Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The sewage problem and its solution is essentially identical to that of any other form of environmental pollution such as the exhausts of any system burning fossil fuels or even bio derived fuels like wood.
I guess I didn't know CO2 was a pollutant. I always thought it was an essential molecule for life.
A carbon tax helps control carbon emission by giving an incentive to change ones behavior do less carbon is emitted into the environment , use new technology to either use less carbon or no carbon at all or use technology to remove carbon from the environment or from exhaust streams.
Back in the 16th century if one had offal , garbage or bodily wastes the standard and cheapest practice was to throw in in the street or if you were lucky like the people of London England into a stream or river like the Thames. One could get away with this when London only had 20-30,000 residents residing along a stretch of river 50 miles long.
But as the 17th century and 18th century dawned the population rose to over 100,000 and then to one million. Now the streets of London were foul and living in such filth made cholera, typhoid,dysentery and other airborne and water borne diseases a part of the fabric of everyday life. It was obvious human activity and behavior were having a huge impact of the environment at least locally. It was so bad that it was seriously suggested that the monarchy and Parliament abandon London and retire to countryside for their health!
What the British did was first make it a crime to throw your garbage or sewage or offal in the street you either had to take it to a proper city run dump and pay a dumping fee or pay to be hooked up to a city run sewer. London originally ran all its sewers to the Thames but when the river became a sewer itself, they raised the taxes to build large sewer tunnels that paralleled the Thames and ran all the way to the Thames esturary where it went into the North Sea. Later they built enormous sewer treatment plants to cease the dumping of millions of peoples sewage into the environment. For even the North Sea wasn't big enough to take care of the sewage 9 million Britons created every day.
The sewage problem and its solution is essentially identical to that of any other form of environmental pollution such as the exhausts of any system burning fossil fuels or even bio derived fuels like wood.
This tax is going directly into the pockets of international banking families.
Will Someone Explain How A Carbon Tax Will Cool The Planet?
All these taxes and regulations are just a way for the government to line their pockets, we have greenhouse gas regulations, essentially hot air, we are required to record temperatures and pressures of our high pressure steam lines, we have to pay fees for these programs and pay for government inspections by a contractor and in the end this High pressure steam is just injected straight up into the atmosphere but at least we pay our fees and record the temp. and pressure. That's your government taking care of you.
Freeman Dyson (Princeton), and William Happer (Princeton), and Richard Lindzen (MIT), and Mike Stopa (Harvard), and William Gray (Col. State), and Nicola Scafetta (Duke), and an East Anglia whistleblower who was fed up enough to release the Climategate e-mails, and 160 physicists here, and others, don't think the commentator is wrong.
Conspiracy theories will get you nowhere.
From your link:
Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS's 47,000 members. "This is certainly not a majority opinion," he says. "Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence."
So, fewer than 2 out of every 470 members of that organization agrees with the conspiracy theorists. And they aren't people who do research in the same field. (Atomic physicists know about as much about climate science as they know about my field -- not much.)
With all due respect i'm pushing close to 60 years old and I've been hearing the gloom and doom senarios just about all my life. Guess what i'm still here...sorry if i'm a little skeptical.
YEP, just a mere 50 years ago we were heading into another ice age....
Well, except for the fact that the people who study this stuff for a living say that you're wrong.
As for the original post in this thread, well, a tax on something would be intended to provide incentive not to do it. Just like a sin tax. Want people to burn less gas? Impose a gas tax. Want people to consume less soda? Have a soda tax.
Want greedy billionaires not to ruin the environment for our grandchildren? Tax their sins.
This probably isn't enough, but it's a step in the right direction. A lot more needs to be done.
Yes screw people wanting to keep warm in the winter.
Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS's 47,000 members. "This is certainly not a majority opinion," he says. "Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence."
So, fewer than 2 out of every 470 members of that organization agrees with the conspiracy theorists. And they aren't people who do research in the same field. (Atomic physicists know about as much about climate science as they know about my field -- not much.)
1. Science isn't a referendum.
2. 'Climate science' is a cross discipline intersected by others like yourself.
3. "Consipracy theory" was developed in the 60s as a slur against those who would make inquiry into the death of JFK, and today is used in attempts to discredit investigative journalism.
Here is a chance for the climate change crowd to have a discussion.....please tell us how a carbon tax will cool the planet?
Will taxing Americans alone solve the problem?
Will giving the 3rd World nations more aid cool the planet?
Will reducing the standard of living by 30% take care of Americans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlAndSparrow
Well, except for the fact that the people who study this stuff for a living say that you're wrong.
As for the original post in this thread, well, a tax on something would be intended to provide incentive not to do it. Just like a sin tax. Want people to burn less gas? Impose a gas tax. Want people to consume less soda? Have a soda tax.
Want greedy billionaires not to ruin the environment for our grandchildren? Tax their sins.
This probably isn't enough, but it's a step in the right direction. A lot more needs to be done.
OP, as you can see many AGW types have bought into the lies their leaders keep pushing. the reality is that more taxation and more regulation are just ways for the government to increase its size, and its hold over the people.
and you can always tell those that want to actually do something as opposed to those that want more government power. the ones that want higher taxes, carbon taxes, more government regulation, are the ones that want more power.
2. 'Climate science' is a cross discipline intersected by others like yourself.
3. "Consipracy theory" was developed in the 60s as a slur against those who would make inquiry into the death of JFK, and today is used in attempts to discredit investigative journalism.
I'm well aware of how science works. Usually, the actual scientists who spend years learning volumes of foundational knowledge and then slowly building and rigorously testing intricate models are more trustworthy than the people who parrot what their politicians and talk show hosts tell them, particularly when your arguments all have basically nothing to do with science and everything to do with, conveniently, your favorite political causes.
Climate science touches on a lot of areas, but that doesn't mean any ol' physicist has a credible opinion on it. It certainly doesn't mean that someone whose speciality is in a different field has the authority to, without doing any research in the area, overturn the the biggest, most prominent results in the field.
That's about as plausible as a chemist coming up with a magic bullet that disproves 150 years of research into evolution. It's only convincing to people who make it into a political issue and who are thus rooting for a particular outcome.
If you don't want to be associated with fringe opinions, don't share one. Simple. Side with the scientific experts instead of with the people with no expertise in the field but who are somehow certain that the experts are wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Will Someone Explain How A Carbon Tax Will Cool The Planet?
