Quantcast

Comments about ‘Carbon illusion’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 5 2014 9:06 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Regardless, the least we could (and should) do is to stop subsidizing oil companies. They're doing fine, thank you.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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...

Onion Daze
Payson, UT

Per Mr. Mountanman:

"Photosynthesis requires carbon!"

Not just carbon, but 2 additional atoms of oxygen to make the molecule called carbon dioxide

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"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.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

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.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

" 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.

Liberal Today
Murray, UT

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!

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Mr Richards writes

"If you really believe that man can cause global warming, take it up with NASA

OK, 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"

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@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 position."

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Truck or SUV taking little Bobby to soccer = 12mpg
Toyota Corolla taking little Bobby to soccer = 42 mpg

User taxes are always the most fair taxes.

So, Tax'em.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

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.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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."

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ 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?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments