Comments about ‘My view: Gambling with our future’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

Why is it that solutions to "global warming" always contain a tax of some kind? Most of those who propose the tax solution seem to be from an above average income bracket where there is some degree of wealth over and above meeting basic needs?

Physicians make a lot more than the average person, while I do not decry their earned income in a highly demanding occupation, they seem to forget that there is a group of citizens that are adversely affected by any tax increase. I note the author is retired, and most likely has not children at home.

From the news, it appears that China and India are the two nations who pollute the most, yet the author proposes to tax Americans as if this will influence the Chinese and Indians to ... do what?

In light of the ACA's unknown increase in our health care costs, talk of a new tax appears to me to be ill-conceived and just another attempt at control over the citizens by those who think they know best.

Bountiful, UT

Why do we assume that the temperature the earth is now is the best temperature possible. This is improbable. Chances are the ideal temperature is either hotter or colder than we are now.

Dietrich, ID

If people were this hysterical before the industrial revolution we would be living in the horse and buggy age. We have zero control over the climate, why let it control us? And why are people living longer now? It is because of the industrial revolution.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

These comments are from the usual ostriches in the sand. WE're in a closed room and we're filling it with CO2. This is a dumb thing to do if we want to survive. We need to move rapidly away from CO2 emissions, which doesn't have to be hugely disruptive.

MemoFromA Demo

The author writes: "How can we move quickly to clean energy and avoid the cost severe climate effects ...?" He then blows his cover by offering us a glass of Kool-Aid, claiming that a "revenue neutral tax swap" is the answer.

Come on! Get serious! A revenue neutral tax swap? Please. Don't try to pull that worn out trick on us. Aren't we tired enough with having to deal with political lies?

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Man cannot control his environment.

Except the history of mankind is specifically that of shaping the environment to suit.

Other temperatures would be equally beneficial (or more so).

Except the planet has adapted to the current range over millenia. Adaptation is too slow for the pace of change. Also, OUR adaptation (food sources) are based on the current temperature range.

It will be expensive to change.

It will be expensive not to. Just that we will not control the when and where of the expenses nor the outcomes.

There is no science to support man made global climate change.

Other than the actual science. What is cited against climate change is mostly bogus.

Pleasant Grove, UT

"To ignore what science has demonstrated would be folly...."

I agree. And science has demonstrated that global average temperatures have not risen measurably in 16 years. Yet the IPCC report utterly fails to mention this fact, or deal with it in any way.

Why should we trust "science" that ignores known facts?

American Fork, UT

We may not gamble here, but we can sure deny.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I'm not sold on man made climate change. I've seen the dinosaur bones. I heard that climate changed and froze them I heard that the methane gas from them, was sparked and burned them. I had big dogs in the bed room, I know what methane gas is. I'm more in cline to think that man has an ego to think he is as big as the earth and can change the way the earth turns.

Salt Lake City, UT

Yes, agreed.

A very substantive (and annually increasing) across the board carbon tax is the easiest and most effective way to move industry and consumers away from fossil fuels and fossil fuel-derived products (packaging, plastic goods, etc.)while at the same time providing a great incentive for non-plastic products and non-fossil fuel energy sources. Distributing the fee equally to all citizens and residents provides revenue which further stimulates the economy. Fee and dividend is clearly a win-win plan for the planet, the environment, the people - and for air quality.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Every day we live is a gamble. Turning our future over to some government bureaucrat to tax us and control our access to energy will not make it any less a gamble.

In fact, the case can be made that people acting in their own self-interest have more information about their own situation and will make BETTER decisions, and more effective decisions concerning their own energy use than some politically affected bureaucrat who doesn't even know what's going on in my house, or in Utah, or in the whole United States, or the world for that matter.

Every day is a gamble. Every day I gamble that I won't get hit by an asteroid on my way to work. I still go to work.

That doesn't mean you don't take any precautions to limit risk (including global warming). You limit how much energy you use and how much pollution you cause (as much as you can), and you watch out for asteroids. But you keep on living. Even though every day is a gamble.

Turning control over to some dude in the government to control my energy use... is not the answer.

Bountiful, UT

re Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Did you know that with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plants grow better? This includes plants that provide food for people.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Re "WE're in a closed room and we're filling it with CO2"...

The irony in Irony Guy's comment is... if you want your comment to be credible.. don't start with a false chicken-little statement. We are NOT living in a closed room (well... maybe he is).

The atmosphere is far from a closed system. It's NOT a "closed room". IF it were... all the C02 ever breathed out by all living creatures in the millions and millions of years there has been life on this planet would just be accumulating (hint... it's not), all the smoke ever put out by all earth's volcanoes, all the smoke from every forest fire, etc, as long as the world has been around would still be in the air circling the globe (hint... it's not) and we would be dead (but we aren't).

Obviously nature has ways to scrub the air and even remove C02 from the atmosphere. Plants are one of nature's recycling mechanisms, but earth's vast oceans do even more to scrub the air.

We do NOT in fact live in a closed room rapidly filling up with C02.


Glad you asked. When we do what is right, like making law against pollution (adding a fee to it), we often find that other good things happen. God is good!

First, the pollution fee is not tax. It won't go to government, but equally back to people. It does not generate revenue. It penalizes & stops pollution because pollution is bad.

Who'll lose money & make money because of the fossil pollution fee? The answer is who uses more than the average fossil energy and who uses less. Some poor folks who drive further and have leaky houses will find lose money. But MOST poorer folks will find themselves MAKING money, because rich folks like Dr. FOLLAND use enough fossils to put things in poorer folks' favor.

We should return more to the poorest among us who are most hit by the fee, but wisely. Put it toward efficiency & renewable energy upgrades, not to their fossil energy bills. That's simply smart.

That's how this works. The market is smart. People are smart. When we trust them, we win. But we cannot expect the right thing to happen when our law is immoral and pollution is free!

Sandy, UT

"And science has demonstrated that global average temperatures have not risen measurably in 16 years." - Nate

Whenever I read a comment like Nate's, it becomes clear why MLM supplement companies are so prevalent in Utah.

For the record, Science doesn't care if you believe it, deny it, or in your case Nate, misrepresent it.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I'll play along with the Global Warming deniers for a minute,
and pretend that 95% of the Scienticif community 'might' be wrong or at the very least inconclusive at the moment...


If there was even a remote chance they might be right...
With what's at stake,
Wouldn't you want to play it safe, or error on the safe until a final conclusion is made?

So many of you remind me of the people during Noah's time mocking him about his boat and warning them about the floods,
that is, until it started raining...


Bountiful, UT

Did you know that with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is what makes the surface of Venus to be over 700 degrees Farenheit?

This universal fact includes the planet right next to it, the Earth we call home.

10:38 a.m. Oct. 30, 2013

Cambridge, MA

To "David Folland" would you continue to recommend a procedure or medication for your patients that was proven to be based on bad data or analysis?

According to the NOAA, if we ever have 15 years where there is no statistically significant warming, then the models are wrong. There are now official government agencies stating that there has been no warming for the past 15 to 18 years.

The models that the IPCC is based on are wrong. If the models are wrong, what makes you think that the results are still accurate?

The question is why do you still trust a model that the NOAA says is wrong?

To "Open Minded Mormon" did you know that Venus' atmosphere is 92 times more dense than the Earth's, so it doesn't matter what the atmosphere is comprised of it would be hotter than here. It is like saying that your 3 inch thick quilt is warmer than a flat sheet. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that a significantly larger amount of insulation results in a warmer climate.

Centerville, UT

With the increases in CO2 that now exists, and the current temperature that now exists the earth is at least 11% greener than before. The Redwood forests are growing at a rate 30% faster than they were at lower levels. CO2 is not a pollution. And name one tax that ever got back to the poor at a rate that covered the increases in cost caused by taxing them at a higher rate. For the poor, a carbon tax means milk will cost more because of production costs rising and transporting costs rising, food on the table will cost more because of production costs and transportation costs rising. Heating their apartments will cost more. The housing they live in will cost more to build. And what government program has not resulted in graft and corruption at some level. A carbon tax as proposed will never do more than drive more and more into poverty. Just look at LBJ's war on poverty, has it decreased poverty in the US? No.

But the really BIG question that all the AGW religion advocates here will not provide and science can not provide, What is the correct temperature? Just give it your best shot.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I like the way some people think a majority vote makes something "Scientific Fact".

You don't have to vote on Science. To become "Scientific fact" It must be testable and predictable and provable (not just a majority vote). For example... We don't have to vote on what gravity should exist for a given mas. It's not up for debate. That's "Science".

If you can't PROVE your hypothesis... and have to rely on a majority vote, convincing political speeches, and graphs of selective data, followed by no mathematical proof, just a popular vote to see if people are convinced... that's NOT "scientific fact".

Scientific "fact" is provable, testable and the expected result is precisely predictable. Global Warming is not to that point yet.

If it were scientific "Fact"... you wouldn't need a popular vote. You could PROVE it, and there would be nothing subjective left to vote on.

El Tigre
American Fork, UT

Can anybody tell me when the climate has not been changing?

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments