I’ve Moved!
November 20, 2008
So I’m sure that most people have noticed that the site has been offline for a few days. There’s a reason for that, which I will get to shortly. But first, let me just say this:
In fact, I am blogging at a new site I have just finished setting up: kennethhynek.net. A full explanation for the reasons behind the move can be found here
.
That said, this is not the end of Time Immortal. My wife Grace has expressed interest in taking over blogging at this domain, and I am working to make sure that she gets set up here as soon as possible.
Also, my profound apologies for the modification to the site face; the move was not as seamless as I would have hoped, and many of the image files for this theme, and in the gallery, were corrupted during the course of their evacuation from my previous web host’s servers. Until such time as I have repaired them, I’ve put a clean-looking template in place of the previous one.
Update: for the purposes of further traffic shaping, new posts from kennethhynek.net will be excerpted below. Full articles can be read at the new blog.
Harper government says no to carbon tax
January 8, 2008
Disaster averted, for now.
The federal government rejected an advisory panel’s recommendation to implement a carbon tax on Monday while opposition parties opened the door to the idea in response to advice that the levy could lead the way to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The , a panel of Canadians from environmental groups and the business world, suggested that Canada could achieve a 65-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by acting as soon as possible with measures that would put a price on activities that result in the release of the gases in the atmosphere.
The panel suggested the government could set this price either by slapping a carbon tax on emissions or by setting a cap on the level of industrial emissions and forcing companies that exceed their limit to buy credits from other companies in a cap-and-trade system.
All this worry about CO2 strikes me as meaningless. As I wrote in a recent discussion with Erf: here�s a bit more on AGW and global CO2 production:
Ok, now let�s consider the case of atmospheric CO2 vapor. Humans produce about 50 giga-tonnes of atmospheric CO2 vapour per year. Be vewy afwaid!
But how big is 50 giga-tonnes of atmospheric CO2 vapour in the green house gas global warming context? Well, the portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03. The portion of green-house gasses that is CO2 is about 1% or 0.01. Thus, the portion of green-house gasses that is human produced CO2 is about 0.03% or 0.0003. The heat-trapping effectiveness of CO2 compared to the average of green-house gasses is about 10% or 0.10. Thus, the portion of the green-house gas global warming caused by human CO2 is about 0.003% or 0.00003 or 30 millionths. Even if we stop producing any CO2 at all, 99.997% of green-house gas global warming will still happen (even if we ignore the Borrello Limit and the saturation effect).
Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor�
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
CO2 is a bogeyman, plain and simple. So it’s good that the Harper government can see past the B.S. and realize that a carbon tax is just a fancy name for a government money-grab which would ultimately do absolutely nothing about climate change. Now, if we can turn the discussion to some of the other stuff that industrial processes produce, and if we start talking about regulating emissions of actual pollutants (more so than we already do), I might just be inclined to listen. If someone wants to talk about how discount superstores like Wal Mart are creating the most wasteful generation in history purely because their philosophy in the market has created a “why get it fixed when it’s cheaper to buy a new one?” attitude in the general populace, I’ll be there like shareware (with apologies to Teen Girl Squad). But CO2? Actually, greenhouse gases in general? Thanks, but I’ll pass on the bandwagon.
