Slashdot Mirror

As usual, the Euros are out in front here. We (USA) need to stop electing Republican presidents.

The short version then is that Elon Musk wants to lower the average standard of living then.

Because that would be the effect of his plan, even if he doesn't say it out loud.

And we can look to any of the places that have put in carbon taxes or polution taxes or cap-and-trade systems to put prices on externalites and see exactly this!

Oh wait, that is not what we see: http://www.carbontax.org/where...

Unforunately, we don't magically see all the other potential benifits - carbon emission does seem to decrease, but not hugely for example. In any case, as long as it is revenue neutral - any carbon pricing scheme seem unlikely to have a big effect on standard of living.

Funny, I thought he supported a feebate. Guess that's just code for "going back to living in caves".

While the 98% number is clearly something he pulled off the top of his head, it's true that economists tend to strongly support a carbon tax (basically the same as a gas tax, but across the whole economy, not just for cars). Here are a couple of the top hits for a google search on "economists favor carbon tax":

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy

http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/scientists-and-economists/

I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?

At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.

If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find, because of all the sham sites (wattsupwiththat, ourcivilization.com, globalwarminghysteria). But if you stick to actual scientists and government agencies it's there. Realclimate and skepticalscience have distilled the evidence down pretty well. This page is a good starting point.

It's not the sun or volcanos. Temperatures have not been declining. Climate models have done a good job of predicting temperature, and they can only do a good job of matching past temperatures and predicting future temperatures if human greenhouse gas emissions are included. The negative effects of global warming outweigh the positive.

And nobody is seriously proposing kicking dust into the upper atmosphere. Although in 150 years, when we've done nothing because rich assholes like to make money too much, it may get to the point where such drastic measures are the only survivable options.

Al Gore's carbon trading system isn't a very good solution. It was proposed because it was the only solution Republicans would go for, and their friends on Wall St. could suck money out of it the way they suck money out of all the other commodities markets. Of course they've changed their minds since then. They'd rather rely on Jesus to save us than see Al Gore make a buck. If the Koch Brothers had gotten in on the ground floor of the carbon trading market, it would have been implemented by now.

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a much better way (although the carbontax.org version of that isn't quite what I would choose).

And why is that? Why should they jump out, in public, of their personal area of true expertise into something which is not their job?

Because they are jumping out in public now to advocate for various measures. I give you one Dr. Mann.

And then there are the nuts at the IPCC.

Of course, I think you are being rather disingenuous by retreating to the cover of objective science and claiming that they (you) are merely reporting the facts. It is plain to even the casual observer that Climate Science and schemes for fighting Global Warming are all part of the same group.

There is no separating the greater AGW community from the calls to impose limitations on CO2 through government policy that almost exclusively entail cut backs on energy use, rationing and taxes. Once you get past all the stupid sniping and name calling on Slashdot you inevitably find a call for these policies. Every major political figure/initiative I've heard of that is remotely related to AGW is sole focused on these kinds of policies. Maybe I missed the Nuclear Advancement and Energy Independence Act being introduce and discussed in a State of the Union addressed and Presidential speeches, but I doubt it.

And lastly, why wouldn't they? If, as Dr. Jones thinks, AGW is a threat to the world as we know it, why would he and his colleagues not all jump to endorse the one technology we have here and now that would do the most to mitigate CO2 emissions?

But cheap electricity combined with energy conservation regulation, means that people and businesses will merely find ways around the regulation rather than conserve energy.

That's why we have to go directly to a tax on the problem: carbon. That's why a revenue neutral carbon tax is the way to go.

You may be new here but there is a website called Google it lets you find stuff on the internet. Using it I was able to find things like links between global warming and fair trade, government saying what kind of car I can't buy, and my favorite scam of all the carbon tax.

"Right now, California and New York refuse to register new diesel cars because they don't meet emission regulations."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/06/es.climatejustice/index.html

http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/personal-action/make-your-gifts-free-trade-this-valentineâ(TM)s-day

http://www.carbontax.org/

Yes, exactly, technological advancements are what we need. We need alternative, carbon-neutral energy sources to keep even more people from dying due to the effects of global warming. Technological advancement costs money. Carbon taxes can help to encourage these advances more quickly. I'm glad you agree.

Singapore takes a similar approach, however, it is also easier to get by without a car in city-state. American cities could probably benefit from the congestion tax implemented in London, which applies to cars in the city during business hours; I know that NYC is looking into this. One major problem with taxing either gas or cars is that it is a regressive tax. Besides, it doesn't matter just how fuel efficient or expensive a car is, what matters is the emissions created during its use (and production). A carbon tax addresses these issues, because it is intended to be a revenue neutral tax, in which the money that is collected from corporations selling energy of fuels to consumers is returned when consumers file for taxes. This way, individuals can make their own short-term (driving habits) and long-term (car purchases) based on the premise that they can save by cutting down on their carbon emissions. http://www.carbontax.org/ By the way, you can't "really make taxation progressive by taxing the percentage of the vehicle's value to bring in the necessary revenue," because that's the same principal as sales tax which is the primary example of a regressive tax.