The simple truths are: Atmospheric CO2 now exists at a total level of less than .04%. Thats 1/400th of percent. Of this man has added, at most, .005%. It is H2O that is responsible for at least 95% of the greenhouse warming impact. If the US successfully reduced CO2 emissions by 42% (that would be over 50% per capita) by 2030, without the cooperation of India and China, the net impact on atmospheric CO2 would be “AT MOST” 1-2 ppm. What nut case would be willing to wreck our economy for 1-2 ppm? Anyone who wants to confirm that figure can do so by visiting the US EIA (a division of the US Dept. of Energy)web site. Google it. At that web site can be found the current projecions for global CO2 production through 2030 and US CO2 production est. through 2030. Simply compute the CO2 ppm/v using this data. First estimate the undadjusted US and than use the adjusted US numbers CO2 production number reducing CO2 by 42% from 2000 actual. Correlate the historic atmospheric CO2 increases in ppm vs historic World CO2 production in GT. FYI, since 1980, according to the EIA the world has produced 663.5 G tons of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. During that time period atmospheric CO2 has increased from 339 PPM to 386 PPM. In my estimate, I assume the most extreme case in which all of that increase is the result of man’s use of fossil fuels. That is probably not true since the temp of the ocean has warmed during this time which would increase outgassing of CO2.

India and China will not cooperate because they realize this is CO2 hytsteria is all nonsense and they will use their abundant domestic coal supplies as they attempt to move their populations out of dire poverty. They think it is rediculous that westerners driving around in 5000 pound SUVs should be telling the poorest people who are riding bicycles that they should never hope to own a moped, TV or computer!

The simple truths are: Atmospheric CO2 now exists at a total level of less than .04%. Thats 1/400th of percent. Of this man has added, at most, .005%. It is H2O that is responsible for at least 95% of the greenhouse warming impact. If the US successfully reduced CO2 emissions by 42% (that would be over 50% per capita) by 2030, without the cooperation of India and China, the net impact on atmospheric CO2 would be “AT MOST” 1-2 ppm. What nut case would be willing to wreck our economy for 1-2 ppm? Anyone who wants to confirm that figure can do so by visiting the US EIA (a division of the US Dept. of Energy)web site. Google it. At that web site can be found the current projecions for global CO2 production through 2030 and US CO2 production est. through 2030. Simply compute the CO2 ppm/v using this data. First estimate the undadjusted US and than use the adjusted US numbers CO2 production number reducing CO2 by 42% from 2000 actual. Correlate the historic atmospheric CO2 increases in ppm vs historic World CO2 production in GT. FYI, since 1980, according to the EIA the world has produced 663.5 G tons of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. During that time period atmospheric CO2 has increased from 339 PPM to 386 PPM. In my estimate, I assume the most extreme case in which all of that increase is the result of man’s use of fossil fuels. That is probably not true since the temp of the ocean has warmed during this time which would increase outgassing of CO2.

India and China will not cooperate because they realize this is CO2 hytsteria is all nonsense and they will use their abundant domestic coal supplies as they attempt to move their populations out of dire poverty. They think it is rediculous that westerners driving around in 5000 pound SUVs should be telling the poorest people who are riding bicycles that they should never hope to own a moped, TV or computer!

The simple truths are: Atmospheric CO2 now exists at a total level of less than .04%. Thats 1/400th of percent. Of this man has added, at most, .005%. It is H2O that is responsible for at least 95% of the greenhouse warming impact. If the US successfully reduced CO2 emissions by 42% (that would be over 50% per capita) by 2030, without the cooperation of India and China, the net impact on atmospheric CO2 would be “AT MOST” 1-2 ppm. What nut case would be willing to wreck our economy for 1-2 ppm? Anyone who wants to confirm that figure can do so by visiting the US EIA (a division of the US Dept. of Energy)web site. Google it. At that web site can be found the current projecions for global CO2 production through 2030 and US CO2 production est. through 2030. Simply compute the CO2 ppm/v using this data. First estimate the undadjusted US and than use the adjusted US numbers CO2 production number reducing CO2 by 42% from 2000 actual. Correlate the historic atmospheric CO2 increases in ppm vs historic World CO2 production in GT. FYI, since 1980, according to the EIA the world has produced 663.5 G tons of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. During that time period atmospheric CO2 has increased from 339 PPM to 386 PPM. In my estimate, I assume the most extreme case in which all of that increase is the result of man’s use of fossil fuels. That is probably not true since the temp of the ocean has warmed during this time which would increase outgassing of CO2.

India and China will not cooperate because they realize this is CO2 hytsteria is all nonsense and they will use their abundant domestic coal supplies as they attempt to move their populations out of dire poverty. They think it is rediculous that westerners driving around in 5000 pound SUVs should be telling the poorest people who are riding bicycles that they should never hope to own a moped, TV or computer!

The simple truths are: Atmospheric CO2 now exists at a total level of less than .04%. Thats 1/400th of percent. Of this man has added, at most, .005%. It is H2O that is responsible for at least 95% of the greenhouse warming impact. If the US successfully reduced CO2 emissions by 42% (that would be over 50% per capita) by 2030, without the cooperation of India and China, the net impact on atmospheric CO2 would be “AT MOST” 1-2 ppm. What nut case would be willing to wreck our economy for 1-2 ppm? Anyone who wants to confirm that figure can do so by visiting the US EIA (a division of the US Dept. of Energy)web site. Google it. At that web site can be found the current projecions for global CO2 production through 2030 and US CO2 production est. through 2030. Simply compute the CO2 ppm/v using this data. First estimate the undadjusted US and than use the adjusted US numbers CO2 production number reducing CO2 by 42% from 2000 actual. Correlate the historic atmospheric CO2 increases in ppm vs historic World CO2 production in GT. FYI, since 1980, according to the EIA the world has produced 663.5 G tons of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. During that time period atmospheric CO2 has increased from 339 PPM to 386 PPM. In my estimate, I assume the most extreme case in which all of that increase is the result of man’s use of fossil fuels. That is probably not true since the temp of the ocean has warmed during this time which would increase outgassing of CO2.

India and China will not cooperate because they realize this is CO2 hytsteria is all nonsense and they will use their abundant domestic coal supplies as they attempt to move their populations out of dire poverty. They think it is rediculous that westerners driving around in 5000 pound SUVs should be telling the poorest people who are riding bicycles that they should never hope to own a moped, TV or computer!

Why are we not talking about the technology that is available to consumer and equity position holders of properties to lower emissions and create a residual income for them. They are talking about lower the emissions so far away and when the technology and the funds are available now to meet a 20% reduction with ROI of less then one year.

We need education and we need people to investigate what is available. Money strings are loosing up, and the technology is there. Cap and trade is going to be a billion dollar business for all those that understand it.

Why are we not talking about the technology that is available to consumer and equity position holders of properties to lower emissions and create a residual income for them. They are talking about lower the emissions so far away and when the technology and the funds are available now to meet a 20% reduction with ROI of less then one year.

We need education and we need people to investigate what is available. Money strings are loosing up, and the technology is there. Cap and trade is going to be a billion dollar business for all those that understand it.

Why are we not talking about the technology that is available to consumer and equity position holders of properties to lower emissions and create a residual income for them. They are talking about lower the emissions so far away and when the technology and the funds are available now to meet a 20% reduction with ROI of less then one year.

We need education and we need people to investigate what is available. Money strings are loosing up, and the technology is there. Cap and trade is going to be a billion dollar business for all those that understand it.