NationStates Jolt Archive

It has become apparent that we need to shed our carbon-based bodies, in exchange for something more resilient. What element should that be?

I've heard several ideas for what the US should do about the release of greenhouse gases. What do you think? Assuming the United States would a) like to continue having industry and b) continue breathing air, what would be a good way to lower carbon emissions?
There is a poll, but the choices are by no means complete. I just like polls.

It has become apparent that we need to shed our carbon-based bodies, in exchange for something more resilient. What element should that be?
Silicon is doable, I think.

I think a nice $3.00 tax on gas would make people think twice about driving their god damned Tahoes, Escalades, and Armadas everywhere they desire.

We would elimate pollution and the economy in one fell swoop! Talk about killing two birds with one stone. Except we would be saving birds maybe?

You don't have to force people to do anything, that only causes problems.

If the playing field stays the same it will still even itself out.

For example, everyone who thinks there should be a tax on industry emissions or something similar would buy from a company that takes it upon themselves to lower their own emissions, thereby starting an industry race on better emissions standards to compete for customers. Everybody wins.

(This falls apart if people don't really care about weather a company's emissions are lower if it costs them more. i.e. if they want someone else to bear the costs for their ideology)

However, trying to 'tax it out of them' causes companies to lose profits - obtained from the product made for the people - that could have been used, in competition, to increase technology and reduce emissions on their own. In this case, everybody looses except the power-hungry who want to destroy other people's creations. The companies lose their profits, their ability to compete, advances in their technology(due to a loss in profits - and ironically 'advancements in tech.' would include cleaner processes), etc. The people ultimately lose the products of the companies they have used to raise their standards of living.

Renewable energy. I don't understand the resistance, honestly.

Resources are only going to get rarer, they're only going to get more expensive, and they will run out forcing the alternative sooner or later.

It's either pay up now and reap the savings later or pay even more later when it might be too late.

Silicon is doable, I think.

Yeah, but then we need to set the earth on fire. Or is it freeze it solid. One of the two. Oh, and we'd have to drink acid or something.

It has become apparent that we need to shed our carbon-based bodies, in exchange for something more resilient. What element should that be?

Gold?

*imagines body made out of gold*
*strokes chin*

I for one welcome our new silicone overlords!

It has become apparent that we need to shed our carbon-based bodies, in exchange for something more resilient. What element should that be?

a mixture of Praseodymium and Dysprosium!

Sorry but the carbon tax idea and the carbon credits is a total BS plan.

Gold?

*imagines body made out of gold*
*strokes chin*

With velvet lining, so its comfortable.

I like the idea of carbon caps, but why stop there? Carbon shirts, trousers, socks... the list is endless.

I think a nice $3.00 tax on gas would make people think twice about driving their god damned Tahoes, Escalades, and Armadas everywhere they desire.

Bugger off, I like driving my truck whereever I please.

ban all things that are creating the current unsustainable levels of carbon dioxide (Yes it includes livestock). Shoot people that break the ban.

It has become apparent that we need to shed our carbon-based bodies, in exchange for something more resilient. What element should that be?
Best. Thread steal. Ever.

Excuse me? Carbon is essential to all living organisms. Did you mean carbon dioxide? There's a difference between the two, believe it or not.

You should research things even as basic as terminology before starting a thread on it.

Yttrium anyone?

It just sounds amazing, and it's fun to say no?

A carbon tax is by far the best solution in economic terms. Unfortunately it is not politically palatable so politicians want to pretend we can do something else that will work without inconveniencing the populace.

While half of me wants to say that if people are not willing to change their behavior themselves, then obviously they do not care enough about the consequences of their actions. If you want people to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, educate them about the costs and how to make choices to reduce it.

The other half recognizes that releasing greenhouse gases (methane is actually far worse than CO2, but for the moment the trendy thing is to talk about CO2) causes externalities which are in everyone's best interest to curb. Building those externalities into the price of releasing greenhouse gases will provide the proper incentive to reduce emissions.

A 'carbon' tax would raise the price of releasing gases and encourage people to adjust their habits to compensate. This has the added bonus of providing more revenue for government, who can then reduce more economically harmful forms of taxation.

Best for the economy and best for the environment.

Yttrium anyone?

It just sounds amazing, and it's fun to say no?

Agreed. Although, I think Mercury would be pretty exciting.

Assuming this thread is about carbon dioxide:

Why on earth would you want to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Carbon dioxide is good. Carbon dioxide is good for life and besides, don't we all want to avoid another ice age?

Assuming this thread is about carbon dioxide:

Why on earth would you want to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Carbon dioxide is good. Carbon dioxide is good for life and besides, don't we all want to avoid another ice age?

I think he wants Earth to be the new Pluto so Pluto can be a planet again. You'd think the stronomer guys would have simply defined what the hell a planet is by now so that the whole Pluto ordeal won't repeat. It's going to be weird having two Plutos. Weird indeed.

Sienna Miller was on the radio this morning. Apparently we can save the world by turning our central heating down a degree and taking showers instead of baths...

Protactinium. Most interestingly named element ever. :)

we don't NEED to burn anything for any reason other then heating and cooking, and not even always for that.

what we need is for governments to stop kissing the ass of, and being usurped by, economic intrests, which by their very structural integral nature are incapable of caring about anything besides the movement of symbolic value. which are not even capable of considering real value that gives symbolic value whatever value it is symbolic of, or even that it does.

in other words, we simply need to not be perpetuating policies that favor the completely unneccessary use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation. forget about renewable if you're still talking about something to burn. that doesn't even address the issue. nor do 'cleaner' cars. not directly.

i agree there is a need to not merely cap, but seriously reduce emissions, but it's not as if there'd even be the level of them there is now, if we weren't SUBSIDISING their already bloated sources, at the expense of everyone and everything else!

to begin with, let the oil and automotive industries build their own rights of way and facilities like every other form of transportation has to. they can certainly better afford to. and simply stop giving subsidies, tax breaks and kickbacks to the reliance of energy providers on their use of combustion.

like many of today's 'intractable' problems, it is one we continue to CREATE. one that a long ways toward solving can be gone, simply by not continuing to create it.

wind, solar and micro-hydro work and work well, and can and would work sufficiently, were not gratuitous combustion continued to be subsidised.

and yes, a 100% tax on motor fuel, would be a good idea, and a similar policy on combustion based electrical generation. but even that would not be neccessary if the very culprits were not continued to be subsidised right out of taxpayers pockets.

=^^=
.../\...

Silicon is doable, I think.
Aiee! A breeze!

*spontaniously combusts*
It has become apparent that we need to shed our carbon-based bodies, in exchange for something more resilient. What element should that be?
One of those elements that survives about 0.004 seconds or something, like Ununquadium, so that the human race can't destroy the world for particularly long.

Assuming this thread is about carbon dioxide:

Why on earth would you want to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Carbon dioxide is good. Carbon dioxide is good for life and besides, don't we all want to avoid another ice age?
*gives you a HUGELY SLOW CLAP*

I think a nice $3.00 tax on gas would make people think twice about driving their god damned Tahoes, Escalades, and Armadas everywhere they desire.
$6 or $7ish per gallon?

Why, that's almost European pricing!

Sorry but the carbon tax idea and the carbon credits is a total BS plan.
And you would have what done about the problem, nothing?

In actual fact carbon credits are a bogus idea because large polluting companies can simply ignore or manipulate it, a tax is the only sure way to reach any emissions level target.

I am sorry guys, but just saying 'the free market will fix it' as an excuse to do nothing will not help. The only way to combat the problem is moving away from energy centralization, that is the typical urban mass powergrid in the cities, and closer to localized wind and solar renewable sources done on an energy consumptive subsistence basis.

The world can no longer produce mass surplus energy against the threat of GW, and the key is making local decentralized communities economically self-reliant, ecological democracy if you will.

Bugger off, I like driving my truck whereever I please.

Yes, and that is the problem people are trying to solve ;)

Protactinium. Most interestingly named element ever. :)
I like Seaborgium better. Let's all change to it now!

*20 minutes later*

Hey, where'd everybody go?

I like Seaborgium better. Let's all change to it now!

*20 minutes later*

Hey, where'd everybody go?

A half-life lived is better than none at all.

I'm leaning towards pure energy in the form of electricity, to begin with, then since energy cannot be destroyed we would just change from one form to the other - next, heat! After that, pure light! After that we can play around with being antimatter and darkness and such if we feel emo.

Silicon is doable, I think.

I approve of silicon. Lasts longer. Sign me up!

we don't NEED to burn anything for any reason other then heating and cooking, and not even always for that.


Unless you're suggesting we turn completely to radioactive energy sources we do actually need to burn things.

Of course that doesn't mean we can't burn things cleanly. Hydrogen burns well.

I think a nice $3.00 tax on gas would make people think twice about driving their god damned Tahoes, Escalades, and Armadas everywhere they desire.


Infeasible. Seriously, my car gets a good 36 MPH (Used to get 40 before the politicians made that stupid mandatory 10% ethanol). Perhaps it depends on where you live, but it would destroy several currently lived in areas, and the collateral damage would probably take out the entire United States.

We would elimate pollution and the economy in one fell swoop! Talk about killing two birds with one stone. Except we would be saving birds maybe?

Saving some birds anyhow! Of course it would be more human to just kill the humans straight out instead of choking them slowly to death like that.

Alternatively, of course, we could use alternative energy sources. And of course I know what the resistance is. Politics! Seriously, we gave them a problem and we got "corn ethanol" back as a possible solution?!? That's totally stupid. Currently it's not helping AT ALL, it's just watering down the fuel at 10% (gives 10% less fuel economy), and it's jacking up the price of corn to incredible levels, with the result of increasing the cost of, well, corn and all livestock that eats corn (which is a LOT). In the name of helping the environment we've done NOTHING to the environment and simultaneously harmed the economy for everyone but corn growers.

It's politics. They were paid by the corn producers to give corn producers more money.

Carbon offsets and taxing carbon won't really have any significant effect. There are a number of people who literally can't stop driving and continue to live. The price of gas has already gone up over 200% and the fuel consumption in the country has continued to increase. Until the cost reaches the point of killing people it's not going to make a difference, they have to drive!

Of course, there ARE a number of viable alternatives. But increasing costs is just going to go to make one group or another more money, which they won't ever want to give up... Basically increasing resistance to viable alternative fuels.

So really, a tax is a WONDERFUL idea.

Assuming you get the money and care nothing about the economy or environment. If on the other hand you're environmentalist with an economics background, you'll realize that such a thing is very against your cause.

That reminds me.

Would someone please tell me why the fuck people still have gas heated houses? A gas stove I can understand, (although I disaprove of) but why heat your house with gas when you can use electricity?

That reminds me.

Would someone please tell me why the fuck people still have gas heated houses? A gas stove I can understand, (although I disaprove of) but why heat your house with gas when you can use electricity?

Because electricity heated houses are REDICULOUSDGNSDOSLTYSLY exspensive. Like, hundreds and hundreds more. Not to mention that gas heat is more reliable.

That reminds me.

Would someone please tell me why the fuck people still have gas heated houses? A gas stove I can understand, (although I disaprove of) but why heat your house with gas when you can use electricity?


Yea, as UNITIHU mentions above... people use it because it's better. Simple.

And I suggest you stop fooling yourself about where your electricity comes from. Even electrically heated houses are, when you look closer, gas heated.

That reminds me.

Would someone please tell me why the fuck people still have gas heated houses? A gas stove I can understand, (although I disaprove of) but why heat your house with gas when you can use electricity?

Because heating with electricity is hideously inefficient.

I like Seaborgium better. Let's all change to it now!

*20 minutes later*

Hey, where'd everybody go?

I'm an unstable element. :)

It has become apparent that we need to shed our carbon-based bodies, in exchange for something more resilient. What element should that be?
Gallium. Melts in your mouth, and in your hand.

And you can turn into germanium when hit by a neutrino.

Would someone please tell me why the fuck people still have gas heated houses? A gas stove I can understand, (although I disaprove of) but why heat your house with gas when you can use electricity?

1. Gas heating is more efficient
2. Natural gas is very clean burning and reliable
3. Gas heating is far cheaper than electricity

Also, it's better for the environment. It's highly likely the electricity used for heating, especially on the East Coast, is generated from coal, so the environmental effects are far more severe than burning gas for heating.

Gas is clean, cheap, and abundant...it's my favorite fossil fuel, actually.

That reminds me.

Would someone please tell me why the fuck people still have gas heated houses? A gas stove I can understand, (although I disaprove of) but why heat your house with gas when you can use electricity?

Did you forget how most Electricity is made? In the US anyways, its coal. Then with losses in transmission, it gets fubared.

Now if people would stop being so afraid of nuclear or we could get fusion working, electric heat would work.

That reminds me.

Would someone please tell me why the fuck people still have gas heated houses? A gas stove I can understand, (although I disaprove of) but why heat your house with gas when you can use electricity?

couple of good reasons, though of course that depends on where you live.

if you live up in the mountains where the power goes out in the middle of and because of a good storm, that's one good reason to use combustion directly for home heating.

i'm amazed that people are still missing the point though, that purchasing electricity from the grid is only defering combustion to someone else's back yard rather then actually avoiding it, as long as so much of the generation that is fed into the grid, waaaay waaay waaay too much of it, still comes from burning something somewhere.

the ideal situation would be for people to indenture themselves for their own combined wind and solar sources of energy, feed their surplussess into the grid to share with their neighbors, and this instead of, as they do now, indenturing themselves for personal transportation, and purchase THAT from the more centralized source of public transportation which can, doesn't automaticly but CAN, utilize land, energy and materials far less wastefully and more environmentally harmoniously, then combustion propelled personal transportation.

=^^=
.../\...

Unless you're suggesting we turn completely to radioactive energy sources we do actually need to burn things.
Which we should. It's clean, it's quite safe today, and with proper use we've got enough sources to last for centuries if not millenia; by which time solar power or fusion will kick in.


Perhaps it depends on where you live, but it would destroy several currently lived in areas, and the collateral damage would probably take out the entire United States.
Oh, yeah, extra $100 per month and US falls apart. Especially considering that these $100 don't burn but go into the budget.

If several areas consume so much gas they won't survive a tax, then they're already doomed as oil prices rise. Then there's a problem with the areas. With people there who should start taking home->work distance into account for purchasing a home, look at fuel efficiency when buying a car, take a minute to optimize their travel path to drive less (and make big shopping trips weekly rather than small daily).


There are a number of people who literally can't stop driving and continue to live. The price of gas has already gone up over 200% and the fuel consumption in the country has continued to increase.
So is the problem in the politics, or is it in these people? Why don't they, maybe, think of carpooling, or why can't public transport be introduced?

Or do they literally can't stop driving, and just have to:
1. Be the driver (so no carpool or public transport)
2. Of a large high-consuming car
3. Drive it without any regard to consumption?


The solution is to replace, say, 1/3 of the income tax with respective emissions tax. These driving-addicted people will pay more, and those using bikes, public transport, etc, will pay less. Redistribute the tax, not increase.

no. we do NOT "actually need to burn things", other then to stay warm or cook something to eat.

all the energy we need to run refrigerators, personal computers and the internet, and little people sized trains, and the tools to make and maintain each of this things, is quite capable from comming, reliably and constantly from the combination of wind, solar and hydro, with the help of temporary energy storage tecnologies.

and all of these are proven, relieable, and IN COMBINATION sufficient. it is that big lie of 'energy' interests that we "actaully need to burn things", and not a damd thing else, AT ALL!

and not we don't NEED nukes, which are not some kind of magical free lunch either, which for a variety of reasons can never play more then a minor supporting roll in the mix of energy sources that are neccessary.

and we DON'T need to all be driving combustion powered vehicules in the future, because economic condtions, resaulting almost entirely from bone headed policies, coerce a majority of people into indenturing themselves to do so now.

nor will we be able to do the latter for ever anyway. for reasons that are kind of obvious to anyone who looks beyond their emotional attatchment to whatever they happen to be familiar with.

=^^=
..../\...

Re: Turning to nuclear power

Which we should. It's clean, it's quite safe today, and with proper use we've got enough sources to last for centuries if not millenia; by which time solar power or fusion will kick in.

I can't totally disagree with you there. There are a large number of good reasons to go nuclear.




Re: Infeasible. Seriously, my car gets a good 36 MPH (Used to get 40 before the politicians made that stupid mandatory 10% ethanol). Perhaps it depends on where you live, but it would destroy several currently lived in areas, and the collateral damage would probably take out the entire United States.

Oh, yeah, extra $100 per month and US falls apart. Especially considering that these $100 don't burn but go into the budget.

If several areas consume so much gas they won't survive a tax, then they're already doomed as oil prices rise.

Then there's a problem with the areas. With people there who should start taking home->work distance into account for purchasing a home, look at fuel efficiency when buying a car, take a minute to optimize their travel path to drive less (and make big shopping trips weekly rather than small daily).


You're missing some economics if you feel that it's only 100/month for some people... and for that matter if you feel that 100/month/person is only 100/month, or that it would stop there.

I do worry that several areas are already doomed if the trends continue. However I seem to disagree with your proposed solution of killing them all off now. I think that the more gradual we can make the death the more smooth the transition. Plus if we're lucky technology can come to the rescue. Sure, America may already be doomed, I don't see how that's a valid arguement for destroying it NOW.

As for fuel efficiency... I already have what I think is a pretty efficient car, and I live pretty close to work. Especially for this area. Sure it would be better if everyone had as fuel efficient a car as I do, and lived as close to work as I do. But I'm here already and I would be the one to suffer most, as I'm already at the edge of my economic ability. What more would you suggest I do to compensate for their irresponsibility? And it's not just *me* (or *you*), it's the economy. When enough people fall down they drag others down too.

Re:
There are a number of people who literally can't stop driving and continue to live. The price of gas has already gone up over 200% and the fuel consumption in the country has continued to increase.


So is the problem in the politics, or is it in these people? Why don't they, maybe, think of carpooling, or why can't public transport be introduced?

Or do they literally can't stop driving, and just have to:
1. Be the driver (so no carpool or public transport)
2. Of a large high-consuming car
3. Drive it without any regard to consumption?


The solution is to replace, say, 1/3 of the income tax with respective emissions tax. These driving-addicted people will pay more, and those using bikes, public transport, etc, will pay less. Redistribute the tax, not increase.

It's a bit politics. Hell, it's a LOT politics. And it's simple economics/time. The city simply is not built along lines that could be feasibly worked out with those solutions. Let's take the office I work in for an example... how would we possibly carpool when no one in the office lives in even the same general direction as anyone else? We don't take the same routes at all... there would actually be more driving involved in such a 'carpool' than simply everyone coming in separate cars.

Some public transportation is here... and it's a county money sink, it is typically only used by the poor, if I were to try to take the bus to the office it would take me over two hours! (I checked once). It takes me 15 minutes by car... Adding 3 1/2 hours to my work day is simply not feasible.

Hey, I'll agree that redistributing taxes is a good idea. And if you completely redo the system, sure. But that's not a simple. Completely redoing the entire tax system is incredibly complex! Although I agree it could fix several issues.

Upon reading the title, I thought this thread was going to be one of those "What if" type of discussions.

As in, what if there were no carbon at all in this world?

My, the things that would result from such a change...

It has become apparent that we need to shed our carbon-based bodies, in exchange for something more resilient. What element should that be?

Unobtanium.