It would be nice if the smart people in this discussion could look at the real issues here:
1) with the emergence of drone technologies, what new air regulations are necessary to manage their use, for safety as well as for privacy?
2) would it ever be appropriate for FAA to protect a pigeon-shoot or other activities by imposing a TFR? What activities fit, and which do not?
3) should animal rights activists instead fly a helo over the pigeon-shoot and thus endanger human life? I.e., where do the present regs stand on their right to hover and at what altitudes, without violating any FAR's? Could they legally pass over at 500'AGL with a larger camera and record?
4) in the big picture, is there a value to the general Public in transparency, wherein we should not discourage collection of video via drone, in matters such as pigeon-shoots (or pollution, etc.)? If so, do we want to rely on government officials to use drones and produce that video, or would we prefer to empower free
Just to be clear, I am not (yet) advocating for a $4/gallon fuel tax. Inn fact, I cited that figure because it approximates the gap between EU fuel costs and US fuel costs, due to present higher EU taxes to discourage over-consumption of fuel (and excess carbon creation). I will say, too, having spent lots of time studying many of our modern problems (with CO2 considered among the most dangerous), I keep coming to the idea that a steep carbon tax would be the most effective way to resolve these problems.
Your concern about 'honest hard working folks' is easily erased. British Columbia uses a Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax, an idea supported by George Shultz. Copying their method, we would automatically credit all U.S. citizens filing income taxes with a $2,000/year carbon tax refund credit. Those of us with 30mpg vehicles would thus pay no carbon tax on the first 15,000 annual miles. We would all feel encouraged to buy 50mpg or better vehicles, or change our habits to travel le
Just a few quick points...
1)Look at the copy of the Heartland billboard (I provided a link two days ago); there is nothing 'silly' about it, nor is the content a matter of mere 'opinion'.
2) This discussion is not about Al Gore, but about the EU delay in implementing their carbon tax, and how that relates to documented changes in our atmosphere (as well as other key elements of our living environment).
3) Although it may inconveniently clash with YOUR 'opinion', Al Gore did (and continues to do) some great work with his movie, which merely documented what he had learned and how he was sharing it ... seeking to illuminate and eventually solve the problem.
4) That said, I will concur I have had a bit of heartburn about politicians, CEO's, actors, etc. zipping about in their own private jets; the carbon produced to haul one butt for a quick lunch, golf date or other whimsical jaunt is disgusting.
5) A very easy solution to diminish this behavior would be a ste
Thanks for sharing the link to the Forbes article from last May. You know well the 'rest of the story' behind the Forbes article.
Heartland has been a lead climate change denial organization, and hosted their annual conference this year in Chicago, on May 21-23. Their style of reasonableness and objectivity was to put up billboards in early May with mugshots of the Unabomber, Fidel Castro, Charles Manson, and Osama bin Laden, each quoted as believing in climate change. (I am guessing Hitler and Stalin also believed in climate change?) I find it difficult to stomach the 'work' of Heartland.org.
I have uploaded a copy of Heartland.org's Kaczyinski billboard at:
Your assessment of CO2 begins correctly, noting the figure of 315ppm in the late-1950's, which peaked last June at just shy of 397ppm. But, your wanderings seeking to minimize the significance of the CO2 increase are wrong and myopic. 315ppm to 397ppm is a 26% increase in just 54 years; absolutely astonishing rate of increase, in the atmosphere so critical for Earth lifeforms. And, remember, this increase in carbon was accomplished by tapping a major portion of the carbon naturally stored away during a HALF BILLION years.
Hey, this just in from FOX: the October reading is down to 391ppm ... so, climate change denialists will be correct, if this trend continues. Can you find one scientist in true denial of the Keeling Curve, who denies we will peak at 399ppm next summer, and 402 ppm the year after that? No. Which brings us more deeply to the Keeling Curve (easily found as a wiki article). Look at he exceptional regularity of this curve; the annual cycles, with peaks in May, valleys in
Congrats on earning the PhD, Larry; now, would you please use it responsibly? Do your own research if you want and explain where all the CO2 ended up when we, as a species, extracted and consumed all of the oil and coal we could easily find and spent the last century on a consumption binge. Did it increase the CO2 in our atmosphere (see the Keeling Curve)? Did it increase ocean acidification? Did our Arctic ice melt off to a record low for modern history last summer?
Alternatively, if your area of expertise is in the humanities, are you prepared to deny that people have a potential and history to be greedy SOB's who will ignore others and the environment for personal material gain? Are you able to deny that aircraft do create CO2 and other pollutants, or that pilots/airlines do have unusual habits that cause excessive consumption?
So please, Larry, put that PhD to productive use informing us, not just trying to shut down the valuable commentary of good people like Manoj.