Reply With Quote
Now all that being said, a Carbon Tax won't ever pass - at least not in a an way it should work - so any discussion on the subject is a purely academic one.
If Alaska was suddenly the climate of the great plains and the great plains were suddenly like the southwest how long do you think it would take us to switch over to farming in Alaska? In the meantime what would you do for food production?
AGW definitely has the capacity to make some places throughout the world more suitable for food production but that doesn't mean we have the infrastructure in place to take advantage of that for a long time. You don't shift a nation's inertia on a dime so look at the situation in such simple terms is not an honest assessment of the way things would play out.
Now all that being said, a Carbon Tax won't ever pass - at least not in a an way it should work - so any discussion on the subject is a purely academic one.
I would argue that once a moderate system is in place, there is nothing to keep it from becoming punitive.
I hope you aren't stupid enough to really believe that, unless you are referring to a period on earth's development long before it has matured to these last million years or so.
Yes, Al Gore lies with his information. However, CO2 levels are increasing. At least argue with the factual data.
I am simply one who disagrees with those who say CO2 warms as much as they claim, but it does cause some minor warming. Look at the below graph. If CO2 caused as much warming as it is claimed to, then why don't we see a distinct change in temperature as CO2 started climbing 7,000 years ago? Notice that 12,000 years ago, CO2 started climbing with temperature increases and lagged the temperature.
I will contend that the rise in CO2 7,000 years ago is attributed to more life flourishing on earth and that CO2 is more dependent on output and equilibrium with the ocean and plant life. Ocean temperature changes that equilibrium between the atmosphere and oceans, and the atmosphere only contains about 2% carbon as the ocean does. It takes very little average ocean temperature change to make a dramatic change in atmospheric CO2.
See Henry's Law, and how temperature affects solubility of gasses in liquids.
i'm talking about big picture, historically in earth's history. i'm pretty sure that today carbon only makes up a fraction of a % of the air composition
temperature doesn't seem to correlate with CO2 levels at all imhoI hope you aren't stupid enough to really believe that, unless you are referring to a period on earth's development long before it has matured to these last million years or so.
Yes, Al Gore lies with his information. However, CO2 levels are increasing. At least argue with the factual data.
I am simply one who disagrees with those who say CO2 warms as much as they claim, but it does cause some minor warming. Look at the below graph. If CO2 caused as much warming as it is claimed to, then why don't we see a distinct change in temperature as CO2 started climbing 7,000 years ago? Notice that 12,000 years ago, CO2 started climbing with temperature increases and lagged the temperature.
I will contend that the rise in CO2 7,000 years ago is attributed to more life flourishing on earth and that CO2 is more dependent on output and equilibrium with the ocean and plant life. Ocean temperature changes that equilibrium between the atmosphere and oceans, and the atmosphere only contains about 2% carbon as the ocean does. It takes very little average ocean temperature change to make a dramatic change in atmospheric CO2.
See Henry's Law, and how temperature affects solubility of gasses in liquids.
That's my point. CO2 equilibrium between the oceans and atmosphere is dependent on temperature. As CO2 increases, the carbon levels of both will increase at a 50:1 ratio with the oceans absorbing 50 times that of the atmosphere. As temperature increases, the oceans will release CO2 until equilibrium is established. As temperatures decrease, the oceans will absorb CO2 until equilibrium is established.
If all these bull green businesses were were such a sure thing, the private sector would have already been all over the different viable verticals. As it is, the technology does not exist yet, or it is too expensive to introduce these "green" options to the average joe/jane. Notice that it's the government throwing our tax money down the green rat hole. obummer and gore can stick the carbon tax up their ass.
Yep. Throwing our money away at such rates, we are throwing our children's future money away.
SMH. So you're talking completely out of context then with irrelevant information? Good job! It amazes me the stupid people spew on this subject.
Man, remember when the free market gave us such great advances like the internet and computing? Its a good thing government never did anything to advance technology because the free market has got that covered!
Putting your taxes into government-program-solutions is like storing your drinking water in a peice of cheescloth. By the time you need it, the best you can do is wring out a few drops. The bulk of it is wasted over the heads of politicians, waste, and other failed programs.
Constructing a global scheme exposes your tax dollars to siphoning by politicians/criminals the world over.
Even if we are warming, more failed/wasteful/criminal/fraudulent/bribed government is not the answer.
Wake up and think for yourself RG. Are you so dim as to think government is the answer to every problem?
At the end of the day, this is another excuse to grow government. It is another threat proposed to steer popular opinion, for the ultimate aim of directing commandeered tax dollars to the wealthiest of special interests...on a global scale no less."He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Ben "Smarter Than Random Guy" Franklin
Please see my signature on this issue.
More specious logic.
The earth was at one time a molten glob.
Let's examine
"There was more CO2 in the air in the past than we have today, so therefore we should not worry about CO2 today, because current levels are within historical variability."
Let's trade that out for the fact that, at one point, the earth was a superheated molten blob.
"At one point in the past the temperature was 500 degrees Celsuis on the surface of our planet, so therefore we should not worry if it rises to 450 degrees tomorrow, because temperature would still be within historical variability."
The point is not where it was in the past, but the rate of change, coupled with the fact that most ecosystems have formed under very specific conditions, and fast changes are very disruptive.
Govenment is not the answer to every problem.
A carbon tax is not the singular answer here either. The free market is the ultimate mechanism for the change.
All a carbon tax does is change the selective pressure in the evolution of technology and energy usage, and allows the free market chaos to pick the best lower carbon solution.
That is why economists generally tend to favor it, because it is a way of doing this with the *least* disruption to the free market economies.
What do taxes have to do with a free market solution?
Taxes dont disrupt free markets?
Do you really think that a huge pool of tax dollars can be thrown at global warming, through all the corruption and inefficiency of government programs, and those dollars will: (a) be better spent than they would in free markets? (b) get er' done? (c) not, for the most part, find their way into the hands of criminals and thieves?
I swear I could hear your mental gears grinding from here. It is kind of obvious that you aren't really following what I am saying, no offense.
Taxes, in and of themselves, do not usually "disrupt free markets", Mugabe-level stupidity notwithstanding.
I'm not saying we use a "huge pool of tax dollars" to throw at global warming. , take the tax money and use it to trim taxes in other areas, what happens to those dollars isn't the point.
The point is that the negative externalities the free market fails to assign to carbon intensive fuels needs to be reflected in the market costs of those energy sources. The compe ive mechanism of the free market will therefore assign more private capital to alternative, competing sources of energy not subject to those negative externalities.
Capiche?
The free will drive us off the cliff of depletion, if no one is paying attention.
Economically, taxes do ing nothing. The government needs to quit the taxing, quit lengthening unemployment benefits, quit dildoing around in the economy basically and let the business cycle sort itself out. All meddling in it does is it up more.
Yeah, that's right. I broke out a boring youtube about basic mathmatics.
Quit the taxing and how do you get things like meat inspected? Airplanes?
No one interfered in the business cycle when monopolies like stanard oil re ed economic growth to enrich themselves.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth, just like [insert favorite politician's name here]. You give lipservice to a free market solution, then lay out your plan to tax your way to carbon reduction, and resort to insults when someone points out your short-sightedness, contradictory speak and overall bull .
Even when you try to pick your fumble back up, you just resort to rehashing the same argument you were spouting in '08. The one that al gore gave you in '06.
Get back with me when you can assure us all that tax dollars taken by force from American citizens and turned over to global authorities in an effort to combat excess carbon dioxide will (1) be administered efficiently, (2) not be subjected to misuse, and (3) save us all from certain doom.
Monopolies like standard oil greased the political machine to rise to power/monopoly. And you want to increase the size of the machine.
How about State governments to inspect food.
As for airplanes, have you ever heard of privately managed self governing associations for safety, quality control, etc., with voluntary membership?
Here is one example that has been working for years: http://www.nelac-ins ute.org/
Hmm. Didn't think I was being insulting, I just said I don't think you are really comprehending what I am trying to get across. I still don't, mostly because what I am saying points to something outside the field of view afforded by your limited worldview.
I have never advocated that any carbon tax would be "turned over to global authorities". I would not think that would be part of it.
Since the underlying premise of your requests #1 and #2 is moot, I will simply ignore them.
As for #3, such taxes would not save us from "certain doom", and no one said they would. They would simply nudge our energy profile away from carbon intensive energy sources, and on a bit more of a sustainable path.
As for the rest of the diatribe, I am somewhat flattered to be elevated to the villian in the little play you have constucted in your mind. I was not under the impression that I was all that important. I do find it kind of sad that anybody who might have a honest disagreement with you over public policy must be inherently evil. That must be a psychologically draining way to look at the world.
State governments could inspect food, I guess. Does that mean that every state has to inspect food from every other state? Wouldn't that be hideously inefficient? What happens if one state chooses to have really lax standards, so they can funnel more food imports through their state?
I have heard of privately managed self-governing associations. Maybe it would be a good thing for airplane inspections. I am not sure if I fully trust en ies with profit motives to police themselves, especially when it comes to matters of life and death, but hey, I am ultimately for what works.
That is not a solution to monopolies, that is a diatribe against government.
What is the "free market" solution to monopolies? Assume no intervention of government at all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
