U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 05:44 AM
 
39,561 posts, read 40,928,004 times
Reputation: 16338

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
.... if they don't use much fossil fuel.

Look around you Elliot, everything you see in one form or another has been made possible with fossil fuels. Even if it's a solar panel, it has a carbon footprint.


Quote:
b. The carbon tax is not on ALL goods and services.
Yes it would be, it taxes power first and foremost. Other major emitters will be industries like the cement and and steel industry. The only thing those two items are used for are roads, foundations on houses, side walks, airports, schools, sewers/storm water, bridges... get the picture?





Quote:
That will provide an incentive for dirty companies to buy new clean equipment because they will want to avoid the carbon tax.
The cost of that or the tax will be passed onto consumers. You make cement and steel with heat, a lot of it....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 05:47 AM
 
Location: annandale, va & slidell, la
7,452 posts, read 3,074,016 times
Reputation: 6307
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
There goes your quality of life going down the toilet. Get ready for $10 a gallon gas coming down the road.

Thanks a lot you global warming moonbats out there!



https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...fe-in-congress
It's all PC bluster. It was tried before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:48 AM
 
Location: USA
18,260 posts, read 9,016,622 times
Reputation: 13739
Coalman. It seems many if not most Progressives do not have a grasp of economics, business, and finance. Too many Minority and Gender Studies and Art History majors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:52 AM
 
66,705 posts, read 30,481,281 times
Reputation: 8715
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
And the answer these people propose isn't banning emissions, but charging a fee that will be passed on to consumers.

If a politician said it was a fact a certain candy was poisoning children, would you accept him saying the solution is to place a tax on poisoned candy to help fix the problem?

This is just a tax scheme.
Exactly, and consumers would pay, as the tax would apply to virtually everything that's produced for consumption, vegetable, animal, and mineral. For example, it all has to get shipped either to the store or the consumer's home somehow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:53 AM
 
Location: Northern Wisconsin
8,884 posts, read 7,759,637 times
Reputation: 15354
Idiocracy is here. Next thing you know they'll want to put brondo on the plants, because brondo is what plants crave. Its got electrolites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:54 AM
 
37,249 posts, read 16,206,259 times
Reputation: 8472
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
There's not enough charging stations.
Where I am people are allowed to drive their golf carts around. They are restricted though as to which roads to go on. Most are battery powered and people keep them on a slow trickle charger in their garage. Some are street legal so they can drive at night. I see plenty of them at the supermarket, HD, Walmart, etc. The side roads are all 30-35 mph.

That could be an answer for some that live local in cities where shopping is convenient.
And what are you going to do with all those OLD batteries?

Where do you think the electricity comes form to charge all those batteries?


P.S. I have golf buggy.

Last edited by Quick Enough; Yesterday at 06:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:56 AM
 
Location: USA
18,260 posts, read 9,016,622 times
Reputation: 13739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
And what are you going to do with all those OLD batteries?


Where do you think the electricity comes form to charge all those batteries?
Landfill. How about the caustic, environmentally unfriendly process to MAKE the batteries that last maybe seven years, then need to be replaced? EV's have no less of a carbon footprint than an ICE vehicle over its useful life. Not that carbon is a problem anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:02 AM
 
37,249 posts, read 16,206,259 times
Reputation: 8472
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
It's idiocy that only serves to redistribute money- something only a democrat would love.


CO2 is not a pollutant- this is the biggest hoax in the history of man and opposes rational science.


The evil of AGW is that it diverts funds from real problems and wastes massive resources.
I have posted his before and the climate change crowd try to discredit the author but NEVER address what he says even thoiug he IS a scientist in Climatology,

David R. Legates, Ph.D., is Professor of Geography and Climatology, former Director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware , and a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.


"CO2 is not a pollutant- this is the biggest hoax in the history of man and opposes rational science."


"Generally, I conclude most of my climate change presentations with the phrase, “It’s not about the climate; it never was.” Here, I would like to start with that statement. In this brief article, I will discuss why carbon dioxide isn’t the dangerous gas it is made out to be, why climate change is not an ‘existential’ threat to the planet, and why the Green New Deal is not a solution to climate change.
Let me begin with a series of questions.

Is our climate changing? The answer is clearly “YES” because climate has always changed. We often define ‘climate’ as ‘average weather’ and averages are not supposed to change. If they do, the cause must be unnatural. Treating the climate as a statistical average further implies that it should be static; in fact, the Earth’s climate is dynamic, variable, and ever-changing.

Is global warming real; or, more specifically, has the surface air temperature risen about 0.6°C (1.08°F) since the late 1800s? The answer also is “YES,” and on that there is little debate.

Do humans affect the Earth’s climate? Again, the answer is “YES” with little debate. We can point to the urban heat island—for example, the Washington metropolitan area is warmer than the surrounding countryside due to the urban city and this has been widely studied. Because of impervious surfaces and the increased water demand of urbanized areas, floods and drought frequencies and intensities also are affected.

Does carbon dioxide absorb energy? Yes, certainly. The Earth’s surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere—by about 30°C (54°F). But remember, the most important greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide; it is water vapor. Water cycles fast through the atmosphere, absorbing energy as it evaporates and releasing that energy as it condenses. The current amount of water in the global atmosphere will fall as precipitation in just the next ten days. Its mobility and efficiency in absorbing heat energy makes water fundamental in explaining the climate of the Earth.

If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, what will the effect be on global air temperature? This is where the debate begins.

We seek to determine something called the equilibrium climate sensitivity—that is, the eventual rise in air temperature due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Over the last twenty years, our estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity have decreased substantially, based on measurements of the climate system.

In the early 2000s, estimates were that a doubling of carbon dioxide would result in between a 3 and 6°C (5.4 and 10.8°F) warming. Since 2010, however, most estimates have placed the equilibrium climate sensitivity at less than 3°C (5.4°F), and over the last five years, several independent assessments have placed the sensitivity at about 1°C (1.8°F).

This implies that the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide has much less impact than the models suggest—their sensitivity has remained above 3°C (5.4°F) over the last two decades—which helps to explain why their estimates of warming are much higher.

How do we know that carbon dioxide is a minor player in climate change? Both theory and models tell us that the biggest effect of carbon dioxide on air temperatures should lie in the upper tropical troposphere. The troposphere is the layer of the atmosphere where all weather resides. Over the last forty years, the warming of this layer has been small, whereas the models indicate the warming should have been much greater. This further underscores that climate models grossly overstate the climate warming.

Moreover, theory also indicates that daily maximum air temperatures should rise if carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change. In fact, daily maxima have not changed substantially over the last eighty years, and before that, maximum air temperatures were much higher during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

Minimum daily air temperatures have increased, but that is associated with the warming of urban areas. Averaging these two extremes to get a daily average and then reporting that “this year is the warmest in recorded history” is highly misleading since most stations have a short record length and the warming is not due to carbon dioxide.

Will this warming necessarily lead to more climate extremes—floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea level rise, etc.? I can write in great detail showing the data and explaining why these events are not increasing in frequency or intensity and why, under a warmer world, the physics indicate that they should not. Changing land use and increased demand for water are more significant than carbon dioxide in changing the impact of climate on our lives. Coverage of extreme weather gives the false impression that violent weather is becoming more frequent and intense when the data say otherwise.

Is a warmer climate and more carbon dioxide a net benefit to life on the planet? The answer to this question is a resounding “YES.” More people die from exposure to cold than heat. A longer growing season is more beneficial to feeding a growing population. Further, since carbon dioxide is plant food, under higher carbon dioxide concentrations, virtually all plants grow faster and are more efficient in using water.

So, what is the climatic benefit of spending trillions of dollars and fundamentally changing our economy and way of life? The Green New Deal is not about ‘stabilizing’ the Earth’s climate. Carbon dioxide is a small player in climate change.

The United Nations has become the modern-day Robin Hood—creating wealth redistribution on a global scale. Industrialization has made developed nations ‘rich’, and by using fossil fuels, they are supposedly destroying our climate, for which the developed world must pay. Rich nations, therefore, must give much of their wealth to the poorer nations. Climate change has become the cause célèbre to move nations to action.

The Green New Deal is not about stopping climate change. Climate always changes and always will. The United States has cut back on greenhouse gas emissions by about 13% since 2005 to virtually no effect on the Earth’s climate. The net effect of reducing the United States ’ carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 would be negligible.

Even reduction by 100% would have little effect on the climate, but the policies proposed by the Green New Deal would make Karl Marx proud. But realize this; any draconian changes such as these would necessarily change our fundamental way of life. And that, not addressing the ills of climate change, is what the Green New Deal is all about.

David R. Legates, Ph.D., is Professor of Geography and Climatology, former Director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware , and a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. This article reproduces, with minor modifications, his oral testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Congressional Western Caucus’s “Green New Deal” legislative forum Wednesday, February 27, 2019.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:05 AM
 
Location: annandale, va & slidell, la
7,452 posts, read 3,074,016 times
Reputation: 6307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Coalman. It seems many if not most Progressives do not have a grasp of economics, business, and finance. Too many Minority and Gender Studies and Art History majors.
So true. They've had to take meager jobs since their degrees are of little value.

They weren't taught to make change for a twenty. I see it all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:11 AM
 
37,249 posts, read 16,206,259 times
Reputation: 8472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
No. You're ignoring two important points:

a. Carbon tax proposals include a rebate for individuals. Working poor and middle class will on average pay nothing. Some will get more back than they pay in, if they don't use much fossil fuel.

b. The carbon tax is not on ALL goods and services. There's an increasing number of delivery vehicles that use alternative energy, and those businesses won't pay carbon tax. That will provide an incentive for dirty companies to buy new clean equipment because they will want to avoid the carbon tax.

The status quo is not sustainable.
You ARE a dreamer!

" Carbon tax proposals include a rebate for individuals." So, we are going to hire and PAY people to collect the tax then HIRE and pay MORE people to give the money back.

I thought you were for efficiency. Doesn't that INCREASE their "carbon footprint"? More cars or buses on the road to transport these additional people. Mire office space to give them a place to do their work, etc.

"Working poor and middle class will on average pay nothing" EVERYBODY should have "skin n the game"!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top