Cap & Trade...poll added

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

Is Cap & Trade the right way to address pollution?

Yes, we need to lead by example.
5
25%
No, changes need to be made but this will put the US at and unfair disadvantage.
8
40%
No, nothing needs to be done for pollution.
6
30%
Other.
1
5%
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
nevadacat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1212
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:25 am
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by nevadacat » Tue May 12, 2009 11:57 pm

tampa_griz wrote:
nevadacat wrote:
Grizlaw wrote:
nevadacat wrote: By that logic, oxygen is a pollutant. Under certain conditions it can be toxic.
And if human-caused processes were spewing oxygen into the atmosphere in amounts that were sufficient to have harmful effects, I have no doubt many would consider it to be a pollutant.
Wow. Do you think humans are capable of increasing the CO2 level of the atmosphere 25-fold? Please cite evidence that this is even possible.
Montana State did not make the 2008 FCS playoff selection. Please cite evidence that that happened.
http://www.ncaa.com/brackets/2008/ncaa_ ... tball.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, your turn.


...for today we raise, the BLUE and GOLD to wave victorious!... GO CATS GO!

ChiOCat
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Down Under

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by ChiOCat » Wed May 13, 2009 5:56 am

Grizlaw wrote:
nevadacat wrote: By that logic, oxygen is a pollutant. Under certain conditions it can be toxic.
And if human-caused processes were spewing oxygen into the atmosphere in amounts that were sufficient to have harmful effects, I have no doubt many would consider it to be a pollutant.
Oxygen is actually always "toxic" hence all the anti-oxidants we need in our diets. The oxygen we rely on for life is constantly oxidizing our bodies at the same time. I'm not sure what the impact of increased oxygen levels would be, but my guess is it would be bad.


"We are all vulnerable, and all fallible, with mortality our only certainty..." - Dr Kenneth Bock

Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3277
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by Grizlaw » Wed May 13, 2009 6:39 am

nevadacat wrote:My "snarky" comment was appropriate given the ridiculous notion that human-generated CO2 is leading to heart attacks, or other toxic effects, when atmospheric CO2 levels aren't even a significant fraction of what is necessary to cause such things. I'm happy you recognize that anything could be toxic, and thus be a pollutant, when present in high enough concentrations. However, your statement indicated agreement that CO2 is being produced in sufficient quantities to create toxic levels, which it clearly is not.
I am sorry that I didn't take the time to understand your comment before I attacked, but I do think you're being a bit myopic in reading GiW's argument so literally.

What I said was CO2 can be a pollutant if it exists in our atmosphere in amounts sufficient to have harmful effects. Your response seems to indicate that, in your view, there are no "harmful effects" of having excess CO2 in the atmosphere unless/until people literally start dropping dead from heart attacks from it. Do you really think that's the standard we should be using? Or perhaps, should we start curbing emissions at some earlier point? I know there is some debate about whether CO2 contributes to global warming, but if it does, I would consider that to be a "harmful effect." Wouldn't you?
Last edited by Grizlaw on Wed May 13, 2009 6:40 am, edited 2 times in total.


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

User avatar
tampa_griz
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5467
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:37 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by tampa_griz » Wed May 13, 2009 6:39 am

nevadacat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:
nevadacat wrote:
Grizlaw wrote:
nevadacat wrote: By that logic, oxygen is a pollutant. Under certain conditions it can be toxic.
And if human-caused processes were spewing oxygen into the atmosphere in amounts that were sufficient to have harmful effects, I have no doubt many would consider it to be a pollutant.
Wow. Do you think humans are capable of increasing the CO2 level of the atmosphere 25-fold? Please cite evidence that this is even possible.
Montana State did not make the 2008 FCS playoff selection. Please cite evidence that that happened.
http://www.ncaa.com/brackets/2008/ncaa_ ... tball.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, your turn.
Montana State is not on that bracket no matter how many times you say they are.



User avatar
nevadacat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1212
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:25 am
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by nevadacat » Wed May 13, 2009 8:03 am

tampa_griz wrote:
nevadacat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:
nevadacat wrote:
Grizlaw wrote:
nevadacat wrote: By that logic, oxygen is a pollutant. Under certain conditions it can be toxic.
And if human-caused processes were spewing oxygen into the atmosphere in amounts that were sufficient to have harmful effects, I have no doubt many would consider it to be a pollutant.
Wow. Do you think humans are capable of increasing the CO2 level of the atmosphere 25-fold? Please cite evidence that this is even possible.
Montana State did not make the 2008 FCS playoff selection. Please cite evidence that that happened.
http://www.ncaa.com/brackets/2008/ncaa_ ... tball.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, your turn.
Montana State is not on that bracket no matter how many times you say they are.
I never said they were. You asked me to cite evidence that they did not make the playoffs. I provided a bracket that proves they were not. Want to try again?


...for today we raise, the BLUE and GOLD to wave victorious!... GO CATS GO!

User avatar
tampa_griz
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5467
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:37 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by tampa_griz » Wed May 13, 2009 8:12 am

nevadacat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:
nevadacat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:
nevadacat wrote:
Grizlaw wrote:
nevadacat wrote: By that logic, oxygen is a pollutant. Under certain conditions it can be toxic.
And if human-caused processes were spewing oxygen into the atmosphere in amounts that were sufficient to have harmful effects, I have no doubt many would consider it to be a pollutant.
Wow. Do you think humans are capable of increasing the CO2 level of the atmosphere 25-fold? Please cite evidence that this is even possible.
Montana State did not make the 2008 FCS playoff selection. Please cite evidence that that happened.
http://www.ncaa.com/brackets/2008/ncaa_ ... tball.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, your turn.
Montana State is not on that bracket no matter how many times you say they are.
I never said they were.
It doesn't matter if someone says or doesn't say something on this board. You can still refute it's fun. I learned it from you. It's fun! Great trick!



User avatar
nevadacat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1212
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:25 am
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by nevadacat » Wed May 13, 2009 8:39 am

Grizlaw wrote:
nevadacat wrote:My "snarky" comment was appropriate given the ridiculous notion that human-generated CO2 is leading to heart attacks, or other toxic effects, when atmospheric CO2 levels aren't even a significant fraction of what is necessary to cause such things. I'm happy you recognize that anything could be toxic, and thus be a pollutant, when present in high enough concentrations. However, your statement indicated agreement that CO2 is being produced in sufficient quantities to create toxic levels, which it clearly is not.
I am sorry that I didn't take the time to understand your comment before I attacked, but I do think you're being a bit myopic in reading GiW's argument so literally.

What I said was CO2 can be a pollutant if it exists in our atmosphere in amounts sufficient to have harmful effects. Your response seems to indicate that, in your view, there are no "harmful effects" of having excess CO2 in the atmosphere unless/until people literally start dropping dead from heart attacks from it. Do you really think that's the standard we should be using? Or perhaps, should we start curbing emissions at some earlier point? I know there is some debate about whether CO2 contributes to global warming, but if it does, I would consider that to be a "harmful effect." Wouldn't you?
Apparently you are not reading me literally enough. I never claimed that rising CO2 levels did not have "harmful effects." The issue was not about the effects of CO2 on global temperature, but on human physiology. That was the path of the discussion and what GrizinWashington clearly articulated. My thoughts on CO2's contribution to global warming, and whether or not global warming is harmful, are irrelevant in this case.

If you were referring to global temperature in your first reply to me, then you completely missed my point. If you were referring to toxicity, then I already addressed how very unlikely it is for humans to produce such concentrations. If I took GrizinWashington's comment too literally, well, that's a bad habit I have picked up by reading (and posting on) this board.

At any rate, ChiO's thread was about Cap and Trade, and I apologize for my part in its hijacking, including the inane exchange with tampa_griz.


...for today we raise, the BLUE and GOLD to wave victorious!... GO CATS GO!

Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3277
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by Grizlaw » Wed May 13, 2009 8:54 am

nevadacat wrote:Apparently you are not reading me literally enough. I never claimed that rising CO2 levels did not have "harmful effects." The issue was not about the effects of CO2 on global temperature, but on human physiology. That was the path of the discussion and what GrizinWashington clearly articulated. My thoughts on CO2's contribution to global warming, and whether or not global warming is harmful, are irrelevant in this case.

If you were referring to global temperature in your first reply to me, then you completely missed my point. If you were referring to toxicity, then I already addressed how very unlikely it is for humans to produce such concentrations. If I took GrizinWashington's comment too literally, well, that's a bad habit I have picked up by reading (and posting on) this board.
I think the disconnect here is that you assumed that by my responding to your post, I was indicating complete agreement with everything GiW had said. That's not necessarily the case -- to be honest, I have very little interest in what level of CO2 in the atmosphere would be necessary to make the planet uninhabitable, nor do I think that is the standard we should be basing our policies on (if things ever reach that point, it won't really matter much whether we have a cap & trade system, will it?)

Fundamentally, the exchange between you and GiW started as a debate about whether or not CO2 is a "pollutant." He made the argument that it must be because it can be toxic. That may not have been the strongest argument that he could have made, and you seem to think you've scored some kind of major victory by pointing that out -- and as far as I'm concerned, that's between you and GiW. For my part, I really don't care who "wins" the debate between you and GiW (or you and tampa); my only point is that if adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere has harmful effects (and many in the scientific community seem to believe that to be the case), then I consider it a pollutant. You can disagree, of course, and if you can convince everyone to accept your narrow view that it's not a "pollutant" unless it causes people to start dropping dead from heart attacks, then you'll carry the day. Good luck with that...


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Cap & Trade...poll added

Post by GrizinWashington » Wed May 13, 2009 10:33 am

Hey, don't drag me back into this. I'm no longer even in the debate. I found it ridiculous enough to leave pages ago.


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

ChiOCat
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Down Under

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by ChiOCat » Thu May 14, 2009 2:38 pm

nevadacat wrote: At any rate, ChiO's thread was about Cap and Trade, and I apologize for my part in its hijacking, including the inane exchange with tampa_griz.
It happens and I'm probably one of the worst about doing it! But I digress.... :wink:

I just added the poll because I couldn't really tell from the arguments what peoples opinions were on that particular issue.


"We are all vulnerable, and all fallible, with mortality our only certainty..." - Dr Kenneth Bock

Post Reply