Published: Thursday, Nov. 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Re: "I don’t deny that a carbon tax wouldn’t be a financial
burden on Americans in these trying times, but . . . ."And, of
course, what you don't mention [maybe your USU prof forgot to mention it]
is that the deranged financial burden on American families you demand, would
have not the slightest effect on either atmospheric CO2 levels, or on global
warming.It would greatly benefit the UN and bloated, unaccountable,
unsustainable government and its liberal cronies and supporters, but no one
else.No real people.Why do liberals hate young,
struggling American families so much?
For about the past 15 years global warming hasn't happened. (Something the
mainstream media isn't likely to tell you).Nevertheless here
are ideas that would be good if they were implemented.1) Put a tax
on all imported oil sufficient to pay for the military force necessary to ensure
it remains available.2) Make use of Yellowstone and all other
geothermal in the United States.Were we to impose this tax on
imported oil, then renewable energy wouldn't be as expensive in comparison.
Remote Sensing highlights NASA satellite data which shows that the atmosphere
has been shedding heat long before United Nations computer models predicted
global warming. And the study indicates that far less future global warming will
occur than global warming zealots have claimed. Well, there we have it! The
earth is not warming and the computer models are wrong!
procurator: "Why do liberals hate young, struggling American families so
much?"Sheesh. Why do conservatives so easily fall for
reactionary rhetoric? Why do you so easily believe that voting against the
interests of the middle class and your own futures is the right thing to do?
Why do you so belligerently reject scientific reality? Do you think that if you
just plug your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and whistle loudly that the
science of global climate change will just go away?The only down
side to the carbon tax is that it will _slowly_ begin to shift our economy away
from the worst polluting sources of energy and towards less damaging energy
production. The result will be cleaner air and water, less dependence on
unstable foreign regimes for our energy and a badly needed economic kick in the
pants in the area where the US still excels, barely - technology.Yep
- with a tax on carbon you might discover that a 10 mpg SUV and a home forty
miles from where you work isn't the wisest use of your money, but it's
your choice. Is that bad? I don't think so.
Agreed.K-Y-O-T-O.Sign it.There once was a
time when America led the world and set the better standards, We are now
30 years behind the times, and behind rest of the world.It's
time to catch up, and be the world's leader - and not it's follower.
Is the air cleaner in Utah today than it was fifty years ago? I remember well
the first year that we lived in Salt Lake City, 1955. The winter air was full
of smoke from the wood and coal burning furnaces that many people used to heat
their homes. As the years went by and as people converted to natural gas, much
of the haze disappeared. Of course we still have a problem, but that problem is
the result of living in a bowl. Most of the people in Utah live in a bowl.
With the right weather conditions, pollution is trapped in the bottom of the
bowl. If all driving were banned during those times, we would still have
significant pollution. Would the letter writer have us turn off our
furnaces?America is a much cleaner country than most other countries
in the world. Taxing us into oblivion will not clean up the air, even if
man-caused CO2 pollution were actually a viable problem.
We did not create this planet how can we save it? Human survival is dependent on
doing what this author says not to do. We need fuel to survive. This is an
attempt to control people over things they can't control and destroy
cjb: "For about the past 15 years global warming hasn't happened.
(Something the mainstream media isn't likely to tell you)."They doesn't "tell you" because it isn't true. Land-Sea
temperatures in the 2000-2010 decade are far warmer than the previous decade,
which was far warmer than the previous decade, etc.The only way to
get the "no warming in 15 years" is to severely cherry pick data. A
global, decade-to-decade perspective is as narrow a filter as you dare apply and
still have honest research. "No warming in 15 years" is a cynical,
intentional distortion of the science.Atmospheric CO2 levels are now
400+ ppm, higher than in hundreds of thousands of years. Analysis of
atmospheric carbon shows that it's from burning fossil fuels, not natural
sources. Changes in solar output has been studied and eliminated as a source for
warming. Sea levels _are_ rising, there's a lot more heat
energy now in the oceans, and together this means a greater expected frequency
of powerful storms.Climate is changing tremendously faster than any
natural climate change, and species can't adapt that fast. We
own this problem, and it's our responsibility to act on it.
Amber says, "It’s easy to say what needs to be done for our
planet"...Please Amber... tell us what needs to be done!You only mentioned ONE thing... (A Tax). Is that all it takes? A
tax?IF a tax would fix it... I'm pretty sure we would do that.
Problem is... we all know a tax wouldn't fix it.A new tax is
NOT the solution to every problem. I wish tax-headed liberals could understand
that.I wish someone would tell us what is evidently so obvious to
Amber... The obvious thing we all know we need to do to fix global warming.
It's not that obvious to me. I want to see if everybody agrees on what
needs to be done. Please... everybody post what YOU think needs to be done.
Let's see if Amber is right, and we all agree.Thanks
Subtext: everything I know about the environment I learned by watching Captain
@ Blue. Read the UN climate change report published recently, "Why the earth
has not warmed for 16 years". It is an excellent report and explains the
hoax of manmade global warming and what miscalculations were made by global
warming advocates. The final comment was, "Apparently the earth's
atmosphere is much more efficient in reflecting the sun's energy back into
space than we originally thought".
Good article, but the carbon tax could be "free". A carbon tax could
return all proceeds to citizens. This would "pay for" any price spikes
at the pump. In Canada BC has a carbon tax that reduces other taxes. This has
cut emissions by almost 20% and yet BC is growing faster than other
provinces.Emissions are cut because the "free market"gives
low carbon solutions a boost, once dirty energy is charged for pollution.
I would be totally in favor of this tax on one condition - it is that all the
carbon tax collected goes into my bank account.If the goal of the
author and like-minded individuals is really to reduce CO2 and not just to
concentrate wealth into the hands of a bunch of bureaucrats, then the author
should be just fine with my proposal, right?What is important is
that behavior is changed and the planet is saved, so it shouldn't matter if
all the money goes to me. I can probably put all that money to much better use
than could the UN or any other tax collecting body.
Let's start by banning our elected officials from using anything that emits
CO2 gasses. That's right Pelosi, no more private air force rides for you.
You can use your solar car to drive from San Francisco to DC whenever you need
it.After all these people are the "true believers" in the
religion of give us your money and we'll take better care of you than you
can of yourself. They should at least follow and live their religion before
they come and force us to follow them and give our wealth to them.Is
that asking too much?The fact is we can't even balance our
budget and pay off the national debt. Do we really believe that we are in a
position to lecture other countries on how to build their economy? We
can't afford to buy off countries anymore.
Mountanman (sic) - Are you referring to the UN IPCC report that was published in
September of this year? You know, the one in which the UN and all participating
countries found, with 95-100% confidence, that based on observations of the
atmosphere, land, oceans, and cryosphere it it is extremely likely that humans
are the primary cause of climate change. Can you please point to
specifically where in the document your stated "comment" exists?
I'd like to read up more on how the UN believes that climate change is a
I don't think is going to ask anyone how much money they made while on
Earth, but I suspect he will be asking if we were a good steward of it.Something I learned in Sunday School from Sister Belnap and Boy Scouts
from Bro. Mower -- ALWAYS leave a place better than you found it.
Re: "The only down side to the carbon tax is that it will _slowly_ begin to
shift our economy away from the worst polluting sources of energy . . .
."Hmmmmm. That's the only down side, huh?How
about the tripling or quadrupling of costs of basic necessities of life for
millions of young American families? They're just on their own, huh? Or
maybe the "green" movement just wants to starve them out of the
equation?Suggesting that America owes the world a symbolic heaving
of untold billions into the gaping may of feckless environmentalism, to NO real
effect, is EXACTLY that action of "plug[ging] your fingers in your ears,
clos[ing] your eyes and whistl[ing] loudly" you speak of above.Sheesh, indeed. And, you still don't answer the question.
Amber,The degree to which additional carbon dioxide influences the
climate of the planet is often referred to as climate sensitivity to CO2. The
understanding of the world's climate scientists of the physics of this
sensitivity is expressed in their computer generated climate models. These are
the models which predict the future temperature and climate of the earth if CO2
emissions continue at various rates. These models are fundamentally
flawed and invalid. They are over predicting the amount of temperature increase
as a function of increasing CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. As each month
passes the divergence between the temperatures predicted by the models and the
actual measured temperature increases. Until this problem is solved and the
models are corrected, it is unwise to spend a single penny on reducing
mankind's carbon footprint.
procuradorfiscal - I'd like to learn more about we feckless
environmentalists. Your assertive statement that a carbon tax would triple or
quadruple the "costs of basic necessities of life for millions of young
American families" is based off which study?
We did not create this planet how can we save it? We do not need to
save the planet; the planet will do just fine. If, however, we want it to
continue to support human life, we need to make that a priority.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments