Cutting Carbon Creates Jobs!
This week, the President announced plans to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030. The plan is one of the strongest actions our nation has ever taken to fight climate change, and it puts us on track to meet environmental targets established in a 2009 United Nations accord. In addition to fighting global warming, this plan will protect millions of people from harmful pollution, and it could create a ton of new American jobs.
According to research from the Natural Resources Defense Council and ICF International, by 2020, higher carbon standards could spur the creation of 274,000 jobs, and save homes and business almost $40 billion dollars on their electric bills. Investments in energy efficiency alone could save our nation $13 billion dollars a year, which works out to more than $100 dollars per household. According to this report, most of the new jobs would occur in the construction industry, thanks to demand for more roofers, carpenters, electricians, insulation workers, heavy equipment operators, and heating and air condition installers.
The founder of Tom Steyer, the founder of NextGen, said, “The Administration's plan to end this carbon pollution loophole will establish a level playing field for advanced energy solutions that are cleaner, affordable, and more secure. Now, more than ever, the United States must be a global leader in addressing climate change.” The President's plan is a great step toward being that global leader. Our nation has the power to reduce pollution, fight global warming, and create a heck of a lot of jobs in the process. Big oil and the Republicans are going to fight this plan tooth and nail, but we must push forward in the fight to protect our planet.
Cutting carbon with HEMP could renew our economy and job market while cleaning the air at the same time. The side effect of transferring our economy from a Gesellschaft (industrialized) to a Gemeinschaft (agricultural) base could also repair most, or all, of our social ills. It certainly is an idea worth considering.
Thom, all that sounds great. Given Obama's track record of dropping the ball, however, I'm not ready to get excited. Not yet. I can't help but wonder: if Obama is so serious about climate, people's health and the environment, why is he silent and uncommitted regarding the Keystone XL, and especially after all this time?! That is such a no-brainer. As you've stated so well, yourself, there is nothing in it for us except a damaged environment, health & safety risks, eminent domain, not to mention exacerbating an already serious problem with global warming. Why can't our 44th president grow a pair and for once, do something really bold, like reject the goddam Keystone?!
This guy's been so wishy washy. I hate dropping a dead fly in the ointment, Thom, but I just don't trust what he does anymore. - Aliceinwonderland
AIW -- Since with our current 0.01% owned media I think that Obama is the best possible person to be the president, I hate to say anything to support your point. However, I can't help myself. The environmentalist that was on Thom said we would meet the goal set by Obama if he hadn't done anything. The baseline of 2005 was a big wet kiss for the coal companies.
DAM -- Before I go to the link can you give me the cliff notes on why burning hemp produces less greenhouse gas?
stec -- It seems to me we have plenty of natural resources. In that case our only problem would be the political system.
Quote chuckle8:DAM -- Before I go to the link can you give me the cliff notes on why burning hemp produces less greenhouse gas?
chuckle8 ~ As it states on the webpage, because of photosynthesis and the growth cycle of plants while our hemp biomass is being grown it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere and replaces it with Oxygen. When burned it produces the same amount of CO2 as any other fuel, however, this is offset by the amount of oxygen it produces when grown as well as the amount of CO2 it removes from the air when grown.
If we used hemp not only for fuel, but for raw material for non combustible products like plastic, paper, fabric, etc, the overall cumulative effect of the growth cycle and photosynthesis would reverse the greenhouse effect by slowly cleaning the air.
chuckle8 ~ It is not only quite a prophetic prophecy, it is also a scientific certainty. As clearly stated in The Bible...
Quote The Book Of Revelations:Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Did anyone see how "clearly" Ralph Reed was shot down by Bill Maher last night?
Loved it, Palin! Priceless. - AIW
Palindromedary ~ Thanks for that link. Good discussion! Maher demonstrates how to do it. Throw the scripture right back into their face. Use fire to fight fire! Works every time. Bravo!
DAM -- Thanks for the cliff notes. It sounds good to me.
Did you hear the caller to Thom who said that the CO2 plants absorb is all through their roots? It has nothing to do with what you are saying. Who cares where it absorbs it. I was just wondering if there was a validity to what the caller was saying.
Pal -- It seemed clear to everyone but Ralph. How could he believe in two completely contradictory thoughts?
Now back to the book I want you to read: "Why God Won't Go Away". I talked to my friend who has digested that book from end to end and the DVDs that it came out with. I mentioned what you said the Amazon commenters said. My friend thinks all those amazon reviewers were clueless. My friend essentially said the book points out how the brain is wired to be sucked in by all the religions. I wanted you to read book to give you another weapon in your arsenal against those whose brains have been sucked in.
Quote chuckle8:Did you hear the caller to Thom who said that the CO2 plants absorb is all through their roots?
chuckle8 ~ No I didn't hear that caller and I'm glad I didn't. That type of ignorance makes me want to pull my hair out. A plant's roots are underground where there are no gases.
Come on Chuck, surely you learned all this stuff back in elementary school with the rest of us? If not, here's a refresher course. Photosynthesis relies on chloroplasts and light; and, occurs in the stroma of the leaves. The chlorophyll in the chloroplasts gives leaves their green color. The roots absorb minerals and water only. Photosynthesis in the leaves use sunlight to convert CO2 into Oxygen. The Oxygen is then released directly back into the atmosphere while the CO2 gets stored in the leaves. In the case of a biomass fuel it is that stored carbon in the plant that gets reconverted back into fuel to be burned off again. That is why burning fuel that is made from biomass does not change the concentration of gases in the atmosphere. It is a balanced cycle. Biomass fuel from plants is actually the most perfect and efficient form of solar power because you essentially use sunlight to capture energy.
Heres a couple of links to some grade school material on the subject that has pretty pictures, if that helps.
Chuck, Obama is just another run-of-the-mill corporate president. He's no better than Clinton. Just my opinion, which you can accept or reject. - AIW
DAM -- Thanks for the link. I wish Thom would have confonted the caller with the Calvin Cycle. I was taught lots of stuff in school. One of my favorites was that water cannot be compressed. Later in college, in my thermodynamics class, I had to use the bulk modulus table to determine how much water can be compressed. My point is that being told something in grade school is no reason not to challenge it. I sure wish I could visit the web page where that caller was getting his information.
chuckle8 ~ With all due respect the claim that photosynthesis occurs in the roots simply defies logic. You don't need to look that up to realize it can't be true. How can CO2 penetrate dirt to get to the roots?
If I buried your head you would suffocate quickly. Why? Because there is not enough gas inside of dirt to breath. If you can't breath, how can the roots?
I have no idea why the guy said what he did. If you could post a link to the call so I could hear it in it's entirety I might have a suggestion. Without that I can only assume he had a "hidden agenda of misinformation"; or, he himself was a victim of misinformation with an agenda. Determining what that agenda is would be very interesting. Personally I'd be more interested in hearing his point to that erroneous statement. I think that would shed a lot of light on what it was really all about.
Of course there is also the possibility that the poor guy was just clueless. He certainly wouldn't be the first such case to call Thom's show.
DAM -- The caller was very good. He had Thom almost believing him. One thing I forgot to mention that the caller said. He said there is only one plant that absorbs CO2 in its leaves. The plant was some tropical plant.
chuckle8 ~ What did Thom say? Did he agree with it or just politely say he had to look that up?
chuckle8 ~ That almost makes as much sense as saying that plants absorb light throught the roots. That's like saying that people eat through their rectum. I suppose that might be possible; but, I'd still like to see the expression on the faces of the other people eating in that particular McDonalds. Wow! Talk about a happy meal!
DAM -- Thom mostly was just polite and said he would look it up.
Now back to empirical science. How would one measure the amount of CO2 in the soil?
chuckle8 ~ You got me there. Chemistry wasn't one of my stronger disciplines. I would imagine though, the same way you measure it in the air or in ice. I might also imagine that it would be easier to find simple carbon in the ground than CO2. CO2 is a gas and if it were to exist in the ground it would be trapped there in a bubble. Unhindered CO2 would always find its way to the surface and float up into the atmosphere. But then, what do I know? I'm no scientist, just a geeky nerd.
I can't wait till Thom looks up those "facts". That little addendum would be most interesting to listen to. Let me know what he says if you catch it.
DAM -- I found an interesting link It mostly supports your idea. It does say that putting CO2 in the water and feeding plants with it seems to help. The link is
Quote CO2 Science website:A final question that has periodically intrigued researchers is whether plants take up carbon through their roots in addition to through their leaves.
chuckle8 ~ Well there you have it. If scientists are periodically intrigued by this question then no doubt this caller was full of BS. I can only assume his agenda was anti climate science?
It wouldn't be the first time I heard someone talk about the benefits of CO2 in the air and how great it would be for plants.
And still no one is talking about limiting population growth. After all, the real problem is the sheer number of people on this miserable rock, and not just what we're doing to it. But, I guess, one way or another, our numbers will be reduced.