Published: Wednesday, May 14 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
I agree with this op-ed. The free market is a absolutely great at devising
solutions to problems when it gets the proper price signals. Impose a carbon
tax, start it very low but have it rise steeply, so that in twenty years it is
rather high. Then let the free market go to work.The cost of solar
energy has fallen so fast that it is now totally competitive with coal in sunny
climates such as Arizona's. It will continue to decrease as long as we know
that carbon based energy will get more expensive in the future. MIT has been
doing marvelous work on storing solar energy. Give them some tax incentives to
continue their work.We also need to impose the carbon tax on imports
so that we do not disadvantage our domestic manufacturers. This is a problem
that can be solved, provided we act now. I am quite worried, however, that we
will do nothing, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will hate us for
Yes, indeed these are nettlesome issues. First, it turns out that the
"population bomb" is in fact very real. Climate change deniers often
cite in these blogs the allegedly false notion of a population bomb as
"proof" that the climate change theory is also wrong. But in fact
it's the growing population which requires the economy to get larger and
larger, and emit more and more CO2. So maybe we ought to look at slowing
population growth as a worthy goal, but that is going to be as controversial as
SSM.Another even more difficult issue is the idea that capitalism
itself requires economic growth. The system is not stable unless we have a lead
foot on the economic accelerator. We need economic growth both for a growing
population, but also because capitalism itself needs it to survive. There is
abundant evidence that capitalism simply doesn't know what to do with a
steady state economy. Study economic theory at any university. The theory
assumes growth. Period. That's what Keynes said.So what are
we going to do? There's not enough room to discuss.
Having a discussion concerning, what, if anything can be done about climate
change going forward is not unreasonable. Questioning $$ spent vs greenhouse
gas reductions expected (ie, cost benefit analysis) makes perfect sense.But to argue against its existence, based on a small subset of
scientists, the rantings of radio entertainers or on ones political party
affiliation, makes no sense at all.Funny how deniers question the
impartiality of 97% of climate scientists while having complete faith in the
motives of the 3% with which they agree.
I wonder if Samuelson read "Despite our belief that cancer and disease poses
catastrophic threats to many of the world's 7 billion inhabitants, we
acknowledge that we now lack the technologies to stop it...." I mean, how
many people out there battle and spend countless sums of money in futility
against terminal disease knowing that ultimately they will loose the battle as
we don't have an assured way of beating many terminal cancers?To walk from the battle of disease and cancer would bring a howl of
condemnation. The throwing up of the hands in defeat would not be accepted.So why are we so willing to declare defeat here? How long did people
toil to find cures to ailments that seemed incurable - only to have those
diseases ultimately tamed. We at this time don't know how to cure global
warming - but we know the benefit is of reducing pollution, and over
consumption. Just as we are extolled to have a balanced diet, we too can
sensibly use energy and ensure out environment we live is healthy. We will all
ultimately die, but we continue battle on to ensure to ensure quality of life.
Politics is the difference.
Deniers -- Consider, they said, a contrasting study headed by a Harvard
researcher. It found that heat-related deaths in 105 U.S. cities had declined
since the late 1980s.====== This is a classic "cause
and effect" disassociation people, with zero correlation -- WHO had central air conditioning in the 1980's?It's like
arguing that automobile deaths are down, therefore there are less
accidents, while dis-associating and willfully ignoring the fact that new
and better safety laws and devices i.e., Seat Belts, air bags, and anti-lock
brakes -- are the factor for the lower number.BTW -- If we
can't counter the effects, The only thing we have is to minimize the
The truth is, the GOP doesn't. Democrats do.
THE best and most truthful article on "global warming" ever written,
period! By the way, two days ago record low temperatures were recorded for this
time of year in S.E. Idaho. Why does that matter? One would think that if we
really have "global warming" we would have no such record low
temperatures anywhere on the earth being a global problem. In other words, it
should be getting warmer everywhere on the planet but clearly that is not
"One would think that if we really have "global warming" we would
have no such record low temperatures anywhere on the earth being a global
problem"In a related issue, I spent some time on the beach last
weekend. I clearly saw the ocean levels drop by a foot or two in just a couple
of hours.One would think that no such sea level drop would occur if
the oceans were rising.
Yes Mountainman..... the whole science of micro climates is bunk science too.
On the same note, we have already had 3 plus 90 degree days here in North
Carolina. In case you are wondering, these are not normal for this time of
year. For the record, I do believe there is global warming, and no,
I don't think it is totally man mad, or even mostly man made. But that
doesn't mean we should ignore the contribution man has on the event.Take Utah's inversion as an example. Man has next to nothing with
the events that cause an inversion. But man has a direct impact on the health
risk due to inversion by what we add to it. Man doesn't cause inversions,
but man does make inversions hazardous. Likewise we probably aren't
causing global warming... but we surely don't need to add to its impact.It isn't an either or discussion...
I used to say "pray for your children"; now I guess I'm going to
have to say "pray for yourself".It's going to get hot
around here (for you Christians, you can say that "god is burning us for our
sins if it makes you feel any better).
Mountanman,Did you not get the memo? Record cold confirms global warming,
just like severe snow storms(or the lack of them), just like record numbers of
hurricanes and tornados(or the lack of them), just like melting icecaps(or their
refreezing).And don't even think about bringing up the 17 year
pause. The heat is accumulating deep in the ocean, ready to rise up any time now
any wipe out humanity, much like Sharknado.
@DesNews... the term "Global Warming" passe now. The NEW term is
"Climate Chaos" (since it could go up... or down... you never know...
it's a complex system, and besides... it sounds like a super-hero or
something cool).Google "Stop Climate Chaos" Wikipedia... and
get with the program!"Global Warming" is out... "Climate
Chaos" is in...====Saw this in another paper
yesterday..."Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French
foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington to discuss
a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the
foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint
appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500
days remained to avoid "climate chaos"...Did you get that
people... we have only (lets see.. do the math...) 499 DAYS LEFT... to avoid
Climate Chaos!!!===Sounds so much like the plot from a
Hollywood movie... it's almost funny. ===I'm
going to keep doing all I can. But I'll check back in 499 days to see if
Fabius (and his scientists) are better than Al Gore's at predictions...
Oh good . . . Another article quoting a Koch-brothers’-funded
“Think Tank.” FYI, the American Enterprise Institute,
the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute are just a few of the phony
“Think Tanks” funded by the Koch brothers. Their credibility is
deservedly zero . . . much like that of the Koch Brothers’ funded Tea
Party, and the Koch Brothers employees in Congress who pretend to work for
America.“We have no solution.” If Republicans were
honest, that would be the motto and the entire platform of the Republican Party.
Global Warming is here, but its ill effects can still be
mitigated. Green energy sources are the best bet.“So far,
it's not commercially viable.”Yes, and that’s why
the private sector is absolutely WORTHLESS acting on its own. That’s why
we need the intervention of GOVERNMENT. We need government and private sector
cooperation in conducting research, and developing and building green
infrastructure.We need a sense of urgency and an international
Manhattan Project, where the best minds in the world focus on the goal of green
energy.We certainly don’t need the “Conservative”
refrain: “We have no solution.”
We have solutions...We have no will.
Roland,The idea that a carbon tax is a free-market solution is a fallacy.
A carbon tax is an artificial influence on the free market. Artificial is NOT
free market.To the lefties,As the article says, nothing will
“improve” if you cannot get the Chinese to go along. How do you
propose we do that? Are you willing to “enforce” it on them? How
do you propose that?Maverick,You do? Care to tell us what it
is?Eli,You’ve got it – broken the liberal code.
Global warming is proved by everything. Record cold, record snow, record prison
recidivism, gang warfare, hunger, outcome of NBA series. If there is any way
they can think to bend it, everything proves global warming.
“No sane government will sacrifice its economy today — by
dramatically curtailing fossil fuel use — for the uncertain benefits of
less global warming sometime in the foggy future.”This
captures the entire problem in a nutshell. We are amazingly short sighted
creatures and are wired to weight immediate problems far more than future
problems.The only way to tackle this problem is through
technological innovation that will produce economic benefits in excess of
current (fossil fuel) benefits.
"The most obvious idea is a carbon tax to help finance government and
stimulate energy-saving technologies and new forms of non-carbon energy."
Stimulate????? Taxes don't stimulate, they oppress.
They suppress will to work and the economy overall. This is why they must be
minimal and prudent.EVERY business that ships any product, or has a
building to heat, or uses a computer or equipment, will have to lay off people
to pay for the energy.EVERY household, the poor included, will pay
more for every morsel of food. The elderly and the children of the poor will
live, and many will die, in cold houses in the winter.This is a tax
that will hit and hurt the poor like no other.This tax proposal
shows what liberals are all about.
Re: "WHO had central air conditioning in the 1980's"...Oh great... now central air being more available and more affordable than it
was in the 80s is even proof of Climate Chaos.... Who had air
conditioning in their CARS before 1950?.... Even MORE proof of Climate
Chaos!!!====Let's just do what we can to live a
good clean life. Let's not try to cram our Climate Chaos religion down
other's throats... and just get along.
"To the lefties,As the article says, nothing will
“improve” if you cannot get the Chinese to go along. How do you
propose we do that? Are you willing to “enforce” it on them? How do
you propose that?"Absolutely love the logic. Unless I can get
everyone else on the highway to drive safe, why should I? It seems the
"righties" have and excuse not to do anything for everything. Now its
the other guy will not go the right thing, so why should we bother doing the
right thing.I would love to see that logic used in church. Why have the war on drugs if we can't make everyone stop using
drugs.... why bother...What people do in Salt Lake Valley impacts
the quality directly of the people living in Salt Lake Valley.... that should be
If there will be climate change(s) and if there is not much of substance that we
can do to stop or mitigate it then it appears to me that we spend time and
effort in adjusting to the changes.Some times I get the impression
that we seem hell-bent to keep the status-quo at all costs when some thought
could be given to how to adjust to new climate norms.Energy
efficient housing for less use of carbon based fuels? Less lawns and heavy
water consuming flora? More efficient life styles adopted by the citizens and
not forced upon them by a corrupt political process may be some ideas.Third world countries are going to continue to develop and enter their own
industrial age. Planners and control freaks may think that everyone, but them,
should live in idyllic semi-primitive villages and mid-19th century life styles,
but the Third world wants their day in the sun too.Adapt, overcome,
adjust instead of fighting to control the uncontrollable - nature. And even
more humorous, IMO, fighting nature with a tax! How bourgeois can that be?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments