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.
So you think a carbon tax, which enhances government revenues, is really going to slow the rise (you believe is happening) in global temperatures?
Could we at least try to be somewhat informed before we make snarky comments? If we all put a small bit of effort into understanding these things, then the quality of this discussion would improve. I wouldn't have to explain over and over how carbon taxes can work, at least.
Anyways, I think it's pretty obvious that I do believe that it will slow the rise. Unless of course the government does something incredibly stupid with the money like start another war or give even more subsidies to oil companies.
Could we at least try to be somewhat informed before we make snarky comments? If we all put a small bit of effort into understanding these things, then the quality of this discussion would improve. I wouldn't have to explain over and over how carbon taxes can work, at least.
Anyways, I think it's pretty obvious that I do believe that it will slow the rise. Unless of course the government does something incredibly stupid with the money like start another war or give even more subsidies to oil companies.
The carbon tax in Canada appears to be working....
Chinese and especially Indian per capita carbon emissions are a fraction of ours.
I agree that it's sad that the Chinese are attempting to create car-centric culture, but it's also pathetic that we aren't taking the easily available steps to reduce our carbon emissions.
The alternative is the destruction of whole American cities and the displacement of large percentage of the global, and American population. Who will pay for that?
Is it your assumption that the situation is hopeless, and we should just party as long as we can?
Is it your assumption that "AGW" is dependent on per capita carbon statistics? If it's real, it is a function of total carbon output. We are 5% of the world population. Per capita numbers are meaningless from any scientific equation. As a percentage of the total carbon output, we are maybe 15%. Unless the other 85% of the planet's humans are on board, it won't make a difference.
Chinese and especially Indian per capita carbon emissions are a fraction of ours.
I agree that it's sad that the Chinese are attempting to create car-centric culture, but it's also pathetic that we aren't taking the easily available steps to reduce our carbon emissions.
The alternative is the destruction of whole American cities and the displacement of large percentage of the global, and American population. Who will pay for that?
Is it your assumption that the situation is hopeless, and we should just party as long as we can?
If it's as serious as scientists say we should be going to war to end fossil fuel usage. Anything short of that and it's just a waste of time.
Is it your assumption that "AGW" is dependent on per capita carbon statistics? If it's real, it is a function of total carbon output. We are 5% of the world population. Per capita numbers are meaningless from any scientific equation. As a percentage of the total carbon output, we are maybe 15%. Unless the other 85% of the planet's humans are on board, it won't make a difference.
Yet the problem is a political one. We can't advocate for solutions elsewhere, when historically, we've been the lion's share of the problem, and still are among the most massive contributors to the problem, and the most egregious contributors to the problem on a per capita basis.
You and Republican politicians sound like the guy who has the most unkempt house on a street of houses in need of sprucing up. Your argument goes something like, I'm not going to lift a finger to do anything until everybody else on the street fixes up their houses.
In reality, most of the world has houses that are in much better shape than ours, such as all of Europe, but were not going to do a damn thing until the Chinese agree to do more than us, even though they already are making a massive commitment to cleaning up their act such as by building 40 nuclear reactors in the next five years to replace coal plants.
The problem is that if we do nothing, the result won't be lower house prices for everyone, but perhaps 25 percent of the world losing their houses and their entire communities, in some cases their entire nation, and perhaps even a massive collapse in the human population.
What does it take to make climate change deniers act like grown-ups? Or is the problem more severe than just a warped attitude?
C-D forum threads on this topic seem to be loaded with posters with addled minds, perhaps because the affected individuals have been drinking the Fox News/Republican kool-aid for too many years.
How do you explain politicians such as climate change denier Marco Rubio whose state already is under assault and will be the most devastated by climate change with every passing year?
If you don't live in Florida, why are you excited by the Rubio-led efforts in Congress to attempt to stem just part of Florida's climate change woes for just a decade or so with $2 billion of federal aid for just an Everglades project? Do you think this is fiscal conservatism, or even fairness to other non-coastal states with massive problems of their own?
I wonder when voters, especially residents in coastal areas, will start rejecting Republicans who are either climate change deniers or who refuse to take concerted efforts to blunt the mounting catastrophe. The Republican brand eventually may be trashed as the consequences of climate change become more obvious and painful.
Geez, so we are back to weather is climate, and freaking out over a cool day here or a warm month there? Run, run as fast as you can Henny Penny, cuz the freaking sky is falling.
It was people like you tossing virgins into the volcano to appease the fire gods when the rains did not come.
There are other ways to make certain the burden doesn't fall unfairly on the less wealthy, and, most especially, on those with small carbon footprints. Of course, such progressive tax schemes are not the favorites of Republicans.
If nothing is done to deal with climate change, the consequences will be much more dire for the middle and lower classes than the alternative.
It's all a scam, to frighten people into giving over control of their lives to government. Want examples of some of their scare mongering?
"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into frenzy about the environment." Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." Daniel Botkin, Professor Emeritus Environmental Studies UC Santa Barbara
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton, first IPCC chair
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”
"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist, lead IPCC author
"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." Monika Kopacz
Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
I wonder when voters, especially residents in coastal areas, will start rejecting Republicans who are either climate change deniers or who refuse to take concerted efforts to blunt the mounting catastrophe. The Republican brand eventually may be trashed as the consequences of climate change become more obvious and painful.
I'm a rabid denier. What are you going to do about it?
And your type's threat to somehow criminalize my view on the subject would not end well for you.
I moved to Louisiana to live on the water and have my boat out back at my dock. My house is 14-feet above sea level and it's unlikely that another Katrina will do much harm to my home. I'm enjoying life and could care less about your theories.
You people get all fired up about global warming from some article you saw in a Weekly Reader.
Finally, I hope your knowing there are multi-millions of belligerent doubters out here like me will spoil your day!
Simple as that.
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.
