Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hreg] Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

Expand Messages
  • Pat McLeod
    I guess it is just me... But it seems these are such great concepts, attempt to derail global climate change, as long as I can get everyone else to assist in
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
       
      I guess it is just me... But it seems these are such great concepts, attempt to derail global climate change, as long as I can get everyone else to assist in paying for it, then somehow logically later to expect some form of a "tax credit" so I can actually pay less for what I really want. If you really want the alternative vehicle, simply save up for it, buy it and move on. I am sure that the people making them think the price is just right!
       
      When you cause an effect to raise the cost of fuel, from any source, and then offer "credits" to those that apparently can not afford the rise in cost, someone political has to make the determination of where the line is drawn for one, who does not have to pay in, and two of those that do not pay in because of one, what level of credit do they require.  Is this not like a parking lot stick up, only after having your wallet emptied, the mugger offers you part of the, now his money, back to you?
       
      The next thing you know I'll be paying "my fair share", for some $250,000 home for folks to live in while making payments on the 900 sq ft shed I live in, of course I am able to make the payments on my shed, as I agreed to when I took out the loan, unlike some that insist on continuing to take and are provided a cut of my income to satisfy their desires to "live" beyond their means, what, well heck I guess I already am doing that under the newly redefined and extended without a vote ever taking place, TARP slush fund program.
       
      Just stop it! If you individually, have the funds available and WANT to redistribute them then go ahead, I am sure you can donate at any level to the congressional US Treasury General slush Fund, then when you apply for your tax credits towards your new alternative vehicle you can feel good about getting the best bang for yourself with the collective buck.
       
      Dr. Doom was what, "he looked vigorous and strong" yes I guess one would get a good workout during the numeral manipulation process, it has taken a great conspiratorial effort. It's not so much the answers to the "what if" questions as it is making the data fit to supports the answers that meet the requirements of the desired result.
       
      One can prove or make a good case for anything, that you are willing to believe. It may take deception but if you really want to believe it, it can be made to be true, to you. The rock you live on gets warmer, the rock gets cooler, always has always will, that my friend you can not derail, no matter the means or the amount of funds you collect.
       
      Now a national meteoroid earth collision avoidance by destruction or deflection plan, NMECADDP, now that's a cause! Of course it will require funding, billions and billions of dollars. A world wide practical tax on O2 intake by lifeforms of any kind should be considered as a means for paying for the prevention of this life terminaing event, it's just a matter of time you know before it happens again, will we be ready? 
       
      Pat McLeod

      IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain
      information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!
       
       
      -------- Original Message --------
      Subject: Re: [hreg] Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk
      From: Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...>
      Date: Wed, December 09, 2009 9:47 pm
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

        
      He favors something called "cap and dividend," which also goes by other names. It would call for an increase in the price of fossil-based fuels, but citizens would receive large rebates in order to be able to afford the higher costs--paid for by the carbon taxes. They would then be able to afford alternative fuel vehicles, for example.

      Alyssa Burgin

      On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM, <mkewert@comcast. net> wrote:


      Also, he strongly supported a carbon tax over cap and trade with allowances.  I don't understand the details, but the problem seems to be with the 'allowances'.

      And he said that ice sheets are melting faster than expected the last few years.

      He was convincing that he believes what he says and that he feels it a moral obligation to speak up.

      Mike 
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Alyssa Burgin" <aburgin4peace@ gmail.com>
      To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 8:38:42 PM GMT -06:00 Guadalajara / Mexico City / Monterrey
      Subject: Re: [hreg] Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

        
      I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well as hear him speak.

      He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and again. He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particula rly with the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he took pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.

      The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.

      In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he looked vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.


      Alyssa Burgin

      On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@ sbcglobal. net> wrote:


      Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?







      Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
      Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
      Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
      Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

      __,_._,__
    • Alyssa Burgin
      This would not be distributed on any other basis than a flat rebate, according to Hansen s (and others ) plan. There s no socialism involved. The idea is to
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 10, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        This would not be distributed on any other basis than a flat rebate, according to Hansen's (and others') plan. There's no socialism involved. 

        The idea is to mitigate the damage done to consumers by the carbon tax. But it doesn't discriminate on the basis of income, it's a flat, per person fee that would be rebated.

        Here's what this is based on: people complain that the cost of alternative energy resources are too high. I hear that everywhere, every day.

        Hansen and many others, including ME, for that matter, maintain that alternative energy would look darned good if we only paid the REAL cost of fossil fuels--the cost of environmental damage, coming and going, from the moment it's taken out of the ground to the illnesses its processing cause, to the damage when something in a refinery or processing plant explodes. In Corpus Christi, they're still trying to deal with this summer's Citgo explosion, for example. And there are many costly damages down the road of climate change, as well.

        This plan attempts to even the deal for everyone. Fossil fuels suddenly cost more of their real cost. Alternative energy looks more accessible, by comparison.

        That all makes perfect sense. And it's not redistributing income, get it? It's not OMG, socialism.

        The reason I made the comment, sir, about Dr. Hansen looking vigorous and strong is because he just had surgery. Nice of you to misinterpret that.

        Yes, sigh, the rock gets warmer, the rock gets cooler, and surprise, this rock isn't getting warmer and cooler in remotely anything resembling a natural cycle. One tiny little look at the facts will reveal that information to you. I suggest you read up.

        Alyssa Burgin
        On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Pat McLeod <pat.mcleod@...> wrote:


         
        I guess it is just me... But it seems these are such great concepts, attempt to derail global climate change, as long as I can get everyone else to assist in paying for it, then somehow logically later to expect some form of a "tax credit" so I can actually pay less for what I really want. If you really want the alternative vehicle, simply save up for it, buy it and move on. I am sure that the people making them think the price is just right!
         
        When you cause an effect to raise the cost of fuel, from any source, and then offer "credits" to those that apparently can not afford the rise in cost, someone political has to make the determination of where the line is drawn for one, who does not have to pay in, and two of those that do not pay in because of one, what level of credit do they require.  Is this not like a parking lot stick up, only after having your wallet emptied, the mugger offers you part of the, now his money, back to you?
         
        The next thing you know I'll be paying "my fair share", for some $250,000 home for folks to live in while making payments on the 900 sq ft shed I live in, of course I am able to make the payments on my shed, as I agreed to when I took out the loan, unlike some that insist on continuing to take and are provided a cut of my income to satisfy their desires to "live" beyond their means, what, well heck I guess I already am doing that under the newly redefined and extended without a vote ever taking place, TARP slush fund program.
         
        Just stop it! If you individually, have the funds available and WANT to redistribute them then go ahead, I am sure you can donate at any level to the congressional US Treasury General slush Fund, then when you apply for your tax credits towards your new alternative vehicle you can feel good about getting the best bang for yourself with the collective buck.
         
        Dr. Doom was what, "he looked vigorous and strong" yes I guess one would get a good workout during the numeral manipulation process, it has taken a great conspiratorial effort. It's not so much the answers to the "what if" questions as it is making the data fit to supports the answers that meet the requirements of the desired result.
         
        One can prove or make a good case for anything, that you are willing to believe. It may take deception but if you really want to believe it, it can be made to be true, to you. The rock you live on gets warmer, the rock gets cooler, always has always will, that my friend you can not derail, no matter the means or the amount of funds you collect.
         
        Now a national meteoroid earth collision avoidance by destruction or deflection plan, NMECADDP, now that's a cause! Of course it will require funding, billions and billions of dollars. A world wide practical tax on O2 intake by lifeforms of any kind should be considered as a means for paying for the prevention of this life terminaing event, it's just a matter of time you know before it happens again, will we be ready? 
         
        Pat McLeod

        IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain
        information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!
         
         
        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: Re: [hreg] Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk
        From: Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...>
        Date: Wed, December 09, 2009 9:47 pm
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

          
        He favors something called "cap and dividend," which also goes by other names. It would call for an increase in the price of fossil-based fuels, but citizens would receive large rebates in order to be able to afford the higher costs--paid for by the carbon taxes. They would then be able to afford alternative fuel vehicles, for example.

        Alyssa Burgin

        On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM, <mkewert@...> wrote:


        Also, he strongly supported a carbon tax over cap and trade with allowances.  I don't understand the details, but the problem seems to be with the 'allowances'.

        And he said that ice sheets are melting faster than expected the last few years.

        He was convincing that he believes what he says and that he feels it a moral obligation to speak up.

        Mike 
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Alyssa Burgin" <aburgin4peace@...>
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 8:38:42 PM GMT -06:00 Guadalajara / Mexico City / Monterrey
        Subject: Re: [hreg] Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

          
        I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well as hear him speak.

        He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and again. He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particularly with the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he took pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.

        The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.

        In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he looked vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.


        Alyssa Burgin

        On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@...> wrote:


        Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?







        Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
        Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
        Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
        Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

        __,_._,__



      • Jay
        I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions. I think nuclear power is great. I don t want to belabor the point here too much, but you
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 10, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions.

          I think nuclear power is great. I don't want to belabor the point here too much, but you know France has a great history with it and it is very popular there. People are just so resistant to changes.

          Never mind CO2, which it does not produce, it also doesn't produce any smog, SO2, NO2, and ozone. The small amount of waste it does produce is contained, rather than vented into the atmosphere near heavily populated areas. It also promotes energy independence and drives new technology.

          So cheers to Dr Hansen for that.






          --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...> wrote:
          >
          > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well as
          > hear him speak.
          >
          > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate
          > change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and again.
          > He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particularly with
          > the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he took
          > pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
          >
          > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on
          > specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned
          > about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he
          > is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the
          > waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that
          > that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
          >
          > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he looked
          > vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
          >
          >
          > Alyssa Burgin
          >
          > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@...>wrote:
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Alyssa Burgin
          Nuclear power may work great in France, but they re still not considering the waste factor, which, let s face it, is inevitable given the current technology.
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 10, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Nuclear power may work great in France, but they're still not considering the waste factor, which, let's face it, is inevitable given the current technology. Maybe that will change, but it's not changing fast enough to avoid leaving the next hundreds of generations a serious issue, even a deadly issue. We need a new nuclear technology. Part of Dr. Hansen's spiel was that we are being left behind in that research and that China is far ahead of us. I can't say, because I don't have Chinese scientific contacts, but it certainly sounds like they are far ahead in a search for fourth-generation nuclear technology.

            But that's not the point for Texas. I don't know if you have followed the contentious debate over the water uses of the lower Colorado River, but it's boiling over--and I don't mean the water. Between urban users upstream, and rice farmers downstream, there is, in drought-stricken times, no water left to fuss over. And certainly no water for the cooling of power plants. If added to, the nuclear power system in Matagorda county--one of the most extreme (stages 3 and 4) drought-stricken areas of the state in the previous drought, and one of the last areas to show improvement--would consume 220 Olympic sized swimming pools of water a day. It's significant that the drought was there for one reason---evaporation. With the extreme heat, the evaporation rate was at a level previously not even considered. When others are fighting over that water, it makes no sense to watch it disappear every day in those amounts.

            And by the way, the reason the questions were pre-selected, I'm guessing, is partially because it was offered as a "plus" for those who bought the patron tickets to be able to offer a question. That's a big incentive to sell tickets in any forum.

            Alyssa Burgin
            Director, the Texas Drought Project

            On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jay <txses@...> wrote:
            I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions.

            I think nuclear power is great.  I don't want to belabor the point here too much, but you know France has a great history with it and it is very popular there.  People are just so resistant to changes.

            Never mind CO2, which it does not produce, it also doesn't produce any smog, SO2, NO2, and ozone.  The small amount of waste it does produce is contained, rather than vented into the atmosphere near heavily populated areas.  It also promotes energy independence and drives new technology.

            So cheers to Dr Hansen for that.






            --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...> wrote:
            >
            > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well as
            > hear him speak.
            >
            > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate
            > change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and again.
            > He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particularly with
            > the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he took
            > pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
            >
            > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on
            > specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned
            > about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he
            > is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the
            > waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that
            > that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
            >
            > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he looked
            > vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
            >
            >
            > Alyssa Burgin
            >
            > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@...>wrote:
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
            > >
            > >
            >




            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
               http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/

            <*> Your email settings:
               Individual Email | Traditional

            <*> To change settings online go to:
               http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/join
               (Yahoo! ID required)

            <*> To change settings via email:
               hreg-digest@yahoogroups.com
               hreg-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
               hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
               http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


          • evelyn sardina
            As far as the water issue isn t that the same issue with the commercial solar power plants and the fact that they need to use water to cool them off also? Like
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 10, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              As far as the water issue isn't that the same issue with the commercial solar power plants and the fact that they need to use water to cool them off also? Like always...aren't  things in moderation (solar panels installed on top of roofs) compared to massive corporate production of anything (like biodesiel) ends up more of a problem than a solution when it goes corporate? This is a question  not a put down..... Evelyn

              --- On Thu, 12/10/09, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...> wrote:

              From: Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...>
              Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 8:21 AM

               

              Nuclear power may work great in France, but they're still not considering the waste factor, which, let's face it, is inevitable given the current technology. Maybe that will change, but it's not changing fast enough to avoid leaving the next hundreds of generations a serious issue, even a deadly issue. We need a new nuclear technology. Part of Dr. Hansen's spiel was that we are being left behind in that research and that China is far ahead of us. I can't say, because I don't have Chinese scientific contacts, but it certainly sounds like they are far ahead in a search for fourth-generation nuclear technology.


              But that's not the point for Texas. I don't know if you have followed the contentious debate over the water uses of the lower Colorado River, but it's boiling over--and I don't mean the water. Between urban users upstream, and rice farmers downstream, there is, in drought-stricken times, no water left to fuss over. And certainly no water for the cooling of power plants. If added to, the nuclear power system in Matagorda county--one of the most extreme (stages 3 and 4) drought-stricken areas of the state in the previous drought, and one of the last areas to show improvement- -would consume 220 Olympic sized swimming pools of water a day. It's significant that the drought was there for one reason---evaporatio n. With the extreme heat, the evaporation rate was at a level previously not even considered. When others are fighting over that water, it makes no sense to watch it disappear every day in those amounts.

              And by the way, the reason the questions were pre-selected, I'm guessing, is partially because it was offered as a "plus" for those who bought the patron tickets to be able to offer a question. That's a big incentive to sell tickets in any forum.

              Alyssa Burgin
              Director, the Texas Drought Project

              On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jay <txses@mailbot. transcendent. us> wrote:
              I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions.

              I think nuclear power is great. I don't want to belabor the point here too much, but you know France has a great history with it and it is very popular there. People are just so resistant to changes.

              Never mind CO2, which it does not produce, it also doesn't produce any smog, SO2, NO2, and ozone. The small amount of waste it does produce is contained, rather than vented into the atmosphere near heavily populated areas. It also promotes energy independence and drives new technology.

              So cheers to Dr Hansen for that.






              --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well as
              > hear him speak.
              >
              > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate
              > change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and again.
              > He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particula rly with
              > the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he took
              > pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
              >
              > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on
              > specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned
              > about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he
              > is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the
              > waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that
              > that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
              >
              > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he looked
              > vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
              >
              >
              > Alyssa Burgin
              >
              > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@ ...>wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
              > >
              > >
              >




              ------------ --------- --------- ------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/hreg/

              <*> Your email settings:
              Individual Email | Traditional

              <*> To change settings online go to:
              http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/hreg/ join
              (Yahoo! ID required)

              <*> To change settings via email:
              hreg-digest@ yahoogroups. com
              hreg-fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              hreg-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/



            • Jay
              I know a little about the two systems and in my opinion both are workable. I think Dr Hansen calls it fee and dividend (F&D), vs cap and trade (C&T). The
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 10, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I know a little about the two systems and in my opinion both are workable. I think Dr Hansen calls it "fee and dividend" (F&D), vs "cap and trade" (C&T).

                The F&D approach taxes carbon. This would be a net tax increase, so in order to be tax neutral, the tax is then refunded to everyone equally. The "average" carbon user will not see any changes in his lifestyle, but if he can reduce his usage, his tax bill will go down while his refund remains constant.

                The essential difference is that F&D fixes the price of carbon and allows the quantity emitted to bounce around a little. C&T fixes the quantity and allows the price to bounce around instead. In the long run the carbon output is the same.

                The big advantage of C&T amongst the carbon-hating crowd is that it sets a hard upper limit. F&D has most of the other advantages.

                C&T creates a tradeable instrument, similar to an options contract or futures contract. These then get sent to Wall Street. A lot of people hate it for that reason alone. That means you will have speculators, and because the demand for energy is inelastic, you will have very severe short-term price fluctuations.

                Since the purpose of both plans is to reduce carbon, C&T operates (roughly speaking) just below last years level, creating a slow reduction year after year. The problem is, what do you do when there is one permit left? The answer is "bidding war". In reality it means prices go up by a factor of anywhere from 3-10 times. When the last credit is gone, the lights shut off, even if you were still using them, no excuses, and no crying.

                F&D doesn't have that problem Prices keep going up year after year, but it is slow and mostly predictable, there is never that crisis potential, no speculators, and no Wall street profits being added on. I am all for profits, but in this case it's just an added layer of accounting inefficiency.

                F&D is also easier to administer. You basically tax carbon fuels when the enter the country or as a sales tax when they are first sold. You monitor every shipping port and every coal/oil/gas mine/well, and tax them assuming everything they pump will be burned. Of course this tax gets passed on, but changing consumption patterns is the whole point. This system is very difficult to game or cheat.

                However, I will say that it is my opinion that there is a socialist element to F&D. People with more money tend to consume more of everything, and everything requires energy. Since refunds are flat, this has the net effect of income transfer from high income to low income. Any income/incidence graph will clearly show that, complicated hand-waving explanations not-withstanding.

                So that is my take on the two major programs, I would be curious to hear what everyone else thinks.

                Take care guys!




                --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, mkewert@... wrote:
                >
                > Also, he strongly supported a carbon tax over cap and trade with allowances. I don't understand the details, but the problem seems to be with the 'allowances'.
                >
                > And he said that ice sheets are melting faster than expected the last few years.
                >
                > He was convincing that he believes what he says and that he feels it a moral obligation to speak up.
                >
                > Mike
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Alyssa Burgin" <aburgin4peace@...>
                > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 8:38:42 PM GMT -06:00 Guadalajara / Mexico City / Monterrey
                > Subject: Re: [hreg] Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well as hear him speak.
                >
                >
                > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and again. He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particularly with the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he took pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
                >
                >
                > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
                >
                >
                > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he looked vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Alyssa Burgin
                >
                >
                > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer < boyer.chris@... > wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
                >
              • Jay
                I am not advocating building reactors in drought-stricken areas any more than I advocate building wind power in areas with no wind. I am advocating building
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 10, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am not advocating building reactors in drought-stricken areas any more than I advocate building wind power in areas with no wind.

                  I am advocating building them in the appropriate areas.

                  I know where you are coming from on waste issues. I do not disagree that nuclear waste is a problem. I think it is a smaller and more manageable problem than our current SO2 problem. I understand your position and I think it is a legitimate stance to take. It's not my stance, but it is a fair one.

                  Pre-selected questions still leave a bad taste in my mouth. I know they do it to make money. That doesn't make it any better.




                  --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Nuclear power may work great in France, but they're still not considering
                  > the waste factor, which, let's face it, is inevitable given the current
                  > technology. Maybe that will change, but it's not changing fast enough to
                  > avoid leaving the next hundreds of generations a serious issue, even a
                  > deadly issue. We need a new nuclear technology. Part of Dr. Hansen's spiel
                  > was that we are being left behind in that research and that China is far
                  > ahead of us. I can't say, because I don't have Chinese scientific contacts,
                  > but it certainly sounds like they are far ahead in a search for
                  > fourth-generation nuclear technology.
                  >
                  > But that's not the point for Texas. I don't know if you have followed the
                  > contentious debate over the water uses of the lower Colorado River, but it's
                  > boiling over--and I don't mean the water. Between urban users upstream, and
                  > rice farmers downstream, there is, in drought-stricken times, no water left
                  > to fuss over. And certainly no water for the cooling of power plants. If
                  > added to, the nuclear power system in Matagorda county--one of the most
                  > extreme (stages 3 and 4) drought-stricken areas of the state in the previous
                  > drought, and one of the last areas to show improvement--would consume 220
                  > Olympic sized swimming pools of water a day. It's significant that the
                  > drought was there for one reason---evaporation. With the extreme heat, the
                  > evaporation rate was at a level previously not even considered. When others
                  > are fighting over that water, it makes no sense to watch it disappear every
                  > day in those amounts.
                  >
                  > And by the way, the reason the questions were pre-selected, I'm guessing, is
                  > partially because it was offered as a "plus" for those who bought the patron
                  > tickets to be able to offer a question. That's a big incentive to sell
                  > tickets in any forum.
                  >
                  > Alyssa Burgin
                  > Director, the Texas Drought Project
                  >
                  > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jay <txses@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions.
                  > >
                  > > I think nuclear power is great. I don't want to belabor the point here too
                  > > much, but you know France has a great history with it and it is very popular
                  > > there. People are just so resistant to changes.
                  > >
                  > > Never mind CO2, which it does not produce, it also doesn't produce any
                  > > smog, SO2, NO2, and ozone. The small amount of waste it does produce is
                  > > contained, rather than vented into the atmosphere near heavily populated
                  > > areas. It also promotes energy independence and drives new technology.
                  > >
                  > > So cheers to Dr Hansen for that.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well
                  > > as
                  > > > hear him speak.
                  > > >
                  > > > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate
                  > > > change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and
                  > > again.
                  > > > He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particularly with
                  > > > the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he
                  > > took
                  > > > pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
                  > > >
                  > > > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on
                  > > > specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned
                  > > > about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that
                  > > he
                  > > > is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the
                  > > > waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence
                  > > that
                  > > > that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
                  > > >
                  > > > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he
                  > > looked
                  > > > vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Alyssa Burgin
                  > > >
                  > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@>wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Tyra Rankin
                  Alyssa: You make excellent comments. The amount of water usage you describe for nuclear is tremendous. A related water issue is contamination. When Japan
                  Message 8 of 16 , Dec 10, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Alyssa:

                     

                    You make excellent comments.  The amount of water usage you describe for nuclear is tremendous.  A related water issue is contamination.  When Japan had an earthquake over a year ago, it was reported that its nuclear power facility leaked into the water.   A colleague from Germany who wrote her masters of law thesis on high level nuclear waste disposal says that there is still no safe way for disposal.  Although used in France , Germany is opposed for that reason.

                     

                    Addressing Evelyn’s point, the water usage from nuclear is much, much greater than the water used for utility scale concentrated solar thermal (CSP.)  The use in CSP is typically in a closed system.  CSP is often deployed in arid, water scarce areas.  So CSP producers have developed “dry cooling” systems that use very small amounts of water.

                     

                    As far as utility scale verses distributed generation for solar, we desperately need both.  When you consider significantly scaling national energy production for electricity generation and transportation from renewables – to even 30% of national demand, the task is enormous.  I don’t know the exact percentage production from renewables in the US right now – but it is in the single digits.  If we are to make a significant transition off of fossil fuel in the next 50 years, it will take an all out national effort not unlike our WWII production of military equipment.  We need all the renewables we can get from every source (setting aside the nuclear issue for now.)  We need the capital, resources and expertise of large oil and gas companies and utilities.  We need every resource on board and participating.

                     

                    Tyra

                     


                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Alyssa Burgin
                    Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:22 AM
                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

                     

                     

                    Nuclear power may work great in France , but they're still not considering the waste factor, which, let's face it, is inevitable given the current technology. Maybe that will change, but it's not changing fast enough to avoid leaving the next hundreds of generations a serious issue, even a deadly issue. We need a new nuclear technology. Part of Dr. Hansen's spiel was that we are being left behind in that research and that China is far ahead of us. I can't say, because I don't have Chinese scientific contacts, but it certainly sounds like they are far ahead in a search for fourth-generation nuclear technology.

                     

                    But that's not the point for Texas . I don't know if you have followed the contentious debate over the water uses of the lower Colorado River , but it's boiling over--and I don't mean the water. Between urban users upstream, and rice farmers downstream, there is, in drought-stricken times, no water left to fuss over. And certainly no water for the cooling of power plants. If added to, the nuclear power system in Matagorda county--one of the most extreme (stages 3 and 4) drought-stricken areas of the state in the previous drought, and one of the last areas to show improvement- -would consume 220 Olympic sized swimming pools of water a day. It's significant that the drought was there for one reason---evaporatio n. With the extreme heat, the evaporation rate was at a level previously not even considered. When others are fighting over that water, it makes no sense to watch it disappear every day in those amounts.

                     

                    And by the way, the reason the questions were pre-selected, I'm guessing, is partially because it was offered as a "plus" for those who bought the patron tickets to be able to offer a question. That's a big incentive to sell tickets in any forum.

                     

                    Alyssa Burgin

                    Director, the Texas Drought Project

                    On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jay <txses@mailbot. transcendent. us> wrote:

                    I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions.

                    I think nuclear power is great.  I don't want to belabor the point here too much, but you know France has a great history with it and it is very popular there.  People are just so resistant to changes.

                    Never mind CO2, which it does not produce, it also doesn't produce any smog, SO2, NO2, and ozone.  The small amount of waste it does produce is contained, rather than vented into the atmosphere near heavily populated areas.  It also promotes energy inde penden ce and drives new technology.

                    So cheers to Dr Hansen for that.







                    --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@ ...> wrote:

                    >
                    > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well
                    as
                    > hear him speak.
                    >
                    > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate
                    > change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and
                    again.
                    > He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particula rly
                    with
                    > the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he
                    took
                    > pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
                    >
                    > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on
                    > specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned
                    > about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that
                    he
                    > is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the
                    > waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence
                    that
                    > that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
                    >
                    > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he
                    looked
                    > vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
                    >
                    >
                    > Alyssa Burgin
                    >

                    > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@ ...>wrote:

                    >

                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
                    > >
                    > >
                    >



                    ------------ --------- --------- ------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                       http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/hreg/

                    <*> Your email settings:
                       Individual Email | Traditional

                    <*> To change settings online go to:
                       http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/hreg/ join
                       (Yahoo! ID required)

                    <*> To change settings via email:
                       hreg-digest@ yahoogroups. com
                       hreg-fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                       hreg-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                       http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/

                     

                  • Kevin Conlin
                    Very good points, all. The other aspect of nuclear that can t be ignored is the embedded energy in a nuclear power plant. It s estimated the embedded energy
                    Message 9 of 16 , Dec 10, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Very good points, all. The other aspect of nuclear that can't be ignored is the embedded energy in a nuclear power plant.  It's estimated the embedded energy takes 7-8 years to pay back, and although these plants are very metal intensive, with millions of pounds of high alloy stainless and rebar, virtually none of it can be recycled, as with conventional plants.
                       
                      I agree we do need nuclear in the mix, but I prefer the new emerging designs of very small nuclear plants that are placed near the demand.  The small size makes them less dangerous and less expensive.
                       
                      Kevin Conlin
                      Heliosolar Design, Inc.
                      13534 Quetzal Lane
                      Houston, TX 77083
                      C:  (281) 202-9629
                      H:  (281) 530-7501
                      F:  (281) 530-7501
                       
                       
                       


                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyra Rankin
                      Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:37 AM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

                       

                      Alyssa:

                      You make excellent comments.  The amount of water usage you describe for nuclear is tremendous.  A related water issue is contamination.  When Japan had an earthquake over a year ago, it was reported that its nuclear power facility leaked into the water.   A colleague from Germany who wrote her masters of law thesis on high level nuclear waste disposal says that there is still no safe way for disposal.  Although used in France , Germany is opposed for that reason.

                      Addressing Evelyn’s point, the water usage from nuclear is much, much greater than the water used for utility scale concentrated solar thermal (CSP.)  The use in CSP is typically in a closed system.  CSP is often deployed in arid, water scarce areas.  So CSP producers have developed “dry cooling” systems that use very small amounts of water.

                      As far as utility scale verses distributed generation for solar, we desperately need both.  When you consider significantly scaling national energy production for electricity generation and transportation from renewables – to even 30% of national demand, the task is enormous.  I don’t know the exact percentage production from renewables in the US right now – but it is in the single digits.  If we are to make a significant transition off of fossil fuel in the next 50 years, it will take an all out national effort not unlike our WWII production of military equipment.  We need all the renewables we can get from every source (setting aside the nuclear issue for now.)  We need the capital, resources and expertise of large oil and gas companies and utilities.  We need every resource on board and participating.

                      Tyra


                      From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Alyssa Burgin
                      Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:22 AM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

                       

                      Nuclear power may work great in France , but they're still not considering the waste factor, which, let's face it, is inevitable given the current technology. Maybe that will change, but it's not changing fast enough to avoid leaving the next hundreds of generations a serious issue, even a deadly issue. We need a new nuclear technology. Part of Dr. Hansen's spiel was that we are being left behind in that research and that China is far ahead of us. I can't say, because I don't have Chinese scientific contacts, but it certainly sounds like they are far ahead in a search for fourth-generation nuclear technology.

                      But that's not the point for Texas . I don't know if you have followed the contentious debate over the water uses of the lower Colorado River , but it's boiling over--and I don't mean the water. Between urban users upstream, and rice farmers downstream, there is, in drought-stricken times, no water left to fuss over. And certainly no water for the cooling of power plants. If added to, the nuclear power system in Matagorda county--one of the most extreme (stages 3 and 4) drought-stricken areas of the state in the previous drought, and one of the last areas to show improvement- -would consume 220 Olympic sized swimming pools of water a day. It's significant that the drought was there for one reason---evaporatio n. With the extreme heat, the evaporation rate was at a level previously not even considered. When others are fighting over that water, it makes no sense to watch it disappear every day in those amounts.

                      And by the way, the reason the questions were pre-selected, I'm guessing, is partially because it was offered as a "plus" for those who bought the patron tickets to be able to offer a question. That's a big incentive to sell tickets in any forum.

                      Alyssa Burgin

                      Director, the Texas Drought Project

                      On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jay <txses@mailbot. transcendent. us> wrote:

                      I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions.

                      I think nuclear power is great.  I don't want to belabor the point here too much, but you know France has a great history with it and it is very popular there.  People are just so resistant to changes.

                      Never mind CO2, which it does not produce, it also doesn't produce any smog, SO2, NO2, and ozone.  The small amount of waste it does produce is contained, rather than vented into the atmosphere near heavily populated areas.  It also promotes energy inde penden ce and drives new technology.

                      So cheers to Dr Hansen for that.







                      --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@ ...> wrote:

                      >
                      > I was there, and got to
                      speak with him privately before the event as well as
                      > hear him
                      speak.
                      >
                      > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing,
                      presentation on climate
                      > change, complete with a lot of the details we've
                      all heard again and again.
                      > He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and
                      pictures--particula rly with
                      > the latest data on this having been the
                      hottest decade yet--and then he took
                      > pre-submitted questions in a
                      sit-down format with Randall Morton.
                      >
                      > The questions ranged from
                      skeptical/denial questions to questions on
                      > specifics about climate
                      change. He handled them all well. I was concerned
                      > about his
                      well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he
                      > is
                      talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the
                      >
                      waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that
                      > that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that
                      issue.
                      >
                      > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would
                      be, and he looked
                      > vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of
                      humor.
                      >
                      >
                      > Alyssa
                      Burgin
                      >

                      > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@ ...>wrote:

                      >

                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Can anyone
                      who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
                      > >
                      > >
                      >



                      ------------ --------- --------- ------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                         http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/hreg/

                      <*> Your email settings:
                         Individual Email | Traditional

                      <*> To change settings online go to:
                         http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/hreg/ join
                         (Yahoo! ID required)

                      <*> To change settings via email:
                         hreg-digest@ yahoogroups. com
                         hreg-fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                         hreg-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                         http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/

                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.102/2556 - Release Date: 12/10/09 07:36:00

                    • Robert Johnston
                      Are small nuclear plants a greater security threat (more sites to guard; more transportation to/from)? Robert Johnston From: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Message 10 of 16 , Dec 11, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Are small nuclear plants a greater security threat (more sites to guard; more transportation to/from)?

                         

                        Robert Johnston

                         

                         

                        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Conlin
                        Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:54 PM
                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

                         

                         

                        Very good points, all. The other aspect of nuclear that can't be ignored is the embedded energy in a nuclear power plant.  It's estimated the embedded energy takes 7-8 years to pay back, and although these plants are very metal intensive, with millions of pounds of high alloy stainless and rebar, virtually none of it can be recycled, as with conventional plants.

                         

                        I agree we do need nuclear in the mix, but I prefer the new emerging designs of very small nuclear plants that are placed near the demand.  The small size makes them less dangerous and less expensive.

                         

                        Kevin Conlin

                        Heliosolar Design, Inc.

                        13534 Quetzal Lane

                        Houston, TX 77083

                        C:  (281) 202-9629

                        H:  (281) 530-7501

                        F:  (281) 530-7501

                        kevin@...

                         

                         

                         

                         


                        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyra Rankin
                        Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:37 AM
                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

                         

                        Alyssa:

                        You make excellent comments.  The amount of water usage you describe for nuclear is tremendous.  A related water issue is contamination.  When Japan had an earthquake over a year ago, it was reported that its nuclear power facility leaked into the water.   A colleague from Germany who wrote her masters of law thesis on high level nuclear waste disposal says that there is still no safe way for disposal.  Although used in France, Germany is opposed for that reason.

                        Addressing Evelyn’s point, the water usage from nuclear is much, much greater than the water used for utility scale concentrated solar thermal (CSP.)  The use in CSP is typically in a closed system.  CSP is often deployed in arid, water scarce areas.  So CSP producers have developed “dry cooling” systems that use very small amounts of water.

                        As far as utility scale verses distributed generation for solar, we desperately need both.  When you consider significantly scaling national energy production for electricity generation and transportation from renewables – to even 30% of national demand, the task is enormous.  I don’t know the exact percentage production from renewables in the US right now – but it is in the single digits.  If we are to make a significant transition off of fossil fuel in the next 50 years, it will take an all out national effort not unlike our WWII production of military equipment.  We need all the renewables we can get from every source (setting aside the nuclear issue for now.)  We need the capital, resources and expertise of large oil and gas companies and utilities.  We need every resource on board and participating.

                        Tyra


                        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alyssa Burgin
                        Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:22 AM
                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

                         

                        Nuclear power may work great in France, but they're still not considering the waste factor, which, let's face it, is inevitable given the current technology. Maybe that will change, but it's not changing fast enough to avoid leaving the next hundreds of generations a serious issue, even a deadly issue. We need a new nuclear technology. Part of Dr. Hansen's spiel was that we are being left behind in that research and that China is far ahead of us. I can't say, because I don't have Chinese scientific contacts, but it certainly sounds like they are far ahead in a search for fourth-generation nuclear technology.

                        But that's not the point for Texas. I don't know if you have followed the contentious debate over the water uses of the lower Colorado River, but it's boiling over--and I don't mean the water. Between urban users upstream, and rice farmers downstream, there is, in drought-stricken times, no water left to fuss over. And certainly no water for the cooling of power plants. If added to, the nuclear power system in Matagorda county--one of the most extreme (stages 3 and 4) drought-stricken areas of the state in the previous drought, and one of the last areas to show improvement--would consume 220 Olympic sized swimming pools of water a day. It's significant that the drought was there for one reason---evaporation. With the extreme heat, the evaporation rate was at a level previously not even considered. When others are fighting over that water, it makes no sense to watch it disappear every day in those amounts.

                        And by the way, the reason the questions were pre-selected, I'm guessing, is partially because it was offered as a "plus" for those who bought the patron tickets to be able to offer a question. That's a big incentive to sell tickets in any forum.

                        Alyssa Burgin

                        Director, the Texas Drought Project

                        On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jay <txses@...> wrote:

                        I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions.

                        I think nuclear power is great.  I don't want to belabor the point here too much, but you know France has a great history with it and it is very popular there.  People are just so resistant to changes.

                        Never mind CO2, which it does not produce, it also doesn't produce any smog, SO2, NO2, and ozone.  The small amount of waste it does produce is contained, rather than vented into the atmosphere near heavily populated areas.  It also promotes energy independence and drives new technology.

                        So cheers to Dr Hansen for that.







                        --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...> wrote:

                        >
                        > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well
                        as
                        > hear him speak.
                        >
                        > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate
                        > change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and
                        again.
                        > He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particularly with
                        > the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he
                        took
                        > pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
                        >
                        > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on
                        > specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned
                        > about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that
                        he
                        > is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the
                        > waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence
                        that
                        > that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
                        >
                        > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he
                        looked
                        > vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
                        >
                        >
                        > Alyssa Burgin
                        >

                        > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@...>wrote:

                        >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
                        > >
                        > >
                        >




                        ------------------------------------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/

                        <*> Your email settings:
                           Individual Email | Traditional

                        <*> To change settings online go to:
                           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/join
                           (Yahoo! ID required)

                        <*> To change settings via email:
                           hreg-digest@yahoogroups.com
                           hreg-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                           hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                           http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                        No virus found in this incoming message.
                        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                        Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.102/2556 - Release Date: 12/10/09 07:36:00

                      • Robert Johnston
                        Sounds like an interesting talk; I wasn t able to attend. Thanks, Alyssa, for the brief summary. I think if we must have it, a form of carbon tax such as F&D
                        Message 11 of 16 , Dec 11, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Sounds like an interesting talk; I wasn’t able to attend.  Thanks, Alyssa, for the brief summary.

                          I think if we must have it, a form of carbon tax such as F&D is preferable to a system so prone to corruption and special interest lobbying as C&T.   I’m all for eliminating artificial controls on pricing via subsidies (or variable allotments of carbon credits) and letting the consumer/markets decide which are the most valuable applications for carbon fuels.  For instance, I work in the plastics industry, and I think that the market would at some point decide it is preferable to use hydrocarbons for materials than just burn them up (at least as an intermediate stage in the consumption of carbon; plastics could be burned later).  But the consumers should decide that, not some government bureaucrat or congressional lobbyist-inspired politician.  However, I agree with Jay that F&D itself sounds socialistic.  Jay explained why clearly and succinctly so I can’t add much to that.  I’d be interested to hear why Alyssa thinks it is not.  (By “socialism” I’m simply referring to redistribution of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not).  I suppose if one views everyone on earth as entitled to an equal share of “carbon output” as a birthright, then one might be able to build up a case for this.  It would certainly involve a huge transfer of wealth, though, not only within US but between nations.  But then wouldn’t it be encouraging population growth by subsidizing additional bodies, i.e., create incentives for the poor to have more children so they can have a larger rebate?  It would create a new sort of “welfare mom” problem.  And encouraging population growth hardly seems a way to go about reducing global carbon dioxide output, not to mention a host of other issues like shortages of water, agricultural land, etc.

                           

                          Robert Johnston

                           

                           

                          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay
                          Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:56 AM
                          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk

                           

                           

                          I know a little about the two systems and in my opinion both are workable. I think Dr Hansen calls it "fee and dividend" (F&D), vs "cap and trade" (C&T).

                          The F&D approach taxes carbon. This would be a net tax increase, so in order to be tax neutral, the tax is then refunded to everyone equally. The "average" carbon user will not see any changes in his lifestyle, but if he can reduce his usage, his tax bill will go down while his refund remains constant.

                          The essential difference is that F&D fixes the price of carbon and allows the quantity emitted to bounce around a little. C&T fixes the quantity and allows the price to bounce around instead. In the long run the carbon output is the same.

                          The big advantage of C&T amongst the carbon-hating crowd is that it sets a hard upper limit. F&D has most of the other advantages.

                          C&T creates a tradeable instrument, similar to an options contract or futures contract. These then get sent to Wall Street. A lot of people hate it for that reason alone. That means you will have speculators, and because the demand for energy is inelastic, you will have very severe short-term price fluctuations.

                          Since the purpose of both plans is to reduce carbon, C&T operates (roughly speaking) just below last years level, creating a slow reduction year after year. The problem is, what do you do when there is one permit left? The answer is "bidding war". In reality it means prices go up by a factor of anywhere from 3-10 times. When the last credit is gone, the lights shut off, even if you were still using them, no excuses, and no crying.

                          F&D doesn't have that problem Prices keep going up year after year, but it is slow and mostly predictable, there is never that crisis potential, no speculators, and no Wall street profits being added on. I am all for profits, but in this case it's just an added layer of accounting inefficiency.

                          F&D is also easier to administer. You basically tax carbon fuels when the enter the country or as a sales tax when they are first sold. You monitor every shipping port and every coal/oil/gas mine/well, and tax them assuming everything they pump will be burned. Of course this tax gets passed on, but changing consumption patterns is the whole point. This system is very difficult to game or cheat.

                          However, I will say that it is my opinion that there is a socialist element to F&D. People with more money tend to consume more of everything, and everything requires energy. Since refunds are flat, this has the net effect of income transfer from high income to low income. Any income/incidence graph will clearly show that, complicated hand-waving explanations not-withstanding.

                          So that is my take on the two major programs, I would be curious to hear what everyone else thinks.

                          Take care guys!

                          --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, mkewert@... wrote:

                          >
                          > Also, he strongly supported a carbon tax over cap and trade with allowances.
                          I don't understand the details, but the problem seems to be with the 'allowances'.
                          >
                          > And he said that ice sheets are melting faster than expected the last few
                          years.
                          >
                          > He was convincing that he believes what he says and that he feels it a
                          moral obligation to speak up.
                          >
                          > Mike
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: "Alyssa Burgin" <aburgin4peace@...>
                          > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 8:38:42 PM GMT -06:00 Guadalajara /
                          Mexico City / Monterrey
                          > Subject: Re: [hreg] Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well
                          as hear him speak.
                          >
                          >
                          > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate
                          change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and again. He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particularly with the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he took pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
                          >
                          >
                          > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on
                          specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
                          >
                          >
                          > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he
                          looked vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Alyssa Burgin
                          >
                          >
                          > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer < boyer.chris@... >
                          wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
                          >

                        • Alyssa Burgin
                          Focused solar (with mirrors) that tracks the sun does indeed use water. I couldn t tell you how much, because I m neither advocating them or working against
                          Message 12 of 16 , Dec 11, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Focused solar (with mirrors) that tracks the sun does indeed use water. I couldn't tell you how much, because I'm neither advocating them or working against them. The nuclear power threat to our water was and is still very real, since the San Antonio city council situation with Toshiba and NRG remains in limbo, as they still consider building two more reactors in Bay City.  
                             I've worked with the organization opposing it, as has a member of my advisory board who is an expert on the use of water to procure energy. She's a civil engineer. My information regarding nuclear power plants comes directly from her, actually.

                            Jeremy Rifkin talks about distributive power systems a great deal in his lectures and his work. It would make sense to me, Evelyn, to have individual power systems attached to individual buildings--i.e., one's own solar panels, one's own geothermal, perhaps even one's own wind turbine of some sort. Rifkin says that eventually, a building won't be built unless it can power itself. I don't think that's unrealistic.

                            Alyssa Burgin
                            On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:30 AM, evelyn sardina <evelynsardina@...> wrote:


                            As far as the water issue isn't that the same issue with the commercial solar power plants and the fact that they need to use water to cool them off also? Like always...aren't  things in moderation (solar panels installed on top of roofs) compared to massive corporate production of anything (like biodesiel) ends up more of a problem than a solution when it goes corporate? This is a question  not a put down..... Evelyn

                            --- On Thu, 12/10/09, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...> wrote:

                            From: Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@...>
                            Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Any reports on Dr Hansen's talk
                            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 8:21 AM

                             

                            Nuclear power may work great in France, but they're still not considering the waste factor, which, let's face it, is inevitable given the current technology. Maybe that will change, but it's not changing fast enough to avoid leaving the next hundreds of generations a serious issue, even a deadly issue. We need a new nuclear technology. Part of Dr. Hansen's spiel was that we are being left behind in that research and that China is far ahead of us. I can't say, because I don't have Chinese scientific contacts, but it certainly sounds like they are far ahead in a search for fourth-generation nuclear technology.


                            But that's not the point for Texas. I don't know if you have followed the contentious debate over the water uses of the lower Colorado River, but it's boiling over--and I don't mean the water. Between urban users upstream, and rice farmers downstream, there is, in drought-stricken times, no water left to fuss over. And certainly no water for the cooling of power plants. If added to, the nuclear power system in Matagorda county--one of the most extreme (stages 3 and 4) drought-stricken areas of the state in the previous drought, and one of the last areas to show improvement- -would consume 220 Olympic sized swimming pools of water a day. It's significant that the drought was there for one reason---evaporatio n. With the extreme heat, the evaporation rate was at a level previously not even considered. When others are fighting over that water, it makes no sense to watch it disappear every day in those amounts.

                            And by the way, the reason the questions were pre-selected, I'm guessing, is partially because it was offered as a "plus" for those who bought the patron tickets to be able to offer a question. That's a big incentive to sell tickets in any forum.

                            Alyssa Burgin
                            Director, the Texas Drought Project

                            On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Jay <txses@mailbot. transcendent. us> wrote:
                            I am going to say, I have a very dim view of pre-selecting questions.

                            I think nuclear power is great. I don't want to belabor the point here too much, but you know France has a great history with it and it is very popular there. People are just so resistant to changes.

                            Never mind CO2, which it does not produce, it also doesn't produce any smog, SO2, NO2, and ozone. The small amount of waste it does produce is contained, rather than vented into the atmosphere near heavily populated areas. It also promotes energy independence and drives new technology.

                            So cheers to Dr Hansen for that.






                            --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, Alyssa Burgin <aburgin4peace@ ...> wrote:
                            >
                            > I was there, and got to speak with him privately before the event as well as
                            > hear him speak.
                            >
                            > He gave a detailed, but not particularly rousing, presentation on climate
                            > change, complete with a lot of the details we've all heard again and again.
                            > He had a powerpoint with excellent graphs and pictures--particula rly with

                            > the latest data on this having been the hottest decade yet--and then he took
                            > pre-submitted questions in a sit-down format with Randall Morton.
                            >
                            > The questions ranged from skeptical/denial questions to questions on
                            > specifics about climate change. He handled them all well. I was concerned
                            > about his well-publicized advocacy of nuclear power, but he insists that he
                            > is talking about a fourth-generation nuclear power that does not have the
                            > waste and half-life issues of the past. I don't really see the evidence that
                            > that is here yet, so I will remain skeptical on that issue.
                            >
                            > In person, he was much warmer than I had thought he would be, and he looked
                            > vigorous and strong. He also has a sense of humor.
                            >
                            >
                            > Alyssa Burgin
                            >
                            > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyer <boyer.chris@ ...>wrote:
                            >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Can anyone who went give a report on Dr Hansen's talk?
                            > >
                            > >
                            >




                            ------------ --------- --------- ------

                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/hreg/

                            <*> Your email settings:
                            Individual Email | Traditional

                            <*> To change settings online go to:
                            http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/hreg/ join
                            (Yahoo! ID required)

                            <*> To change settings via email:
                            hreg-digest@ yahoogroups. com
                            hreg-fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

                            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            hreg-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

                            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/






                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.