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 Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth was first formed, and will continue to change until it is ultimately destroyed.
The only people who even come close to denying that the Earth's climate is naturally in a state of constant change are the AGW alarmists, who appear to believe that a static climate is somehow normal, achievable and sustainable.
I believe we have climate change happening, but how much exactly humans are affecting it is still in question.
I would rather err on the side of protecting the environment -- but do it in an intelligent way -- if they are going to replace coal and oil, they need to first create an alternative energy technology and train the very people they are taking jobs from for those new jobs. There are lots of exciting new alternative energy technologies on the forefront which can only be good for pollution control and creating new jobs. So I support spending money and research on developing new energy technologies that will eventually free us from coal and oil.
The hypocrisy on the left regarding climate change ( see my post above) creates enormous distrust along with the dishonesty and deceit and corruption we see everyday with democrats.
Last edited by mountainrose; 12-03-2016 at 06:46 AM..
I believe we have climate change happening, but how much exactly humans are affecting it is still in question.
I would rather err on the side of protecting the environment.
Me too, but not if it makes poor people more poor. And that's what Obama's war on fossil fuels is doing.
Fossil fuels have helped billions of people improve their standard of living.
Me too, but not if it makes poor people more poor. And that's what Obama's war on fossil fuels is doing.
Fossil fuels have helped billions of people improve their standard of living.
I agree, you must not have read the rest of my post as I said if they are going to replace coal and oil, they have to first train the coal and oil people for those jobs in the new energy fuels. Protecting the environment should not mean job losses and communities destroyed. If anything new energy technologies should stimulate our economy and job security as we will be less dependent on foreign oil whims.
Can you now give the scientific explanation as to how taxes eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere?
I.M.O. better policies, less than taxes, are needed. But I am a Physics person, not a financial person.
Policies:
1. There is not much that can be done to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere; some are working on various carbon sequestering schemes but nothing along these lines seems practical so far.
2. But solar power with flat collectors has now improved in terms of cost per produced power by a factor of around 30 over the last 15 years. (These numbers are in my head but approximate.) An impediment to really using this improvement in Solar Power in the U.S. is the desire of some power companies to preserve the status quo. In terms of heating and cooling of dwellings, even for Connecticut with less incoming solar energy than Florida, because we are encouraged to interface with the grid with solar our house now spends about half as much for electric power with our new solar panels than before, and we did not have to pay any installation fees. (There is a company that will install the whole thing --- we get our electricity at a much lower rate than before, and the installation company gets a cut of the savings. But our over all bill is less by about a half than before even after paying in additional $20 a month to the power company for grid use plus paying something to the installation company.) But in Florida, the power companies do everything in their power to prevent home solar, and because of state politics it is to their advantage to do so.
3. Because electric vehicles convert electrical power into motion with much greater efficiency than internal combustion engines convert fossil fuels into motion, one by use of electric cars emits less CO2 per mile. With hydrogen driven vehicles one has the same benefit ; the hydrogen can come from advanced electrolysis of water (which can be powered by solar). I know a scientist in this field who sometimes drives around in one of these cars and it works beautifully and safely. Here taxes and/or money would be needed to set up the infrastructure.
4. One round trip intercontinental airplane flight puts more CO2 into the atmosphere per passenger than one saves by living in a home completely powered by solar and geothermal. Such trips should be rationed by the government, when the trip is a vacation, and therefore, a luxury.
5. If nuclear plants are installed by U.S. standards in low earthquake risk zones the risk to those living close by, as well as the risk from waste burial, is so low as to be an irrational concern. Nuclear power works in France, so why not in the U.S.?
That was a really long way to say "no, I can not."
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.
Taxes and Global Warming
