Dru

Febreeze?

but how many of those werre from chile?

That's not an accurate conclusion to draw from the fish they used. But I doubt the editor at CNN has a statistics background.

don't be silly, Al Gore would never have invented Peter Puget.

Fairweather is right! Socialism rots the brain! Dru, that's exactly the same data you cited. Either it's representative, or it's not. no - overall the data is valid, but split into subpopulations, there is not enough data to be valid, except maybe with respect to Canadian salmon which made up the majority of the samples.

to be fair they should have emissions quotas for individuals too. then if you leave your SUV and walk to work, or eat wild salmon instead of kidney beans, you'd get an emission credit you could trade!

it's BreezyD's fault

And a tranny that explodes at 80,000 miles not to mention minivans are the shorts over polypro of the automotive world.

year two. Plant A still produces 2,000,000 tonnes. Plant B invested some of its profits from selling excess emissions from quota into better emissions controls. Plant B only emits 400,000 tonnes this year. Quota is lowered from 1,000,000 tones to 900,000. Plant B sells Plant A 500,000 again. Plant A now has to buy 1,100,000 tonnes. 500,000 from Plant B and 600,000 from other sources or be fined. Net emissions (A+B) drop from 2,500,000 to 2,400,000. Repeat until Plant A becomes unprofitable due to high cost of fines and quota buying and is shut down.

Umm, no. 2*quote + 1/2*quote = 2.5*quote, not 2*quote. You've actually increased pollution. lets say both plants have a quota of 1,000,000 tonnes. plant one - produces 2,000,000 tonnes plant two - produces 500,000 tonnes. sells credit for the other 500,000 tonnes to plant one. Then Plant one is either fined for producing 500,000 tonnes over quota, or has to purchase crediots for another 500,000 tonnes from a third supplier. of course, you could skip emissions trading entirely. just use legislation, and fine plant A. but this does not reward Plant B for reducing its emissions.

only 2 of the 10 salmon were chilean - not enough to draw a conclusion.

How do YOU have so much spare time you can spend an hour trolling through Spray? 18 posts takes ~9 minutes. Out of a 24 hour day, that's nothin.

Post em if you got em.

Ryland, although you are correect that in the example with coal plants, the overall emissions level does not decrease because the total emissions still equals the quota level - the second part is that the permitted quota decreases over time. Thus buying quota instead of reducing emissions becomes more and more expensive as time goes on. Which is not the case with wetlands example.

"gojng"!

Circuit Boards don't aid digestion Dru!

"Mom, can I have some more salmon on my PCBs?"

Given that the current commercial fisheries are overfishing and that catches are declining precipitously in every lake and ocean in the world - no, it wouldn't. Unless you are thinking of plankton and jellyfish as seafood because this is what our fishing down the food chain leads to.

especially using the advanced Alpine K crevasse detection technique

Actually, with emissions trading, emissions ARE reduced. You get a quota for how many emissions you are allowed. If you emit more than your quota, you are penalized unless you buy more from someone who then agrees to emit less than their quota to make up yours. It rewards conservation by making the amount you conserve a tradable asset with a price attached. Lets say you buy a coal plant. Then you shut it down and sell its emissions quota, piece by piece, to SUV drivers. You profit. The SUVs didn't have a quota in the first place. Global emissions drop by the amount the coal plant you shut down, would have emitted. In effect the SUV drivers pay to shut down the coal plant.

bopkn - that's BOsch Pentacle KNight

the crux is not the start but the well-protected stemming just above that. the rest is casual. its a great 5.8 route, 5.9 boulder start very easily protected with wired nut.