So who can we make mad today... global warming

[capitalcrew]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Fight!:biggun::wiz:

[JonsZX2SR]

There is an awful lot of bad science in that link.

For one, the argument that because CO2 is a trace component in the atmosphere it can't have a significant effect. People who cannot undestand non-linear responses of systems, should not attempt to explain everything with linear models.

A small change in how much energy is reflected back into space, when summed over the total amount of solar energy captured by the earth is enormous.

The general argument that has been put forward that CO2 and climatic cycles are normal and natural conveniently ignores two critical pieces of information. The rate of increase in CO2 since 1840 is more than 10X faster than anything found in geological records. the rate at which we are putting CO2 back into the atmosphere is completely unnatural.

The argument that the ecosystem of the earth is self regulating ignores the rapid rise in the last 160 or so years.

Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/05/fighting-over-gaia.html)

The second piece of information that has been overlooked is that CO2 levels are higher than any time in recent history, with CO2 at about the 0.38% level.

High recent CO2 levels (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html). While some CO2 is necessary for a balnce of life (plants fix CO2 to make carbohydrates) somewhere between 1-2% CO2 becomes toxic, even with sufficient oxygen.

(This effect is know from submaries, where CO2 must be scrubbed from the atmosphere. CO2 levels in beathed air approaching 2% inhibits expiration, acidified the blood and interferes with uptake of O2 by hemoglobin.)

[EmoRebellion]

Wow that article is pretty bad.. He has almost no facts to back up his statements. Im pretty sure that giant hole in the ozone was there when we got here too, right?

[J_Mob]

I can't even read all that crap. If the ice caps were to melt, the sea level would sink.....and CO2 is a part of our ecosystem. It's the CO and the SO2 (and their alien cousins) that cause chemical reactions and bad mojo. Plus that thing is horribly written.....

[Loser47]

I watched a show one time that showed everything that contributed to global warming with black smoke. cars and lawnmowers and people had black smoke coming out of them. then i saw the hair dryer and i was like, "this is all a lie. if u know anything about a hair dryer, u know it just blows air heated by an electrical coil, not CO2" Then it showed that hamburgers are to blame, as well. thats why i believe global warming is a lie from the government to control the way we live and we are actually listening to them

[TSmiley98]

i like those who throw out random statements to suit their crappy argument

[Sir William]

I watched a show one time that showed everything that contributed to global warming with black smoke. cars and lawnmowers and people had black smoke coming out of them. then i saw the hair dryer and i was like, "this is all a lie. if u know anything about a hair dryer, u know it just blows air heated by an electrical coil, not CO2" Then it showed that hamburgers are to blame, as well. thats why i believe global warming is a lie from the government to control the way we live and we are actually listening to them


In a whacked out sort of way, hamburgers do contribute... well not hamburgurs, but the cows they come from... in fact any animal that produces methane gas helps contribute to global warming.

[raider]

top gear on global warming
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk_u4tIUcRE

[Loser47]

im sorry but im a "the government and everyone around you is always lying to you so don't listen to them or you'll end up in hell with the politicians" kinda guy. its just the way i was raised and its the reason i dont believe in global warming (its something im trying to break away from)

[Buster]

In a whacked out sort of way, hamburgers do contribute... well not hamburgurs, but the cows they come from... in fact any animal that produces methane gas helps contribute to global warming.

Animals have been farting for millions, maybe billions of years. We've been significantly industrialized for 100 years.

The climate has fluctuated countless times through hot and cold periods and the Earth is still here. It's been struck my asteroids, had ice ages, hot periods, massive volcano explosions, a worldwide flood, giant earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, typhoons, wildfires...it survived them all.

Me using the "wrong" lightbulbs and a few plastic bags is not going to hurt the Earth.

:partynanas:

[TTFOWIA]

actually, I'd have to double check for sources, but global warming is actually a lie... Overall Earth average temperature is in fact decreasing.

[capitalcrew]

actually, I'd have to double check for sources, but global warming is actually a lie... Overall Earth average temperature is in fact decreasing.

It has been, for the last ten years.

I personally don't believe in global warming. I never have. We're recovering from an ice age people.. The earth has been getting hotter for a loooooong time. The core is continuously dispersing heat. Where does that heat go..? The air.

Also heat is a good thing. Life flourishes in heat. The rain forest, the amazon. Look at how hot those places are, at how brutally humid they are. Then look at the life there, all of the different plants we have yet to discover.

Shit. Heats a good thing!

Besides. I want you to go put a steak in the oven. Cook your steak. The shit just keeps getting hotter. Well.. the suns the oven and we're the steak. It doesn't matter how much of WHAT gasses we have in our atmosphere, it is going to get hotter here, period.

[J_Mob]

No-the plastic sucks. Did you see the show (think it was news or national geographic or something can't remember) where they floated around out off the coast of Cali and showed all the plastic beads and bags and shit floating on top of the ocean. keeps the plants/plankton stuff from making oxygen and all that. Plus they said it will take a hundred years to break down.

Someone needs to float their asses out there and pick up their garbage big time.

[Buster]

The plastic isn't the problem, it's the idiots who toss them on the beach or in the water.

Start enforcing littering more harshly and the problem is solved. Don't punish everyone though.

[TTFOWIA]

anyways, plastic bags will no longer be a problem really really soon. A young canadian just discovered a way of bio-degrade (sp?) them in just 3 months instead of 1000 years lawl.

[J_Mob]

With a torch?

No it wasn't just consumer waste....there were millions of these plastic beads that are used by companies who make plastics. Basically the raw plastic.

Yeah littering is about the laziest thing you can do. I especially hate the dicks who throw beer bottles out of their cars....like not having the bottle in the car is going to matter if you get pulled over. Your still a drunk asshole driving around, plus you were littering. Douchebags. (SORRY, sore spot).

[TTFOWIA]

not with a torch.. I said bio-degrade not BURN.

[J_Mob]

heh. JK

[Buster]

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=136273

:)

[capitalcrew]

Imagine that.

[TTFOWIA]

amen.

[Buster]

The meteorologists can't accurate predict the weather for TOMORROW...so why do so many people take their predictions for 100 or even 1,000 years from now as gospel?

I don't know either.

[JonsZX2SR]

It isn't a matter of just predicting weather. More importantly, it is understanding atmospheric chemistry and understanding that the CO2 content in todays atmosphere is higher than that measured in the geological past and it is continuing to increase to unprecidented levels.

Besides would I trust the opinions of a lay person who knows little about meteorology and atnosheric chemistry or someone who has studied and understands the pronciples. If you think weatherman are bad at predicting weather (and with satellite imaging they are better than you give credit for) how well would any of you fare ??

http://www.teamzx2.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1301&stc=1&d=1215570775

The complete article can be found with the linked discussion, Rapid Climate Change and Climate Surprises (http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/19_4/19.4_fili_souch.pdf). While people may want to argue that climate change is cyclic and we cannot determine whether change in temperature is a part of normal cyclic change, the evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased beyond all normal levels is irrefutable. Furthermore, it has increased rapidly in a very short time.

Considering that normally the oceans trap CO2 in the form of carbonate rocks, the increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1860 has proceeded at a rate where precipitation of carbonate minerals cannot regulate the CO2 increase.

The earth has been getting hotter for a loooooong time. The core is continuously dispersing heat. Where does that heat go..? The air.

Where did you get the idea that we are recovering from a glacial period. If anything the buildup of CO2 and methane has prevented the next glacial period and the effect of warming is more severe than many believe.

How did Humans First Affect Global Climate (http://www.if.uidaho.edu/~johnson/ifiwrri/SciAmGlobal.pdf) ??

Solar radiation and not core heating is the primary source of heat on the earth. The way greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and to a lesser extent H2O) work is they absorb thermal energy in the microwave and infrared, then re radiate energy in all directions. In the absence of greenhouse gases, essentially 100% of thermal radiation heading to space is lost. With these thermal absorbers, a significant portion of thermal radiation (10-20% or more) is radiated back toward the earth. With millions of absorbtion, re-radiation events between the ground and space.

A experiment to demonstrate the effect is to put an infrared heat source in two glass houses on a cold dark night. One is made from glass that is optically transparent to IR radiation. The other absorbs and reradiates IR energy in both directions, but is otherwise tranparent. Otherside both have the same insulating characteristics. When each house comes to equilibrium, the house with the absorbtive glass will be a few to 10-20 degress warmer than the IR transparent glass (depending on outside air temp and strength of the IR heater.)

[capitalcrew]

We will constantly be recovering from a glacial period, until we have another one.

Ice melts. Especially in the sun. I don't care how much or how little Co2 there is in the air. Ice melts at 0 C. Ice is going to melt until we have some huge thing that happens to make more ice again.

[JonsZX2SR]

But you miss the point entirely, we have been out of a glacial period and overdue for the next. Something is keeping the planet warmer. Did you read a few of the earlier links i provided ??

Look at the data for the CO2 content in the atmosphere. The CO2 content is higher than it has been for the last few cycles and it is continuing to increase at a rate that is unprecidented. How do you explain that ?? Do you really believe that if CO2 increases to 3-4X or greater than past peak levels it will have no effect ??

How greenhouse gases work (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html)

A number of research articles have linked elevated CO2 levels in the far distant past with considerable greater average temperatures than we currently have...

Mid-Cretaceous CO2 and global warming (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539811) (7.5 to 15 C or 13-25 F warming)

Water vapor and CO2 related to Cretaceius warming (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060918/20060918_16.html)

Consider that at high Co2 levels cloud formation may be inhibited (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002914.html) resulting in greater warming.

The cloudless Cretaceous (http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/the-uncloudy-cretaceous/).

While it may be popular to make fun of weathermen and those who study atmospheric sciences, I prefer to listen to and read studies made by climatologists, paleontogists, meteorologists, etc. than put my faith in unsubstantiated hand waving opinions.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere is growing at record rates. in the past this has caused widespread climate change. Does anyone thing it wouldn't this time around ??

[Sir William]

Animals have been farting for millions, maybe billions of years. We've been significantly industrialized for 100 years.


Buster, hence why I said in a whacked out sort of way, and I used the term contributed.

AND for all you ppl who say it's a government scandal... Think again... perhaps you're being bull-shi**ed by corporations who pollute and are the single largest cause of global warming.... hummmm just a thought.

It's also been mentioned that the earth has been hit by an asteroid... True enough, but look at what happened.... A whole section of species (good for humans actually or we'd still be nocturnal nothings running around scavenging) aka dinosaurs were wiped out due to the effects from that impact and subsequent global ice over.

And yep, one person causes no problems... billions are a different thing... We've been headed towards global disaster since the disappearance of the hunting and gathering societies of our early years. Agrarian civilization has been the single biggest problem which in turn lead to the industrial revolution.

But, keep believing the corporate giants and their nay saying

[JonsZX2SR]

Also heat is a good thing. Life flourishes in heat. The rain forest, the amazon. Look at how hot those places are, at how brutally humid they are. Then look at the life there, all of the different plants we have yet to discover.

Shit. Heats a good thing!

Increase in major hurricanes linked to warmer seas (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050915_more_hurricanes.html).

Until you consider the effect of increased water temperature on hurricance occurance and strength...

Warming water increases frequency of hurricanes (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2008-01-30-global-warming-hurricanes_N.htm). Hotter than normal water in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005 resulted in 5 major storms, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Wilma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Wilma) was the most intense storm recorded in the Atlantic region with a record low pressure of 882 mbar and sustained winds of 185 mph.

Rita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Rita) with 180 mph winds with a peak gust of 236 mph and a pressure of 895 mbar was the 4th most intesne hurricane recorded. Gilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gilbert) in 1988 with 185 mph winds and 888 mbar pressure was the 2nd most intesne hurricane. More recently in 2007 Dean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dean) with 165 mph winds and 905 mbar pressure made the top 10 list of Atlantic storms.

Some meterologists estimate with a consistent 4F increase of water temperature in the Atlantic basin, unprescidented 240 mph storms could become possible, as well as more frequent hurricanes.

Troposphere warming and hurricane strength (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181)
Atlantic water temp connected to hurricane activity (http://english.pravda.ru/news/science/30-01-2008/103764-hurricane_water-0)
Models for hurricane activity (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/Special__Sept__5_Cyclones/R__Models_for_the_future_4xn.html)
Effect of water temperature and hurricane strength (http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/07/26/grays_hypothesis/)

Do you really understand that with an increase in global temperatures what happens if both polar ice caps melt completely? With enough of a temperature rise in polar regions, ice is going to melt and alot less is gong to refreeze. Sea temperatures rise, water expands with increased temperature and sea levels rise up to 75-120 feet.

[jdrzx2]

I can't believe people think that the government is coming up with global warming.

[Sir William]

^ I agree

[JonsZX2SR]

The US has become a nation of whiners, finger pointers and blamers...

In the past we had a lot of citizens who were problem solvers who were willing to work hard to find solutions. Today there are too many people who don't want bto work hard, who want someone else to find easy solutions and who rect when faced with a tough problem.

The minute they are asked to think about a difficult problem, their brain goes into overload and they react by blaming others, dicopunting results from those who can think and who work hard and demand easy, cheap solutions.

People can discount the links I provided but they should try to read and understand the information fiorst, they provide a well thought out counterpoint.

The tinkers and doers made the US great in the past. We need more people with functioning brains who are willing to work hard and fewer so quick to blame others because thinking makes their head hurt.

[capitalcrew]

I haven't read them yet, no. I had to go to sleep so I could go to work this morning, and then this morning I had to just go to work. I will read them all later.

[LiveWire]

But you miss the point entirely, we have been out of a glacial period and overdue for the next. Something is keeping the planet warmer.

So is your goal that the earth should be in a the state it would be if man did not exist? If an ice age should have already occurred, but has not do to man created global warming, I say yay.

I make special efforts to use Bio diesel and other things that I deem reasonable effort to minimize environmental impact. I do all of this because I want a good environment for my children and their children. I only believe things need to be looked at from a living condition point of view and not that we have some responsibility to undue everything. I think the issues need to be addressed, but not in the dire way Gore tries to make it out to be. Articles like the one posted are needed to sway some of the sheep that would otherwise be swayed by Gore. There was bad science provided from him as well. A balance of political attitude needs to be found in between. Right now I think the balance is swayed too far toward a priority of carbon reduction. I think economic conditions should be factored in. The economic conditions of this country are in more dire circumstances than our environment.

[Buster]

The US has become a nation of whiners, finger pointers and blamers...

In the past we had a lot of citizens who were problem solvers who were willing to work hard to find solutions. Today there are too many people who don't want bto work hard, who want someone else to find easy solutions and who rect when faced with a tough problem.

The minute they are asked to think about a difficult problem, their brain goes into overload and they react by blaming others, dicopunting results from those who can think and who work hard and demand easy, cheap solutions.

People can discount the links I provided but they should try to read and understand the information fiorst, they provide a well thought out counterpoint.

The tinkers and doers made the US great in the past. We need more people with functioning brains who are willing to work hard and fewer so quick to blame others because thinking makes their head hurt.


We are still incredibly innovative.

However, when the problem doesn't actually exist...we should not waste time and resources while enforcing governmental restrictions on people's lives and freedom of choice simply for a political issue and unproven science. California has already begun these socialist mandates in the name of "global warming" in a year when temperatures were down and the arctic ice is thicker than in the past. They want to mandate use of lightbulbs that not only cost a lot more, but contain poisonous mercury. They encourage use of cars that contain batteries that the mining required to produce them has done more damage than all of the SUVs on the road, plus require special cleanup crews in accidents, and oh yeah, cost more to buy and will clean your bank accounts our when the batteries need replaced. CA even wants to control the temperature of the thermostats in citizens' homes to make sure they're not "using more than they should". All while the politicians who makes these laws and braindead celebrities who preach to us fly around in private jets and whose homes use more energy than a lot of companies.

Sure, alternative fuels will be a good thing, but we do not need to rush to promote inefficient and dangerous inventions in a race to quickly replace oil. We have our own oil if we were allowed to touch it, more than the Middle East if we include shale.

[Buster]

I can't believe people think that the government is coming up with global warming.

I can't believe people ignore facts and buy into this myth.

[J_Mob]

Yes we need to tap into more U.S. oil definitely. It would also create more jobs and help our economy incredibly. The freekin Dems here in Colorado are trying to shut down the oil and natural gas we already have going. Who's side are they on anyways....


I was always told the the cO and the sulfers where what was killing us. That and the FC and HFC's. The cO2 is supposed to be used up by all the plants and trees (we killed...oops).

[JonsZX2SR]

So is your goal that the earth should be in a the state it would be if man did not exist? If an ice age should have already occurred, but has not do to man created global warming, I say yay.

Then you haven't looked deep enough into the problem. I provided links for people to read.

The problem isn't that we inhibited an ice age, but we don't understand how we affected the eco-system long term. Global warming might be okay right now, but if the mechanisms continue to heat the earth until it is 25C (45F) hotter than it is now in the future it will not be okay. while we can study and fix the trend right now, fixing the earth when it is much hotter, weather patterns have changed etc. will be more difficult, maybe impossible.

One trend that concerns a lot of people is the rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere. It has already exceeded levels seen in the past 500,000 years and the rate is actually accelerating.

Sure we can take the flip attitude, who cares because we like it hot, but ignoring potential risks is not an intelligent approach.

[Sir William]

It is a goverment invention??? Then please explain to me why the good ole US of A didn't buy into the Kyoto Protocol when the original meeting took place???

Guess they didn't believe their own lies???

Livewire

The last ice age is actually what caused Human kind to become advanced as we are.... had we not had a global freeze over man would not have evolved into the superior species we are... Like I said earlier we'd still be nocturnal scavengers afraid of the larger reptilian carnivores

[Buster]

We didn't join the nations in the Kyoto protocol because it places unrealistic restrictions on industrial nations and would cripple economies in the name of a hoax.

The government doesn't promote it, or at least all of it (Democrats mainly). However, special interest groups and environmentalists have once again bought into the hoax (as they did in the 70s with the looming ice age) and have altered policy by influencing politicians (mainly Democrats) with cash.

Ever notice that Kyoto never required or pressured China to join when they're becoming industrialized? That reeks politics.

[Sir William]

Yeah cause the EU are really going down hill because of it....

[LiveWire]

It is a goverment invention??? Then please explain to me why the good ole US of A didn't buy into the Kyoto Protocol when the original meeting took place???

Guess they didn't believe their own lies???

Livewire

The last ice age is actually what caused Human kind to become advanced as we are.... had we not had a global freeze over man would not have evolved into the superior species we are... Like I said earlier we'd still be nocturnal scavengers afraid of the larger reptilian carnivores

So you are saying an ice age now would be good?

[LiveWire]

Then you haven't looked deep enough into the problem. I provided links for people to read.

The problem isn't that we inhibited an ice age, but we don't understand how we affected the eco-system long term. Global warming might be okay right now, but if the mechanisms continue to heat the earth until it is 25C (45F) hotter than it is now in the future it will not be okay. while we can study and fix the trend right now, fixing the earth when it is much hotter, weather patterns have changed etc. will be more difficult, maybe impossible.

One trend that concerns a lot of people is the rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere. It has already exceeded levels seen in the past 500,000 years and the rate is actually accelerating.

Sure we can take the flip attitude, who cares because we like it hot, but ignoring potential risks is not an intelligent approach.

I understand your points. I just don't agree with what I believe to be excessive efforts in certain circumstances to address them. I am not being flip. I am making an informed opinion weighing various factors differently than you are. In the one article you linked, it states how India and China weigh their economic growth over global warming. I think our government needs to take the same stance for the next few years as well.

All imported products that come from countries with more lenient environmental standards than ours should have duties placed on them directly proportional to the producing countries emission levels as compared to the US. So if smoke stack emissions in China are allowed to be 20% higher than that of those in the US then a 20% duty should be placed on each and every product from them. The US government keeps making it more and more expensive to run a business here and people are switching to foreign goods in droves. Foreign working conditions are poor, they produce more emissions making the products, etc. though. Say a company goes out of business because it can't lower it's emissions to a new standard and stay competitive with a Chinese product. So the Chinese product now dominates the market while being produced at higher emissions levels, what was really gained?

[Sir William]

LiveWire...

That Tariff/Duties idea is great!!! I love it.

Should that go for exported goods to another country that has better stack emissions too? IE, Tariffs on Canadian or American goods?

[JonsZX2SR]

LiveWire you make good points about placing tariffs on goods that are produced cheaply because environmental corcerns are not considered.

Regardless of where an item is produced or how much fuel is burned, if the global eco-system is upset and temperatures rise drastically, all of us will be affected. Perhaps some areas will become habital, such as the land surrounding the Artic ocea or Antartica. perhaps other places will get more water than they do now and become arable, but there are going to be winners and losers.

People like to make fun of or ignore studies they do not or cannot understand, but the value is understanding the magnitude of the problem and what we can get away with. It isn't an all or nothing solution, as long as you understand the magnitude of the effects.

However, if you take the approach this stuff is too hard to understand and I don't believe it anyway attitude, then your only options are ignore the problem and hope it goes away or try to impose excessive solutions.

That is the problem we face today. politicians and people who complain the loudest do not trust those who are trying to understand the problem, and there is some uncertainty with the analysis. but who do you want to trust, the politicians and the complainers who have no idea what they are talking about, or a group that is trying to understand the problem with limited resources ??

My point is that if some people choose environmentally sound solutions and others do NOT, we will all be affected if collectively we exceed what the environment will tolerate. It won't matter who you are because we all breath the same air and drink the same water. A small portion of walthy people might be able to live in comfort, but the rest of us will all be screwed.

[Sir William]

LiveWire... Nope, not sayin I'd love a world full of ice

then again.... hmmmm hockey 12 months a year....

JK

[LiveWire]

LiveWire...

That Tariff/Duties idea is great!!! I love it.

Should that go for exported goods to another country that has better stack emissions too? IE, Tariffs on Canadian or American goods?

I would not have issue with another country putting a tariff on our goods if we had higher stack emissions. I also think there should also be a tariff based on the standard of living, but that's a separate topic.

Some other thoughts I have had on the issue of emissions: What I would like to see is for one, emissions being done similar to CAFE. Average the emissions of all the vehicles from a manufacturer then fine or credit for going above or below a mark. It should be based on total emissions, not percentage. Some vehicles will be easier than others to improve emissions on. Right now, there is no incentive to go beyond just meeting the requirements.

I have read some articles on really cool technology for reducing carbon foot print. Many of them are much better suited to non-vehicle applications due to size, etc. In addition to my above idea on average emissions for vehicles produced by a manufacturer, I would like to see a step 2. Factor in the total emissions of all manufacturing facilities. It is likely easier to reduce smoke stack emissions than tail pipe emissions since filters etc. add weight to cars. You're not going to have an algae filter on a car. Now some of this technology will pull carbon out of the air, not just the exhaust. So that means it is most likely feasible at some point for their net smokestack emissions to be negative therefore offsetting the tail pipe emissions of the vehicles. Optimize cars for mileage and clean the air separate. Oil companies could be also bear the burden of cleaning up after their product. Anyone who pulls carbon out of the air for a negative carbon foot print could receive tax credits. Basically, carbon production gets equated to dollars. Deciding what can and can't be done is directly tied to the bottom line. Capitalism will ensure it all balances out.

If the levels required started out similar to current levels, just shifted to the company average idea it could be implemented quickly without a long period for companies to meet the new levels. Slowly lowering the level, maybe once a year, would give them opportunity to investigate new technologies. Manufactures will start funding research rather than government grants. If a company can't make a new level, it does not mean their product does not launch, it just means they charge more to pay the fines. Just like they do with CAFE, they'll offer rebates on the low emission products to get a better average. They can also 'buy' carbon credits from other companies. That seems the same thing as the tax credit thing, but it would reduce inefficiency from government bureaucracy. The buyer would pay less than the fines would be and the seller would get more than the tax credits would be. I think this scenario is easier to phase in and make it less painful. I think it is also better for technology development since it makes determination of ROI (return on investment) much easier. It rewards going beyond just enough as well.