Would Electricity Need To Have Hmrc Tax & Duties As High As For Fossil Fuels When Cars Are Electric And Planes Are Run By Liquefied Hydrogen (Which Need Electricity To Produce)

[willbewhatiwill]

Everyone wants clean environment to live in. New technologies, education & governmental incentives & legislation can help to curb pollution of carbon dioxide, plastics, smog, toxins, etc. Banning the sale of cars run solely on fossils fuels by 2040 is an example of governmental incentives & legislation to curb pollution.

About half of all fossil fuels had been burnt since the industrial revolution & has given raise nearly a degree centigrade rise in global temperatures. Thus if the rest of fossil fuels are burnt a total of about 2 degree centigrade rise will be likely. Hotter air can cause extreme climate. Global warming of around 2 degrees centigrade will cause increased coastal flooding, as well as more drought & famine - turning agricultural land into desert (in an era of exponential population rises).

Apparently, UK experimental SABRE (Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine) ram jet engine is capable of single-stage-to-orbit capability at over Mach 5.2 (3,800 mph). SABRE engines burns hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen and when the space plane reaches an altitude of around 16 miles and five times the speed of sound (i.e. Mach 5), it switches to its onboard liquid oxygen tank to reach orbit. Being in orbit, such a craft can travel in opposite direction to the rotation of the earth thus saving energy & time of travel.

For example, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9709041/Britain-to-Australia-in-four-hours-with-new-engine.html confirms that using space plane travelling between UK to Australia could take around 4 hours.

[willbewhatiwill]

Zacs-Master: "one classic example of why your posts contain unnecessary facts is where you state: 'About half of all fossil fuels had been burnt since the industrial revolution & has given raise nearly a degree centigrade rise in global temperatures"

Well check-out for yourself http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/halfway-to-climate-change-catastrophe-total-amount-of-carbon-burnt-since-the-industrial-revolution-8827713.html states, “The world has already burnt more than half the maximum amount of fossil fuel that can be consumed if catastrophic levels of global warming are to be avoided, scientists have calculated. Scientists estimate that if global warming is to have an above-average chance of remaining below the crucial 2C level – beyond which the consequences of climate change are expected to become increasingly devastating – the total amount of carbon burnt since the industrial revolution must not exceed one trillion tonnes”.

[ToraToraTora]

eddie: "if we can supply the electricity for the electrolysis from solar ,wind, tidal power we really will have unlimited 'free' power." - none of those are free, currently they are all more expensive that fossil fuels.

[willbewhatiwill]

ToraToraTora: "the clouds trap most of the heat".

Check out: https://thetributarium.com/climate-change/ which states, "GHG’s (Greenhouse gases) absorb some of the infrared energy that Earth emits in so-called bands of stronger absorption that occur at different wavelengths. Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths. CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometers (millionths of a metre) with wings that spread out a few micrometers on either side".

[Zacs-Master]

Will, that's a completely different argument and in no way supports your claim that the 1% rise is WHOLLY due to fossil fuels.

By the way, I think you just proved my point about muddying the waters.

[willbewhatiwill]

Zacs-Master; "[Links]in no way supports your claim that the 1% rise is WHOLLY due to fossil fuels".

The links I supplied stated, "Scientists estimate that if global warming is to have an above-average chance of remaining below the crucial 2C level".

This indicates that global CO2 is nearly 2 degrees centigrade.
Over a degree centigrade rise since the industrial revelation from burning fossil fuels & also cutting down trees. Does it matter why global temperature rises, though facts indicate that global temperatures have risen in tandem with together with CO2 levels (in ppm).

[ToraToraTora]

CO2 merely amplifies the effects of water vapour.

[willbewhatiwill]

albaqwerty,

I can post the question on topics of my choice. I do not criticise what you posted (in will be very rude to do so), so why should you?

[willbewhatiwill]

ToraToraTora: "CO2 merely amplifies the effects of water vapour"

Where are the links/references to support such a statement?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=44 - read the bit under: "Water Vapour as a positive feedback"

[Zacs-Master]

'About half of all fossil fuels had been burnt since the industrial revolution & has given raise nearly a degree centigrade rise in global temperatures'

suddenly becomes:
' Does it matter why global temperature rises'

make your mind up. Do you see why sweeping statements in your OP are bad enough on their own? To then throw doubt on your own statements does not further the debate, or strengthen your argument.

[willbewhatiwill]

ToraToraTora,

As temperature rises so is the water vapour in the atmosphere. This creates a positive feedback for the greenhouse effect originally due to increase in CO2 levels.

According to the links you supplied, this positive feed can accelerate global temperatures rises to 3 degrees centigrade!

The links you supplied https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=44 stated, "As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect"

The links continued, "How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C".

[willbewhatiwill]

Zacs-Master,

My point is over a degree centigrade rise in GOBAL WARMING since the industrial revelation - from burning fossil fuels & also cutting down trees. Hence the REAL problem is global warming, not CAUSES of global warming.

Though facts indicate that rising CO2 (by burning fossil fuels & cutting down trees) raise global temperatures - in tandem with CO2 levels (in ppm).

[ToraToraTora]

That's the point water vapour is the main green house gas, facilitating the effects of the others.

[willbewhatiwill]

ToraToraTora: "That's the point water vapour is the main green house gas, facilitating the effects of the others".

So you admit that global warming is the effects of water vapour accelerating the effect of global warming - by the rise of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, cutting down trees, etc.

[ToraToraTora]

I accept that CO2 plays a part in global warming. It's all part of natural planetary cycles. There have been forest fires long before human activities. The oceans/plants (check out "long carbon cycle") produce most of the CO2 on earth, some from Volcanoes (look up "son of Krakatoa", continuously erupting since 1883 for example), mankind? 4%. UK? 4% of that 4%.

[willbewhatiwill]

Tora, Tora, Tora,

I am not a climate change basher, frantically support ‘green’ policies to the detriment of a country's (especially UK) economy and technical progress. I am more aligned with Donald Trump in this respect.

My belief has always been - Green bashers should realise that everyone wants clean environment & it should mainly be new technologies, not compulsion, that will ensure this.

[Zacs-Master]

Do you know, I could have sworn this post was about raising taxes.

[willbewhatiwill]

Zacs-Master: "Do you know, I could have sworn this post was about raising taxes".

It is losing tax revenue so as to cut down on CO2 emissions.

[Zacs-Master]

erm....tomayto / tomarto

[EDDIE51]

TTT , I put 'Free' in inverted commas intentionally, obviously there is a cost involved. I mean free in the sense that it does not deplete the Earth's resources.