I am glad to own PBR as this oil company won't be as exposed to this Bullsh.it bill. It will never pass the Senate - no way in hell.
I avoided buying...
CHK, CVX, BP, XOM
Also, have you seen that PBR is the only one green today? That's a sign people are getting into PBR from the other oil companies.
<sigh>...another one that just doesn't get it...
Regardless of what happens, your little oil plays will do just fine.
It's called oil depletion a.k.a. peak oil.
One would think that people would get it after the US oil production peaked in the early 70s
Yep agree with some of what you say.
But sorry, the carbon emisions are going up, not down. It's true that they might have been going down in the US recently, due to the economic situation, but worldwide they are going up, year after year, 25% more in 2008 than in 1990, which is the baseline level of the Kyoto treaty.
The bottom line is that latest science tells us that we have to reduce greenhouses gases we put out and fast, and that the free market by itself will not be capable of having this done quickly enough, hence the need for`"incentives".
Now I do not care what the incentive is, cap-ad-trade, carbon tax etc... I personally think that a progressive carbon tax is the best solution (i.e 1% the first year, 2% the second year etc...)
We need a better model to price energy, especially energy produced by using fossil fuels, fairly. That means internalizing the enrvironmental cost, which is discounted right now.
Will it raise energy prices? Yes, Will it cause a bit of inflation? you bet, but long-term we will be much better off.
PS: Despite all this, I am long PBR. Oil use is not going away anytime soon, but we do have to decrease our dependence on it.
I have read a lot echoing these comments. Other scientists believe the most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor not CO2, and that means plain old clouds have a lot to do with climate. Also, there are other scientists who have studied sun spots and have shown said sun spots correlate to global climate changes much better than CO2.
Probably the most arrogant statement from these E whacko scientists was echoed by Al Gore. "the debate in the scientific community is over." It's hardly over.
And most of the CO2 generated in the U.S. does come from oil.
"In 2007, burning oil contributed 2.6 billion tons of carbon (35%). Burning coal contributed 2.2 billion tons (30%). And burning natural gas contributed 1.2 billion tons (17%)."
It would seem to me the focus should be on oil more than nat. gas and coal.
This is a bit misleading but is factually correct, "Coal and natural gas are the two cheapest sources of power at 1¢ per kilowatt hour and 1.4¢ per kilowatt hour, respectively.
Wind power is seven times more expensive than coal; solar is 35 times more expensive."
The thing with wind is that once you pay for the turbines, there are no input costs; all you are left to pay for is maintenance.
I think the Pickens plan could come into play here. Tax foreign oil/gasoline, create incentives to get consumers to switch to using nat. gas and electricity in vehicles, and use the proceeds from the gasoline tax to beef up the electrical grid. One big problem with wind is the wind is in middle America and the biggest electrical consumers are on the coasts.
Instead what we are likely to have is a tax scam that screws over consumers while putting many consumer $$$ into the hands of Goldman Sachs and politicians.
That's true that Water vapor is a greenhouse gas like CO2 however:
1) Clouds create an albedo effect, reflecting solar enegy out of the atmosphere and
2) Water cycle is much, much faster than the CO2 cycle (days instead of year).
So your point is moot.
We have to change our energy sources to (in order of preference): Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Biomass, Nuclear, Nat. Gas and ditch the others. Electrification of the transports should be a priority going forward.
You are losing your time arguing with this brainwashed poor soul.
I guess it was the same story back in the 1500s trying to explain to a flat-earther that the earth was actually round.
jscat or whatever, go back to under the rock where you came from.
Maybe because we.can.do.something about it don't ya think. At least to minimize the worst effect
Always funny to see GW deniers claiming that scientists, of all people, have an interest in spreading propaganda.
For a much more plausible explanation do as somebody once said "follow the money".
Who has a vested interest of denying global warming and it's effect.
Hint: It starts with fossil and ends with industry.
It's actually very simple at the core: Dump enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are not re-absorbed quickly enough, and you end up wit a "better" greenhouse. Greenhouse effect and gases causing it are actually the reason why the earth is warm enough so that life exists on it. The problem is that by dumping carbon that has been trapped for eons, we are actually helping to speed up a natural process that would otherwise have taken milloins of years to happen, instead of about 150 years or so.
See even my 5 year-old kid get it
Hi Doc,I am reading this debate about "global warming" in several boards.Yes you are right; they (the gov)are playing us.What is increasing the ozone hole is a weakness of the magnetic field; because the magnetico poles are reversing themselves. Yes, this happening long time ago(north pole become south pole) and is happening again now. No this is not the end of the world: this is just "global warming" and there is nothing we can do about it. Why they are nothing telling this to the people? I don't know. Do you?
< Ice that melts in Greenland/Antarctica is not already in your supposed "cup".>
You see the problem with you enviornmentalist whackos is you can't get your sorry straight. All you can do is spout off about the climate being man's fault.
here is a story in April 2005, validating your belief, "The first comprehensive survey of glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula has shown that the rivers of ice are shrinking, mostly because of warming of the local climate."
The glaciers of Antarica are shrinking and it's all man's fault, right?
Now there is this story from the LA Times, ONE MONTH LATER, http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/20/science/sci-icecap20, " The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet -- a 2-mile-thick wasteland larger than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring -- increased in mass every year from 1992 to 2003 because of additional annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed.
"It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England.
In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said.
"As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means there should be more snowfall."
Got that? In East Antarctica (but nowhere else) rising temperatures means more ice not less.
And in Italy, you have to make my bed. That's the rules. If we were in Germany, you would have to make mine, but we are in Italy so...