and already addresssed it. There isn' anything about it that you can tell me that's new. more later

---

Quote:

---

The Ultimate Guide to Understanding Carbon Credits
https://carboncredits.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-understanding-carbon-c
redits/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The world rejoices that you are not President.

---

You have a teeny-tiny view of "the world", JSF. How does it feel to be just like Biden*?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
the appraoch you suggest is 'pay to pollute' or 'credit for saving'.

there are two problems with that:
the air pollution agency for the la basin also launched a pollution-credit scheme (RECLAIM), and with the the best of intentions and honest administration stumbled across these fundamental problems:

1) how do you determine a facility 'baseline'? if you use a facility-specific history, by treating a pollutant as a commodity, the MOST polluting facilities are rewarded for reducing polluttion that they should have reduced decades ago, but facilities that reduced their pollutants early are punished for being good citizens.

2) how do you measure facility-wide, or company-wide, total emissions? you should try it sometime as a mental exercise, it's not as easy in practice as it is to imagine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
the appraoch you suggest is 'pay to pollute' or 'credit for saving'.

there are two problems with that:
the air pollution agency for the la basin also launched a pollution-credit scheme (RECLAIM), and with the the best of intentions and honest administration stumbled across these fundamental problems:

1) how do you determine a facility 'baseline'? if you use a facility-specific history, by treating a pollutant as a commodity, the MOST polluting facilities are rewarded for reducing polluttion that they should have reduced decades ago, but facilities that reduced their pollutants early are punished for being good citizens.

2) how do you measure facility-wide, or company-wide, total emissions? you should try it sometime as a mental exercise, it's not as easy in practice as it is to imagine.

SECOND: Signym, if a President wants Americans to stop dumping billions of tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere he would go about the job in no way nor in any form of what you mention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And who says the carbon tax has to go to companies that are polluting, or paying companies to "store" CO2, I've seen proposals that send the tax directly back to people. Instead of putting the burden on people to pay for improving the environment (which is who eventually pays for this, since companies will simply pass on their costs to consumers) or concentrating the $$ in government hands (government is notably ungoverned) just recycle the tax $$ directly to people. By making carbon-heavy products relatively more expensive, it will SHIFT purchases to lower-carbon options w/o reducing people's overall spending power. And if you make it a straightforward per-person payment, you actually transfer wealth downward.

And that's what you've been agitating for, innit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And who says the carbon tax has to go to companies that are polluting, or paying companies to "store" CO2, I've seen proposals that send the tax directly back to people. Instead of putting the burden on people to pay for improving the environment (which is who eventually pays for this, since companies will simply pass on their costs to consumers) or concentrating the $$ in government hands (government is notably ungoverned) just recycle the tax $$ directly to people. By making carbon-heavy products relatively more expensive, it will SHIFT purchases to lower-carbon options w/o reducing people's overall spending power. And if you make it a straightforward per-person payment, you actually transfer wealth downward.

And that's what you've been agitating for, innit?

---

Nothing will happen because nobody wants to pay more. Instead, the low CO2 emissions world will arrive very slowly over the next century as solar and wind power get cheaper and more abundant than fossil fuel. That way nobody is ever forced to do what they prefer not to. Slowly they shift to cheaper alternatives without any coercion from the President. The unfortunate side effect is that the Earth gets ruined by high temperatures, but that is a small price to pay for the freedom to be the cheapest, dumbest jackass you want to be. Jackasses believe "Climate Change is a Hoax". Carve that motto into a billion tombstones.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---