America's Conservative have NO solution, and are perpetuating the problem.
And the liberals are 100 percent off grid using no mining, electricity, cooking
fires, solar panels, bio-diesel, living as the ancient hunters gathers did minus
LDS Tree-Hugger, Open Minded Mormon, LDS Liberal, Airnaut, but not yet Samuel
the Liberalite, If we go on the concept of helping out the world population,
the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Plant growth
increases with increased CO2, that is why greenhouses have CO2 generators.
Plant growth increases with increased temperature, that is why greenhouses have
heaters to elevate temperatures.Current studies have shown, the earth has
greened up by at least 11% with the increased temperatures and CO2. With
an increase in CO2, plants require less water to grow, thus providing more water
for populations to live by. The WH climate report recognizes this in stating the
CO2 increase is resulting in larger amounts of pollen. But they tell us this is
bad.Why is this bad if the earth is making more plant growth which
can be used to feed the starving nations? Or do you simply need a sterile
earth to prove you have taken care of it?
jfreed27If you believe the federal government is going to return
carbon taxes to the people that just paid it in higher costs for food clothing
utilities and more you live in a dream world.
@J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTDo you think, even for an instant,
that He created an earth that his children could destroy by using the fuels that
He put beneath the surface of the earth for our use? He certainly
knows whether using resources that he provided to us for our well-being would
destroy the earth that He created. Of course those who believe that they are the
creators and not the creation would reject that statement; after all, they have
all knowledge, or so they suppose.5:23 p.m. May 6, 2014======= Um yes, in fact I do.I believe we are his
children, and like children has given us a huge bag of jelly beans, has told us there is enough and to spare, BUT we must be good stewards,
and us it Wisely & Sparingly.An Eternal concept -- God
will not use magic pixie dust to swoop down and save us from our own stupid,
selfish selves.FYI - He put Uranium 235 on the Earth too, we can
choose to use it for power or to blow up ourselves up with it as well.Same thing goes with fuels...
I'm curious why Mike Richards is believeing NASA now, but, disavows everything they say about the age of the Earth, the age of the
Universe, Black Holes, and Gravity?
@J Thompson,"There are a lot of reasons to debate a point, but
it is fruitless to debate with someone who makes his own rules."I don't see where anyone's done that. You're the one putting
words in someone's mouth and then refusing to address his points about the
value of the so-called evidence presented by ignoring his entire argument."Global warming is not something that God does not
understand."You started your comments with a lecture about the
scientific method, but now you're falling back on a theological argument
(furthering my belief that you're an alter ego of Mike Richard's). If
you want to invoke God, I think there's ample evidence that He's
willing to let us muck up our environment if we don't provide the
stewardship He's commanded of us. And who's to say that poisoning our
own planet isn't another sign of the times?
re: Unreconstructed Reb,There are a lot of reasons to debate a
point, but it is fruitless to debate with someone who makes his own rules. When
you are prepared to debate, using points that you have discovered to disprove
the comments that I and others have made, then we'll debate. Until then,
we can safely assume that you have no points. Global warming is not
something that God does not understand. Do you think, even for an instant, that
He created an earth that his children could destroy by using the fuels that He
put beneath the surface of the earth for our use? I find that type of opinion
to be more than arrogant. God knows the beginning from the end. He certainly
knows whether using resources that he provided to us for our well-being would
destroy the earth that He created. Of course those who believe that they are
the creators and not the creation would reject that statement; after all, they
have all knowledge, or so they suppose.
@Pops "...it isn't 97% vs 3%, by the way...."You are
correct. If I were a climate scientist and had been included in that study, they
would have lumped me in with the 97%, in spite of my skepticism. Here's
why: I believe that the temperature trend is upward (but not over the last
decade!); and I believe that that some negligible component of that warming is
contributed by man. For those two beliefs, I would have been counted in
agreement, although I don't really agree with them.I believe
that the earth is following a natural, cyclical pattern of warming and cooling,
that we are now warming as we climb out of the Little Ice Age, and that we are
still below the median temperature of the last few thousand years. I believe
that man's activities contribute a minuscule amount to that warming. I
believe that warming is no cause for alarm, and may in fact be beneficial.Many climate scientists make the same distinctions, yet people throw
around that 97% figure as if it means that every climate scientist believes --
like them -- in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. It just isn't
I don't think wanting everybody to go back to riding bicycles and horses is
a very progressive idea. I remember 5 years ago that the Idea of a
carbon tax was a conspiracy theory and now those same people that made fun of
this are the same ones that are advocating this.
one voteSalt Lake City, UTif we stopped pumping excess carbon onto
the atmosphere totally now, a national geographic article indicated in would
still be four to five hundred years to get rid of excess man made carbon. Wait
till every one in China and Mexico has two cars and an SUV too.12:15
p.m. May 6, 2014======= And let's not leave out the
Billion people in India...Face it -- WE have a problem, and
America's Conservative have NO solution, and are perpetuating the problem.
if we stopped pumping excess carbon onto the atmosphere totally now, a national
geographic article indicated in would still be four to five hundred years to
get rid of excess man made carbon. Wait till every one in China and Mexico has
two cars and an SUV too.
JThompson/LWhite,You persist in misstating what I've said by
appealing to the authority of scientists who have allegedly disproven global
warming. I don't understand how my comments can be interpreted in that
way except as deliberate spin. What was quoted was not from the
scientific report in question. It was from an anti-science website twisting the
report's findings to support its views and inferring beyond the
report's scope to suggest NASA debunked global warming. That is incorrect.
I'm "smearing" and "rebutting" the site, not
scientists.The report doesn't attempt address global warming at
all. It observes atmospheric deflections of recent high-energy solar eruptions.
But global warming isn't concerned with deflections, it's concerned
with trapping the energy that's actually absorbed over long periods of
time. It's vital to understand what the evidence is and what question it
answers.This information is readily available with 10 minutes of
searching to see for yourself. It highlights the need to critically evaluate
evidence instead of regurgitating what fits your point of view. Chastise
Richards and the proprietors of the site he cribbed "evidence" from for
that, not me.
Mr. Reb,If you'd allow me to interject something, I'd like
to give my opinion. Mike Richards wrote: "The claim has always
been that the heat from the SUN would be trapped by CO2 and that we would all
die. The report that I quoted clearly said that we don't need to worry
about the SUN. So now the pro-tax people morph into another argument.
That's just another example of "snake oil" salesmen at work.In a court, they would have been thrown out. It's time to see them
for what they are, not who they claim to be."It looks to me like
he told us that "snake oil salesmen" would be thrown out of court. I
can't find anything in his post that even slightly claimed that those
people who didn't agree with his ideas would be thrown out of court. In
fact, I didn't even see where he claimed to have his own ideas about the
matter. It sure looked to me like he simply respected the ideas of NASA
scientists whose observation disproved much of what other scientists have
re: Unreconstructed Reb,With all due respect, I think that I read
your posts carefully enough to see what you are trying to do. You disagreed
with quotes from scientists whose observations showed that solar flare radiation
coming from the sun bounced off earth's atmosphere. You didn't rebut
those quotes, you simply smeared them and the website that published them.
Doing that does not further the debate. Doing that does not examine the science
behind the findings.Science explores things. It changes its
"mind" when new data contradicts old data, otherwise we would still
think that the earth was flat and that everything revolves around the earth.
That concept was "settled science" for millenia - until scientists with
enquiring minds noticed irregularities in that "settled science".Everyone is free to express opinions. Some use that freedom to attack
the messenger instead of debating the subject of the message using factual data.
If you have data that NASA found after that experiment that proves that solar
flares do reach earth (meaning we'd all have been toasted when the first
flare hit earth), then please present it.
J. Thompson, you should read my posts more closely. I said nothing indicating
rejection of scientific findings in conflict with my views, nor did I accuse
scientists of lying. Quite the opposite.I am rejecting the cut
'n paste smear job from an anti-science website which twists scientific
findings to suit its own rejection of climate change. The original report does
not make any claims to study, much less reject, climate change, and therefore
does not stand for the propositions Mr. Richards asserts. I am upholding the
scientific process rather than getting my information from sources which
manipulate scientific reports to fight overwhelming scientific opinion. In
short, I am doing the reverse of the very thing you accuse me of, which should
be obvious by any clear reading of my previous posts.Mr. Richards
asserted that claims contrary to his own would be thrown out of court. As
happens frequently when he comments outside his expertise, he is wrong when
misapplying evidentiary standards. If I proffered in court what he claims is
scientific evidence, I'd face the prospect of sanctions from the judge, and
I object to his pseudo-authoritative use of terms he doesn't understand.
The first point is that the carbon fees are returned to the customer, leaving
that customer with a free market choice. He could continue to buy dirty energy
products. Or, not. Dirty energy (due to fees) will go up in price of
course, but the consumer (with the fees in his/her pocket) is free to buy low
carbon products, which are now more competitive - once the polluters have been
charged for the social cost, or fee.Second, thank heavens for Mr.
Obama! He is doing more to reduce emissions than any President has. CAFE
standards are higher. The EPA will regulate coal pollution. A large list of
other interventions for our oil habit is listed on the White HOuse websiteBTW: Also, most citizens are unaware that coal, for example, represents
a "hidden tax" on citizens of $100-$500 billion per year (Harvard School
of Medicine study, Epstein lead author, and the World Bank) in over 70 negative
costs, primarily in health costs. As we move to a low carbon energy
society that coal hit goes away. We need to vote smart, look at
voting records, and "extract" the "fossil tools" from
re: Unreconstructed Reb,I'm sitting here scratching my head
wondering why a lawyer would do what you did. It seems to me that you rejected
the findings of scientists without showing any evidence that they had lied about
their findings. You quoted a post from another thread to smear a poster, but I
don't see that he smeared a group, unless you inferred that you belong to a
group that rejects the findings of scientists and then, like the snake oil
salesman mentioned, morph the debate into something other than what is being
discussed. No lawyer that I know would try doing that. No scientist that I know
would reject the results of a scientific experiment just because those results
contradicted his opinion. In fact, every scientist that I know would carefully
study that test and then modify his opinion based on the results of that test.
You, on the other hand reject that new "evidence". Rejecting evidence
(observed phenomena) is not scientific. I'm wondering why you reject
"evidence" that conflicts with your opinion?
There is still no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.All climate researchers agree that if CO2 is added to the atmosphere,
the temperature will go up, all other things being equal. The amount the
temperature will go up is also undisputed, all other things being equal. The
divergence of opinion among climate researchers (it isn't 97% vs 3%, by the
way) occurs because "all other things" are not equal. The computer
models used by alarmists suggest positive feedbacks will potentially drive the
climate into thermal runaway. The data, however, shows that the climate is far
more stable than the models, to the degree that nobody has even been able to
detect a CO2 signal in the temperature data despite decades of trying. So yes,
I'm skeptical (but please take your "denier" language
elsewhere).The political component of the argument far overshadows
the scientific component - it's basically those who believe in freedom vs.
those who don't or who think freedom ought to be far more limited than it
"In a court, they would have been thrown out. It's time to see them for
what they are, not who they claim to be."Mr. Richards, I'm
a lawyer. You don't have a clue what you're talking about by trying
to invoke evidentiary standards to spin a NASA report to say something it
doesn't."So now the pro-tax people morph into another
argument. That's just another example of "snake oil" salesmen at
work."That's pretty aggressive from someone who just posted
on another thread:"The most common form is found right here on this
thread when people attack one person and then smear whatever "group"
that person is thought to associate with. That is hate speech. That is something
that polite people in a polite society would never do."
Are you really claiming that YOUR NASA information is correct and that MY NASA
information is not correct? Mike, NASA scientist, including the one
you cited, do not conclude what your post said they did.NASA
climatologists clearly state that they believe the exact opposite."It's amusing that some discredit anything that contradicts their
point of view"Yes Mike it is. For proof, just look in the
mirror.I notice that you did not address my posts with excerpts from
NASA own climate website.Why is that? Possibly because it
"contradicted your point of view"?
It's amusing that some discredit anything that contradicts their point of
view. I quoted the report. It reported exactly what the pro-tax people
don't want to see. They resort to using FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt)
to "prove" their point. The claim has always been that the
heat from the SUN would be trapped by CO2 and that we would all die. The report
that I quoted clearly said that we don't need to worry about the SUN. So
now the pro-tax people morph into another argument. That's just another
example of "snake oil" salesmen at work. In a court, they
would have been thrown out. It's time to see them for what they are, not
who they claim to be.
"NASA's own scientists, after observing an event, told us that the
claims made by NASA's other scientists were false."No, Mr.
Richards, they did not. Cutting and pasting misleading summaries of their
report from anti-science websites is not evidence. A review of the actual
report shows that the scientists are not making the claims you assert they are.
And even what you have cited is not evidence that C02 has a cooling
effect on the atmosphere. What was observed is that the C02 deflected the
majority of energy from a major solar event. Great. The atmosphere did its
job.But climate change isn't about external high-energy,
coronal mass ejections. It's about slowly turning up the temperature
inside our atmosphere because of gases we're producing, in effect moving to
a pressure cooker-like atmosphere such as that of Venus.It's
vital to understand both what you're observing and what you're
criticizing before you claim that the former invalidates the latter. Your cut
'n paste job shows comprehension of neither.
Re: ". . . we could (and should) . . . stop subsidizing oil
companies."We don't, of course, subsidize oil companies.Liberals love to sit and spin, suggesting that, since we don't tax
someone as heavily as we could, we're subsidizing them.They
don't fool most of us. By that same argument, we're subsidizing
environmentalists, abortionists, anti-Second Amendment activists, atheists, and,
worst of all, liberal politicians. Yeah, we directly subsidize politicians, but
we're also not taxing them as heavily as we could/should.As our
Marxist friend points out -- but liberals refuse to admit -- the burden of all
taxes are most likely to fall on those least able to pay. Evil corporations
don't pay taxes. We do. Corporations simply pass them along to those least
able to avoid them.Us.Taxes are a liberal scam to funnel
money to them, so they can engage in vote-buying giveaways. They're never a
good idea to bring about social change -- unless the change you're seeking
is to injure and beggar the real people you're supposedly looking out
for.So, what change are liberals really aiming for? Their actions
speak louder than words.
airnaut. Have you ever noticed how thin O2 is at higher altitudes? The answer is
gravity! Yes, that's right, just like CO2 is effected by gravity except as
I stated, CO2 is one of the heaviest gases and therefore it tends to rise less
than other gasses, including O2! When your body breathes CO2, it changes the
blood gas chemistry and your body automatically increases its respiration rate
to compensate (more intelligent design). Also the higher concentration of C02 in
the atmosphere, plant photosynthesis increases as well. So actually, higher C02
increases food production and makes food less expensive and fewer people go
hungry. C02 is not that "evil" gas liberals want to make it!
Re: Roland, Are you really claiming that YOUR NASA information is
correct and that MY NASA information is not correct? If a witness to the court
said that the defendant was not at the scene of the crime based on photographic
evidence and scientific evidence and the prosecution said that the defendant was
guilty based on their belief that he might have been there and that he
basically fit their profile and that they really really really thought he was
guilty, what would the jury think,It only takes one set of evidence
to "prove" that all of the suppositions made by the "official"
people are wrong to put into doubt ALL of their "evidence". NASA's
own scientists, after observing an event, told us that the claims made by
NASA's other scientists were false. Do you have data that discredits that
scientific experiment? Unless you do, that single experiment invalidates all
other claims made by other NASA scientists.
@Roland Kayser "You are [sic] the temperature in 1998 as a
baseline...."No, he isn't. His statement was "the earth
has been cooling for the last decade," which doesn't include 1998. This
assertion is true, as shown by Christopher Monckton in a guest essay published
July 21, 2013, on What's Up With That?, entitled "Ten years of
'accelerated global warming'?"Monckton examines the
terrestrial datasets HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC, along with the satellite datasets
RSS and UAH, and sees a slight decrease over that time period. You should go
have a look.
@Mike Richards: You are looking at one individual study. My quote comes directly
from NASA's website here they have analyzed thousands of studies.
MountanmanHayden, 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?2:16 p.m. May 5,
2014========== Then using your un-Scientific logic --
please explain why we are not all DEAD.CO2 is heavier than O2Nitogren is heavier than O2In your world of make believe, Oxygen
would only be found above altitudes over 30,000 feet.99.999% of all
life on Earth would be dead.un-intelligent design.
The earth is heading for an other ice age, at least that's what climate
scientists told us back in the 1960's and 1970's. Were it not for the
carbon we are putting into the air, we would be will on our way now. (Or they
were wrong) Even with all the carbon the earth hasn't heated up for the
past 17 years. Probably what is happening is a tug of war, carbon dioxide on
one side, and earth trying to go ice age on the other.
Wow! How many more times do right wing posters need to post junk science
articles which are quickly debunked by real science?I say, is
institute the tax. There's nothing wrong with creating new taxes if we all
get a new benefit! What's wrong with cleaning our air?I say,
redistribute the subsidies. Take them away from dirty oil and coal, give them to
green, and tax dirty fuel users.There's nothing wrong with
reasonable taxes. What repubs want to do is ruin our country to the point that
we can't have taxes because our country doesn't even exist!
@LDS Liberal,It may take less gas to drive the Corolla than the Van or the
SUV to the game. But because you can take more children in the Van or the
SUV... the amount of gas per person makes it more efficient (same concept as
taking a bus or train to work being more efficient then small vehicles even
though they get lower miles/gallon, but can carry more people).Some
families don't fit in a Corolla... And if you car pool... the van or the
SUV could actually be more efficient than the Corolla....Everything's not as simple as it seems through rhetorical glasses...
@ LDS liberalYou have it just backwards!The United States federal
excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) and 24.4 cents per gallon
(cpg) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add
31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax
of 49.5 cents (cpg) per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon (cpg) for
diesel.So, using your numbers we can calculate that your vehicle
getting 48 miles/gal cheats the government out of a difference of 36 miles/gal
(48-12) @ 49.5 cents/gal=$17.82 in fuel taxes!My points;#1: We already are
taxing em!#2: Who we should be taxing much more is high mileage vehicles
to make up the shortfall in revenue!
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
@ 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?
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."
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.
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.
Truck or SUV taking little Bobby to soccer = 12mpgToyota Corolla taking
little Bobby to soccer = 42 mpgUser taxes are always the most fair
@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
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"
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.
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.
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!
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!
" 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.
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.
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.
"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.
Per Mr. Mountanman:"Photosynthesis requires carbon!"Not just carbon, but 2 additional atoms of oxygen to make the molecule
called carbon dioxide
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...
Regardless, the least we could (and should) do is to stop subsidizing oil
companies. They're doing fine, thank you.
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.