The big issue of our time: Climate Change

[Uchi Mata]

Carbon taxes are a terrible idea. "Hey, this is a serious problem, but if you pay us, you can go ahead and contribute to this problem." Yeah, no.

Basically that just enables the rich to do what they want and tough shit for the developing nations and the companies who have to compete with the rich.

No one should be gaining anything monetarily from this and be taken seriously about trying to fix it.

Carbon taxes would be a significant disincentive to produce carbon dioxide and would make alternative energy more cost competitive with fossile fuels. To me it looks like a pretty good government imposed market solution to pollution, not much different than having higher tolls on toll roads during rush hour. The people who can get away with producing less carbon will, and everyone else will pay more. We could also use the revenue to lower taxes in other areas, which frankly I think would be a constructive role for the GOP to play (making sure that happens because I don't think Dems really would lower many other taxes, it's not really their style).

Like I said, there would be winners and losers. There is no solution to the problem that doesn't hurt industries that make lots of money by emitting (or contributing to the emission of) lots of CO2, so I don't consider that a valid reason not to proceed.

 

[kpt018]

Yes I believe the scientific method is currently the best approach for gaining understanding of the planet/universe.

Glad to hear it. After you compared it to religion, I was starting to wonder.

I don't want to be mistaken as an epistemological skeptic, but I don't believe science to be infallible. The scientific method has many limitations and climatology, while improving, is one of those areas that is very error prone. The natural world has proven to be extremely unpredictable.

Also, part of the scientific method is building on mistaken ideas from the past and present.

It seems like you're responding to the overwhelming scientific consensus with very general skepticism. Just read the reports. If you have contradictory evidence, present it. But comparisons to religion or claiming that science has ulterior motives does just makes you look like a whack job.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Carbon taxes would be a significant disincentive to produce carbon dioxide and would make alternative energy more cost competitive with fossile fuels. To me it looks like a pretty good government imposed market solution to pollution, not much different than having higher tolls on toll roads during rush hour. The people who can get away with producing less carbon will, and everyone else will pay more. We could also use the revenue to lower taxes in other areas, which frankly I think would be a constructive role for the GOP to play (making sure that happens because I don't think Dems really would lower many other taxes, it's not really their style).

Like I said, there would be winners and losers. There is no solution to the problem that doesn't hurt industries that make lots of money by emitting (or contributing to the emission of) lots of CO2, so I don't consider that a valid reason not to proceed.

One of the problems with taxes is that it requires every country to adopt them. Chances are the worst offenders are not likely to adopt them. It just seems like a band-aid solution also. It would be nice if the proceeds from taxes would go towards subsidizing green technology development. Maybe this is the case, but I did not see it when I browsed the Wikipedia page on carbon taxes.

 

[IDL]

One of the problems with taxes is that it requires every country to adopt it. Chances are the worst offenders are not likely to adopt them. It just seems like a band-aid solution also. It would be nice if the proceeds would go towards subsidizing green technology development. Maybe this is the case, but I did not see it when I browsed the Wikipedia page on carbon taxes.

And it will be written up by Oligarchs, for Oligarchs.

 

[7437]

Really? You don't think that older folks care about what they leave their children?

Not enough to do anything. Might get some lip service. You dont see the elderly trying to reform social security. or help the enviroment. or pay down the national debt. or deal with youth unemployment. or literally anything that will affect people 30 years from now.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I simply cannot subscribe to the 'science' that's representative's predictions have been repeatedly wrong in the past. For essentially the last 40 years, we've had 10 years to save the planet.

Usually this movement's goal is to regulate energy companies here in the USA, and in the USA exclusively. What about the massive pollution throughout the world? China? India? Brazil? Those who truly believe these doomsday predictions haven't made any serious proposals to the UN for worldwide regulation. Even if every American company was completely green, it would merely delay the oncoming apocalypse due to the massive pollution of the rest of the world? What if the rest of the world refuses? What do we do? Start wars in the name of Mother Earth?

The 'climate change/global warming' scare essentially a myth. Not only have their predictions have been wrong, mostly everything has been around the same.

 

[Uchi Mata]

One of the problems with taxes is that it requires every country to adopt them. Chances are the worst offenders are not likely to adopt them. It just seems like a band-aid solution also. It would be nice if the proceeds from taxes would go towards subsidizing green technology development. Maybe this is the case, but I did not see it when I browsed the Wikipedia page on carbon taxes.

I think it would help some, and if it was part of broader tax reform probably wouldn't hurt the economy as a whole that much (though as I said certain industries would be hurt badly). Also I'm not talking about green energy development so much as mitigating effects. Water pipelines to drought stricken areas, seawalls, desalinzation plants, the movement of whole communities when they're too close to sea level to last with rising oceans are all very expensive things that we'll probably need to do. If energy gets expensive enough green energy will get competitive on its own, just via market forces. Or we could do what we should have been doing for years and build more nuclear plants.

 

[Throttlehead]

The predictions may be dire, but that doesn't mean the predictions will come true. Priests predict all the time I will burn in hell if I do not turn to Christ. It doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Did you just compare scientists studies to priests?

Edit - I kept reading and it seems you may have made the comparison incorrectly, you came around

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I think it would help some, and if it was part of broader tax reform probably wouldn't hurt the economy as a whole that much (though as I said certain industries would be hurt badly). Also I'm not talking about green energy development so much as mitigating effects. Water pipelines to drought stricken areas, seawalls, desalinzation plants, the movement of whole communities when they're too close to sea level to last with rising oceans are all very expensive things that we'll probably need to do. If energy gets expensive enough green energy will get competitive on its own, just via market forces. Or we could do what we should have been doing for years and build more nuclear plants.

Agree with the bold. Nuclear should have been able to hold us over until solar becomes viable.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Carbon taxes are a terrible idea. "Hey, this is a serious problem, but if you pay us, you can go ahead and contribute to this problem." Yeah, no.

Basically that just enables the rich to do what they want and tough shit for the developing nations and the companies who have to compete with the rich.

No one should be gaining anything monetarily from this and be taken seriously about trying to fix it.

simpleton logic is simple. Given most of these 'people' who would be paying such a tax would be corporations, do you think shareholders would be comfortable with company profits being eroded due to poor practice because companies can 'afford' it?

Any board of directors pushing your logic would be voted out at the next AGM.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Typically you'd be right. After all those alarmist tactics got Bush reelected and helped Reagan and Bush I in no small way.

Unfortunately despite being far more grave, the alarmism here doesn't resonate as strongly with people.


(please note that I responded under the assumption that you're a sane poster as opposed to a poster that was moronically suggesting that the magnitude of climate change isn't immense)

You do realize that the ads Carter ran against Reagan suggested that he'd get us in a nuclear war? - not alarmist in the least :wink:

 

[AgentOrange24]

Glad to hear it. After you compared it to religion, I was starting to wonder.



It seems like you're responding to the overwhelming scientific consensus with very general skepticism. Just read the reports. If you have contradictory evidence, present it. But comparisons to religion or claiming that science has ulterior motives does just makes you look like a whack job.

Using computer models to predict the future based on current information isn't science, sorry.

It isn't falsifiable except by just waiting. Until the appointed time comes, it allows those making the claims of gloom and doom to remain free from the main tenet of the scientific theory.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Agree with the bold. Nuclear should have been able to hold us over until solar becomes viable.

I think anyone who really cares about climate change almost has to support nuclear. It's emission free, and we can deal with the waste pretty well at this point. You certainly do have to be careful where and how you build plants, but the US (unlike Japan, France, Germany, etc) has a lot of empty space where you could put plants where the risk to people from meltdowns would be pretty low.

I'm also very, very interested in this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

If we did have a carbon tax, I think basic science research funding of such technology would be a good investment (not a big fan of govt funding of specific companies, but public research is almost always a very, very good investment).

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yeah... no.

You mean these aren't actual quotes?

-"1 billion people will die in

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

simpleton logic is simple. Given most of these 'people' who would be paying such a tax would be corporations, do you think shareholders would be comfortable with company profits being eroded due to poor practice because companies can 'afford' it?

Any board of directors pushing your logic would be voted out at the next AGM.

Use your brain guy. Of course shareholders would be fine with it if the benefits outweigh the costs. Then you also have to impose these taxes on countries who are behind and still developing. What you're advocating with these taxes is that it's a privilege we can pay for to destroy the environment.

 

[nostradumbass]

What's the solution, other than "vote for democrats"?

 

[gigantalor]

I simply cannot subscribe to the 'science' that's representative's predictions have been repeatedly wrong in the past. For essentially the last 40 years, we've had 10 years to save the planet.

Usually this movement's goal is to regulate energy companies here in the USA, and in the USA exclusively. What about the massive pollution throughout the world? China? India? Brazil? Those who truly believe these doomsday predictions haven't made any serious proposals to the UN for worldwide regulation. Even if every American company was completely green, it would merely delay the oncoming apocalypse due to the massive pollution of the rest of the world? What if the rest of the world refuses? What do we do? Start wars in the name of Mother Earth?

The 'climate change/global warming' scare essentially a myth. Not only have their predictions have been wrong, mostly everything has been around the same.

BOOM!

/thread

 

[PainIsLIfe]

None of this invalidates the science. Oil reserves are still an issue, costs keep rising. since I started driving in the uk 15 years ago, the cost of petrol has nearly tripled. The only reason we'd haven't run out is that we've fortunately found more. That's not indefinite though.

Climate science is still relatively new, though the whole global cooling thing has never been a widely accepted scientific view. Global warming however, is one and the same as climate change. Look at the IPCC and other reports, both phrases are used.
The science is very strongly backed up with evidence, no matters what it's called, or what taxation policies are created off the back off it.

Here is a look into the liberal mindset.

"Even though we (the people we listened to) were wrong; that doesn't invalidate what they said."

Somewhere that guy that called for the second coming last year is thinking to himself, I've still got a chance to have a flock:icon_chee

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Use your brain guy. Of course shareholders would be fine with it if the benefits outweigh the costs. Then you also have to impose these taxes on countries who are behind and still developing. What you're advocating with these taxes is that it's a privilege we can pay for to destroy the environment.

Shareholders want a return on their investment. If a corporation increases their carbon footprint making them pay more and thus reducing profit how is that in shareholders best interests exactly?

You do realise that we have environmental laws in place to stop corporations polluting the environment? Those laws are completely separate from carbon pricing?

Why don't corporations simply pollute at will as it currently stands and pay the fine?

Perhaps because it is not in their best interests to do so.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

What's the solution, other than "vote for democrats"?

To feel guilty.

To watch your water and electricity use, even though it's practically infinite unless you're in an area that government regulation has caused a shortage.

To get you to buy smaller cars, that have better gas milage (thats the selling point) but never mind there's a much higher chance of death if you're in an accident.

To get you to hate greedy energy corporations that want to kill animals, pollute the environment, and Republicans.

To get you to think you're morals are superior, and therefore can preach to those who disagree with you, and guilt them into recycling, just like you.

To get you to believe all government regulation against companies large and small is necessary and unharmful.