Some Fun With CO2 and Math...

Okay, let’s do some math.

1% of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gasses. 3.6% of those greenhouse gasses are CO2. That means that 0.036% of the whole atmosphere is CO2. 3.4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is attributed to man. That means that 0.0012% of the whole atmosphere is CO2 from man’s activities.

23.02% of all manmade CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the US. That means that 0.00028% of the atmosphere is made up of CO2 from the United States.

The numbers are so small it is hard to wrap my mind around them. If I’m right (I struggle converting decimals of percents into fractions), that means that 28/10,000,000 of the atmosphere is the target we’re shooting at with any carbon tax or carbon cap in the US.

Further, the 17% reduction target (for the US) that President Obama plans to announce in Copenhagen this month comes to .000048% (or 48/100,000,000) of the atmosphere.

I don’t think that there is an instrument out there that can even measure that amount. We would have to rely on mathematical calculations to “verify” or predict the change.

And what would that yield? NOTHING!!!

Am I crazy, or is that irrelevant?

I’m not pro-pollution or anti-solar power. I’m not pro-excessive driving or anti-bicycle. I don’t hate birds or algae or polar bears.

We need to be sensitive to the needs of the earth and its creatures and act wisely. No question.

Chasing the red herring of CO2 is not wise.

So, what is the motive in forwarding false science and manipulating data as has been shown in the East Anglia/Penn State case? It seems that the motive in the “deniers’” case is that they are interested in determining the truth, assessing the severity of the problem, defining what man can do to abate the problem, and deciding if man’s actions can possibly counter the problem. If there is a possible solution, then we must assess the cost of the solution and, as rational beings, weigh it against any benefit and act reasonably.

Fight the urge to “do something” and stop to think it through. Once it’s thought through, let’s act prudently. That’s all I’m saying.

What would it cost? Trillions of dollars of productivity destroyed in the American economy. Witness Spain: unemployment around 20%; average wage for remaining employed workers down nearly 50%.

Just think this through.

How much more will a head of lettuce cost if American carbon is traded or taxed? How about a jar of peanut butter? The seed producer will have to pay for the carbon used in producing the seed. The farmer will pay for that as well as the carbon used in cultivation and harvest. The processor will add the cost of the carbon used in processing. The transporter will add his carbon costs. The grocer will add the carbon costs of handling, stocking and merchandising the food. And the consumer will pay them all. That $1.50 head of lettuce or the $3 jar of peanut butter will cost a LOT more. That means that people will have to devote a larger portion of their income to survival needs and will have less to use on consumer goods or to invest in growing their own businesses, lending to others, or anything else that might stimulate the economy.

How much will it cost to heat one’s home? Again, we have the cost of carbon associated with exploring for oil or natural gas added to the actual cost of the work. We add the cost of carbon for transporting the fuel to the point of use or conversion. We have the cost of carbon associated with transporting the processed fuel to the end user and the carbon cost for simply consuming the fuel or energy. So, how does that affect the quality of life for Americans.

AND… What if Chile, or China, or India decides NOT to levy a carbon tax or trading scheme on itself? Now it’s MUCH cheaper to import things like lettuce, peanut butter, and heating oil. So those jobs go away in our country and MORE “U.S. Americans” are out of work. And when they’re out of work they aren’t buying so much stuff. And when they stop buying so much stuff, even more of us lose our jobs. And the spiral continues.

But it’s okay, you may say, because you’re retired. You’re drawing down your 401k or 403b. Everything is looking good. Until the companies in your portfolio start to go under. Now when you sell 1,000 investment shares, instead of getting $120 a share you get $3. And you take your $3,000 and try to stretch it over the year.

But what about welfare? Sure, it’ll pay us not to work. But the money for the welfare check has to come from somewhere. With fewer people employed, fewer people will be paying taxes. So there’s not so much money to redistribute.

So, we call China and ask for another loan – I mean, “We float bonds on the international market.”

The market says, “Sure, we’ll loan you money, but because your debt ratio is so high, we want 25% interest; and because there’s a good chance you won’t be a viable entity in 5 years, we’ll only buy 3-year T-Bills.”

Or we just print more dollars. And the dollar loses its value because there is such a large supply out there. So, that loaf of bread (the American bread costs $25 a loaf, so we’re importing it from Mexico and paying $5) suddenly costs even more. Maybe the Mexican bread goes to $50 a loaf because the Fed increased the money supply by 10x. So, if I’m not on the government dole and can’t get a 1000% raise this year, I’m going to have to leave my job and get onto welfare that is adjusted annually for the cost of living.

This is a no-win. I can surrender my dignity and accept welfare and watch my family suffer, or I can retain my pride and watch my family suffer more.

At that point I might be tempted to curse a polar bear and a salt marsh mouse and wish that I had my life back.

We need to REALLY be sure we’re right before we destroy our way of life in pursuit of the unattainable. If it proves out that we CAN do something that will be effective and reasonable, I’ll be the first one in line to support it.