It's Good News Friday! (CLIMATE CHANGE)

I'm sure western states are already negotiating to buy/steal more water from the middle of the continent.

Madison Cawthorn seems to be competing with Ted Cruz over who can leave their constituents to suffer in the most style. Rather than try to fly out to Cancun, Cawthorn went for "smoking cigars whilst listening to Republican podcasts" - an odd flex, but at least he didn't get called out fo... oh, wait...

The paper is rightly pissed at his antics:

https://crooksandliars.com/2021/08/local-paper-pillories-madison-cawthorn

That's true of just about everything at this point.

News Corp Australia is run by the Murdoch clan, so as unlikely as it seems if this goes well you might see Fox News in the US jumping on board. (Sky News Australia is basically just Fox News Australia at this point)

Let's see - FOX was basically saying the Dems are making the impact of the hurricanes out to be bad to push their climate change agenda (because hurricane deaths are at record lows - which is due to improved early warning and disaster response, NOT any decrease in storm frequency or severity...).

Then there's this cunt:

That's nice, but "Net Zero by 2050" is both far too late, and a way to pretend to be doing something by pushing commitments out into the long term.

Net 0 is not going to happen. It is a good goal to strive for, and we are going to need these non polluting energy sources and manufacturing in the future, but the planet is beyond the tipping point. Now these things are necessary for our survival into the future and what society can support as a population. Just because a few humans have evolved beyond stupid animals does not mean most of us have.

Impossible to reverse? What is that based on?

Well, they mention loss of biodiversity. Once something is extinct... sans time travel that pretty much is impossible to undo. If you have DNA samples, maybe. But we're losing species faster than we can collect samples.

The largest CO2 vacuum is up and running. It can remove about 800 cars worth of emissions from the atmosphere.

A typical car produces 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle

The cost of capturing the carbon is about $300 per metric ton.

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expensive

To be carbon neutral each car owner should pay $1,380/yr.

Hmmmm, how long before the Q people start saying it is their freedom to breathe carbon dioxide and it is all a government hoax that carbon dioxide is bad for you?

We need to do this properly. I do not want to pay for F150 driver's brokedick penis replacement emissions. I get they have little limp emissions, and they need to compensate somehow, but there needs to be something more accurate. There is a difference in car emissions.

Also, we should be charging for republican CO2 emissions. There is nothing a republican says that needs to be said, so we should charge every republican for exhaling CO2 in their love grunts for Trump. If they do not want to pay the tax we can seal up their Trumpholes.

And storming Toyota dealerships screaming that if they sell one more Prius they'll be executed.

I think that would be good. I would probably go in for maintenance on my corolla more often if I could beat a Qtrump while I was there. I might actually buy another air filter if I could just ram one down the throat of some anti-masker. It would be especially cool if I could do it while smoking outside. Not to mention I do have some 20oz CO2 bottles I could have filled and jam them up the ass of some right winger and open the valve to watch their bodies inflate, freeze, and pop all at the same painful time. It would be a fucking blast, and then my car would be set to go and it would be the best oil change ever.

So far, it looks like three businesses and two non-profit organizations are fighting back. Not to mention the numerous groups of advocates and providers that have filed lawsuits.

The funny thing is, it just might be the Satanic Temple who brings down this law - based on freedom of religion.

It will come down in price to basically nothing, @Paladin told us that people in the future will be able to handle it.

The cost ($1,380) is based on the average car/driver being 22MPG (sorry, this is for yanks) and 11,000 miles per year. This works out to 500 gallons of gasoline. If you spread the cost per gallon it's only $2.76/gallon additional.

I really think we should implement this. It's a quantifiable externality resulting from burning fossil fuel. By doubling the price of gas here, we can fund carbon-capture. People can drive their F150s as much as they want.

This is pointless to correct atmospheric CO2 umless we get to zero emissions in other ways. Great for after we get those actual cars off the road.

We should have a carbon tax, but it should go to more than just CO2 storage.

It's nice to have an amount based on something concrete.

I'd subside public transportation, electric cars, charging stations, and renewables along with carbon sequestration tech.

There is a need to provide viable alternative transport.

Then tax it out of existence.

wut?

Before you double the price of fuel.

Doesn't work here.

All the feds can do is tax and provide incentives for local government.

No duh. You don't think the rich are going to let all the poor people get ahead of them, do you?

We kinda need to get on methane removal as well: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2020.0454 It'd make a huge difference, as much as 0.4°C by 2050.

Good news is, at an equivalent of $2700/ton, all governments should have to do to get it removed is become gas-agnostic when paying for GHG capture, and the market should have no trouble getting right on that.