Quantcast

Comments about ‘My view: A global warming solution to grow the economy’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 29 2014 3:14 p.m. MDT

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

I sympathize but there are some problems with this proposal. If the carbon tax is levied at the mine head or well head, that will raise the price of carbon fuels. But then if the tax is returned to customers they will use those revenues to continue buying such fuels, right? Moreover, the carbon tariff will raise prices at a time when the middle class is suffering.

Moreover in the current political climate this proposal can go nowhere.

Also, it attempts to game the market to do the right thing. The market cannot handle climate change. There needs to be declared a humankind emergency to coordinate internationally the advancement of solar energy recovery. I know, I know, this can't go anywhere either in the current political climate, nationally and globally. But a few more big events like a couple of "typhoons of the century," big Sandy-sized hurricanes in New England, or the drying up reservoirs like Lake Mead or Lake Powell will convince people that something is really going on - then we will get action.

This involves losing precious time, but it's the only way things are going to change.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

The author misses some very important facts! Carbon taxes will be passed on to consumers which will harm poor people the most by increasing costs of food and energy (and everything else) while doing NOTHING for the environment! Productivity produces prosperity! A carbon tax will guarantee a destruction of productivity and increase poverty! If low productivity produced prosperity, every 3rd world country in the world would be prosperous, but they are not and the reason they are not is that they are not productive! A carbon tax will do nothing but destroy productivity, period!

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Dave Folland

When you begin with unproven presumptions, your conclusion is virtually guaranteed to be wrong. This article does, and is.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The devastation is already upon us in the West. We are draining our ancient aquifers. Every single drop of the Colorado River watershed is pumped out. We have created a greenhouse over our heads, and still our Republican leaders grin blissfully and push for even more development. The carbon tax is the right thing to do, but it is too little too late in the face of self-destructive ignorance.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

Denmark basically does this and the first two comments miss the key part of how this works. The tax that gets passed on to consumers does not hit all consumers equally. Those who use more energy pay more in those taxes and those who use less will pay less. However, when it gets returned as a tax credit everyone gets the same amount back so those who use less energy get more back then they put in. That's the incentive to use less.

Maudine
SLC, UT

@ Nate: What unproven assumptions? Where and how does this editorial go wrong?

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

"May and June were the hottest months ever recorded."

More accurate satellite data (RSS/UAH) show that these months aren't even hottest of the last decade.

Moreover, NOAA has been systematically making adjustments to the thermometer temperature records. The hottest temperatures for the US were in the decade of the 1930's. The adjustments have "cooled" the 30s to make present temperatures appear as record warmth. Google: "NOAA temperature adjustments" to see for yourselves.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

@chilly
It was ranked 3rd warmest for NASA and 4th warmest for RSS and UAH. The differences are hundredths of a degree between the 1st and 5th warmest years so it's fairly normal for them to be a few spots different in rankings since there are some differences in methodology for handling things like the more sparsely sampled Arctic. I would note that of the 5 datasets (NOAA, NASA, CRU, RSS, UAH) the one with the fastest warming trend in the satellite era is RSS and the one with the slowest warming trend in the satellite era is UAH. All those "less accurate" datasets are in between the satellite ones, suggesting that they seem to be doing a decent job of it.

"The hottest temperatures for the US were in the decade of the 1930's. The adjustments have "cooled" the 30s to make present temperatures appear as record warmth."

Actually their most recent adjustment warmed the earlier years. NOAA currently says that July 1936 is the warmest month on record for the U.S. 2012 is the warmest year for the U.S. (look up "NOAA National Temperature Index")

VST
Bountiful, UT

Doctor Folland,

I have but one basic question. Why should the carbon fee be collected in the first place (which will initially come from the folks because of higher energy costs imposed by the producers), then, turned around and given back to the folks?

What is the value-added?

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

Though "warmed the earlier years" isn't quite right, the net effect bumped up the summers in earlier years and lowered the winters in earlier years (the annual numbers don't really change much). The adjustments largely stem from the matter of how to best deal with the matter of changing numbers of stations and interpolating the space in between stations. From the NOAA national temperature index page you can see that adjustment in ClimDiv compared to the older USHCN method.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

Problem with Carbon Tax is that the biggest polluters will buy carbon credits and be exempt. Also, this tax won't be going to the Government but this cults leader Al Gore.

soapyrub
Boulder, CO

Finding trustworthy (not politicized) information is difficult with the flood of money from the libertarian/fossil fuel complex. There is overwhelming consensus that: "Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. From 1880 to 2012, the globally averaged surface temperature rose by 0.85° C (1.5°F). The rate of temperature increase has risen as well. For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed over the previous half-century. In the next 20 years, scientists project that global average temperature will rise by around 0.2°C (about one-third of a degree Fahrenheit) per decade."

Spangs
Salt Lake City, UT

My favorite comment is the one about how this plan is all a conspiracy spearheaded by Al Gore. So true. The Goreluminati. Climate scientists are actually clones of Al Gore who have been programmed to write science papers culminating in the destruction of the American way of life. The only way we can fight this is for all of us to start "rolling coal." I just modified my Toyota Corolla to do just that.

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

Frozen Fractals: "Actually their most recent adjustment warmed the earlier years. NOAA currently says that July 1936 is the warmest month on record..."

Conveniently, they changed it back after virtually every media outlet in the U.S. had run stories on "HOTTEST MONTH ON RECORD". How many of these retracted the story or even mentioned the re-adjustment? Certainly, alarmists like David Folland never got the word.

The truth is that current temperatures are about the same as the 1930s. This after a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. We've conducted, accidently, the experiment of large scale planetary CO2 addition with little, if any, temperature change. Natural forces clearly dominate earth's climate and we have not yet figured out how it works.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

@chilly
"The truth is that current temperatures are about the same as the 1930s. "

That's not true. Globally they aren't even close (none of the 1930s are in the top 30 warmest years, 1934 is barely in the top 50).

If you look at a fraction of the world (contiguous US) in a very anomalous pattern (Dust Bowl years) there's a few short spans similar. However, the warmest year for the US was 2012 (+2.46F). 2nd was 1998 (+1.43F). 3rd was 2006 (+1.41F). 4th indeed is 1934 (+1.28F). Obviously 2012 shattered the record.

1931 is in 10th place, that's 2 years from the 1930s that are in the top 10 for the contiguous US. 7 of the other 8 are from 1998 onward. The coolest year for the contiguous U.S. that starts with 20-- is 2008 which still beat out 5 of the years from the 1930s including 1936.

Interestingly, while 1936 has the warmest month on record for the contiguous US (that July) it also has the coldest February on record (10.17F below the 1981-2010 mean). It was the 47th warmest year.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Everybody should read the National Climate Assessment, available on the NOAA website.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

Anyone who believes that imposing yet another tax on everyone and giving it to a bunch of bureaucrats (who will decide policy about how all that "new money" will be distributed) will solve this problem is living in fairy-tale land.

This money, like a lot of other tax money, will be largely wasted and distributed to a bunch of well-connected people (i.e. "friends" of elected officials). As more and more of them become addicted to this new found wealth, the carbon tax will grow and grow.

Just like the income tax which was imposed on a small percentage of Americans initially (the most wealthy), this tax will grow until we all have to fill out a 10 page "carbon return" at the end of the year to assess our carbon tax and claim our carbon credits. We will have to keep track of every time we lit a candle or mowed the lawn.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Are you getting weary of hearing the bad news related to global warming?"

No. Not at all. There's been precious little, anyway.

What I am getting weary of is tree-hugging, leftist economists trying to me sell snake oil. Like the biggest lunacy of all -- we can somehow tax our way to prosperity.

It's just not possible. It defies, not just the laws of economics, but the laws of physics, as well.

Regardless of what leftist economists say, real people know there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. We know there's no cold fusion.

And, we know there's no such thing as a free lunch.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Also read the EPA report "Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply." This is scary stuff.

Even the Deseret News is going to have to stake out a position on climate change.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . .read the EPA report 'Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply.' This is scary stuff."

Scary? Hmmmmm. I wonder of we read the same article -- "Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can be beneficial for some crops in some places. But to realize these benefits, nutrient levels, soil moisture, water availability, and other conditions must also be met."

If you're scared by assertions that successful agriculture must adapt to weather changes, long or short-term, that probably just means you haven't been deeply involved in agriculture.

That's been the heart of agriculture for millennia.

to comment

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