http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061013/sc_nm/environment_climate_dc;_ylt=AsTkTR9jdDtVZ5qoPC3UAjNpl88F;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

I could not see any evidence of global warming as I was scraping the ice off of my windshield this morning. - Millet

I would like to propose that persons or nations who consume more fossil fuels should be taxed more. the tax should be levied directly against fossil fuels and should be put for future repairs and climatic calamities. Naturally if you use more fossil fuels, you will be paying more.

Estimated total global expense due to damage by Fossil Fuels: $6.4 Trillion
USA should shoulder 25% of that, because it consumes 25% of world's total: $1.6Trillion/year

Since there are 300 million US Citizens, consuming 86.63791 quadrillion BTUs from fossil fuels. That would be 289 Million BTU per American. For thhe $1.6 Trillion cost, the global impact tax would be $18.47 per million BTU fossil fuel consumed.

Gasoline has energy value of about 115,000 BTU/gal, so the global impact tax would be $2.12 per gallon, and for diesel fuel, with 128,500 BTU per gallon, the tax would be $2.37 per gallon. We can impose this tax on fossil based natural gas, coal and every fossil fuel that we will use.

This way, if you don't believe in any effect and continue to go on your merry consuming way, it gives assurance to some of us who are concerned, that at least we have adequate money to repair. Let's just hope that it will be in time.

Most of my energy data calculation is based from Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from the US Government. My friend works at California energy commission and I get some printed reports.

Hi Joe,
Some people just won't believe it until it happens and some think it is inevitable so why fight it. The thing that would really really wake people up is understanding just how fast and how much things could change.

What still puzzles me is in the past cycles, the CO2 levels drop fairly rapidly-- we still do not know why. However, one of my concers is we are entering uncharted territory with CO2 levels slightly above historical peaks, but still rising exponentially. The other thing that scares me is that one of the theories out ther to explain the drop in CO2 is "increased input of iron into the ocean caused by strong storms".

What kind of storms would it take to significantly increase the input of iron into the oceans?

Skeet

>>>"Estimated total global expense due to damage by Fossil Fuels: $6.4 Trillion"<<<<....

Now what is the estimated PROFIT to the world from the use of fossil fuels over the last 100 years? Without the use of fossil fuels for the last 100 years we would still be riding horses and walking. Industry would have never developed. Actually fossil fuels is one of the best things that happened in the last 100 years.. - Millet

Joe, my friend, I think highly of you, but I can't buy it. Without fossil fuels we would still be in the middle ages. Bad health = fossil fuels??? ... don't think so. People smoke, drink, eat to much, don't exercise, are over weight, junk food, bad life styles = that's what causes cancer and bad health in general. The profit brought by fossil fuels to man kind is a number so huge we don't have a word for a number that large. We would have to use exponentials, if we had a piece of paper wide enough to write the exponential. Without fossil fuels there would be almost nothing that exists in society today. Everything would still be made out of wood. - Millet

Millet, take this as purely academic debate. Nothing personal. I do believe that other inventors would come up with alternative forms of energy supply. I am not saying that all products from fossil fuels are bad. Where would the roads be without fossil fuels? But I do believe that one form of technology will predominate over another one, depending on economics of time or dictatorship. Since predominantly, we are somewhat in a democratic economic free world, these things we get, including the tyranny of the masses such as global warming.

You will always be my friend no matter how diversified our views are, rest assured of that. Debate and personal relationship are disparate things for me. We need debates like this, to expose more knowledge, rather than be trapped with our own opinions. I for one, do not necessarily mean I believe everything I quote from various information that I gather. I sometimes state things that are exactly opposite from my personal views to advance our knowledge. Just take note that not all things that I state or post in the forums I believe them, just at the face value that I present them rather than really believed them. I am always open to evaluate what best knowledge we can come up with.

There are many benefits from using fossil fuels, many products can be made economically out of them. For me, mankind will be the same, most industries are driven by the bottom line which can be viewed as financial greed to the detriment of those things we have not accounted for in the present times.

From the history of mathematics, and the rest of the sciences we can learn that indeed man can adapt to whatever constraints we have. So even if fossil fuels were never discovered, we would have advanced to a much better society than we are in today.

Well I guess we can agree to disagree. Now if fossil fuel (gas) would just get back to under $1:00 per gallon. - Millet