Published: Monday, May 5 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Photosynthesis requires carbon! No carbon, no life on earth. And by the way, the
earth has been cooling for the last decade. Carbon is an imaginary problem
trumped up by those who would control the economy.
Regardless, the least we could (and should) do is to stop subsidizing oil
companies. They're doing fine, thank you.
It's a logical fallacy to assume a carbon tax would end or reduce CO2
emissions. Just as assuming a sin tax would end sin, and a speed tax would
reduce speed, or a war tax would end war, or a gun tax would end the need for
guns.More TAXES.... is not the solution for everything... I wish the
Left could learn that!===More taxes just means each
individual has to pay more to do what they already do.If you want to
STOP what they are doing... it takes more than a tax.===IMO a carbon tax would have the most impact on the poor... they are the least
able to buy new (more expensive) alternative energy sources, new battery powered
cars, energy efficient homes, solar panels, wind mills, etc, etc, etc...The rich people can afford these things (and could avoid the tax)... but
the poor can't.AND everything the poor MUST buy (food, heat,
shelter, etc) would all become more expensive as a result of the tax...
Per Mr. Mountanman:"Photosynthesis requires carbon!"Not just carbon, but 2 additional atoms of oxygen to make the molecule
called carbon dioxide
"More TAXES.... is not the solution for everything... I wish the Left could
learn that!"The concept of a carbon tax began with emissions
trading. It was introduced by George HW Bush as a way to bring in market forces
to control acid rain.Another case where "the left" gets
bashed for instituting a GOP idea.
Implement a carbon tax, start it low but increase at an annual pace so that it
is high in about twenty years. Then let the free market work, if the free market
understands that carbon based energy is going to get much more expensive, it
will come up with solutions that use more non-carbon energy and use less carbon
based energy.To Mountanman:The earth is not cooling, the 2000's
were hotter than the 90's. This decade is starting out hotter than the
2000's. You are the temperature in 1998 as a baseline, 1998 was a peak El
Nino year which led to the highest temperature readings recorded so far. We have
not had a peak El Nino year since then, so we have not broken that record, but
average temps continue to go up. The next peak El Nino year will certainly
shatter the 1998 record.
Brian, I am happy to see that there are people like you, smart enough to see
that taxes don't clean the air, and don't punish the rich. They just
make life more expensive and harder for every normal person.Taxes
are for funding essential services, like defense. They should not be used to
punish anyone, not do they clean the environment.
" Carbon is an imaginary problem trumped up by those who would control the
economy."Of course Carbon is one of the natural elements. It is
the foundation of life because of its bonding abilities with other elements. I
watched Cosmos last night - very interesting BTW. In the show deGraff Tyson
talked about the role of CO2 in patterns of heating and cooling of the
atmosphere in the ancient past. Tyson agrees with the consensus that CO2
emissions by man in the current era threaten the suitability of the earth for
human life - not necessarily all life, but it is a threat to human viability.
He's pretty persuasive. You climate change deniers maybe
should tune in.Oh and BTW, what's with "those who would
control the economy?" I am a socialist, and I can tell you most of the
environmental community aren't socialist, not even close.
Since we are all, including children, 18% carbon, we should tax every person,
man, woman, and child 18%.That will clean up the air for sure!
Yes, Cosmos really is worth watching, because it gives a foundation for debate
of a variety of issues, including and especially global warming. It occurs to
me that those who debunk the notion of global warming aren't just climate
change deniers, they are science deniers. They are suspicious of science
because it stands in opposition to a lot of ideology and religion.Cosmos is well done. Watch it if you dare!
NASA disagrees with COSMOS. NASA told us that MOST of the radiation that would
cause the earth to overheat is bounced off the atmosphere. In other words, that
radiation cannot be trapped by CO2 or anything else. NASA disagrees with those
who tell us that the earth is going to overheat. NASA disagrees with the
scientists who use government funds to prove that government should tax us for
living on a planet that has carbon based fuels available for our use, for our
comfort, for our mobility, for our industries. NASA disproved the fear
mongering going on by those who think that government has the right to control
us by taxing us to death. If you really believe that man can cause
global warming, take it up with NASA. Send your own satellites into orbit to
monitor things. Spend your own money, instead of taking grants from government
which wants you to prove that they can and should tax us.
Re: Mike Richards "If you really believe that man can cause global
warming, take it up with NASA. Send your own satellites into orbit to monitor
things. Spend your own money, instead of taking grants from government which
wants you to prove that they can and should tax us."See, Mike,
you are suspicious of the practice of science currently. Apparently to you
science is a con to get money and control through government. I
have been around a lot of scientists. I trust them to be honest in their
research for the most part. This doesn't mean there are no grounds to
question. That's fine, but you impugn the integrity of the investigators,
with a broad brush. You go too far.
Mr Richards writes "If you really believe that man can cause
global warming, take it up with NASAOK, Check out climate dot nasa
dot gov. I am confused as to what you are looking at.Under
evidences it says (these are a few excerpts. But nothing they write seems to
agree with you)"The evidence for rapid climate change is
compelling""The current warming trend is of particular
significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a
rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.""Most of
this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having
occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past
12 years""Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice
has declined rapidly over the last several decades"
@Mike Richards: This is what NASA really says: "Ninety-seven percent of
climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are
very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific
organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this
Truck or SUV taking little Bobby to soccer = 12mpgToyota Corolla taking
little Bobby to soccer = 42 mpgUser taxes are always the most fair
The Republicans may have introduced the concept of a carbon tax, but quickly saw
that it was a bad idea. The Carbon tax scheme isn't dangerous just because
it imposes higher costs on those who consume the most carbon. Rather, it is now
touted as an income sharing device between nations. In a sense, it
is somewhat like the old Catholic sale of indulgences, where a sinner paid the
church for the right to sin in the future. Carbon taxes allow a high-consuming
country to buy the right to keep on consuming, and "reimburse" countries
with a smaller carbon footprint.I accept the Climate Change science,
but reject the international carbon tax as just another socialist scheme.
I also oppose the carbon tax, fearing that it will land on people least able to
pay. We need to develop attractive alternatives to burning fossil fuels.
Re: Roland,Sorry, but what you posted is contradicted here:"As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak
and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's
upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place
between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy
released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was
reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower
atmosphere. The result was an overall cooling effect that completely
contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse
gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using
Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both
carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the
earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather
than absorb it."
@ Onion Days. The problem with the "green house" theory of CO2 is that
it is a very heavy gas, much heavier than water vapor (H2O) and as such,
CO2's mass makes it layer lower in our atmosphere than other gasses making
it impossible to create a green house effect. Yes, there is some mixing but
gravity solves that and the vast majority of CO2 finds its way to the
earth's surface where plants can adsorb it and produce life and O2 back
into the atmosphere. Intelligent design?
marxist,IF when you say "More ATTRACTIVE alternatives"... you mean
"more AFFORDABLE alternatives"... then I agree with you 100%...Then even the poor would move to the alternative (not just the rich
people).I also think people respond better to carrots than to the
sticks the Left likes to use (taxes, fees, fines, jail time, etc)...====If we had a more affordable alternative... I think everybody
would flock to it (even the poor).If we just add taxes, and try to
FORCE people to go to more EXPENSIVE alternatives OR ELSE... it probably is
domed to failure long-term. Most people will fall back to what they can afford
eventually.===So we need to find a way for the
alternatives to be affordable as well... IMO
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments