Slashdot Mirror
National Academy of Science Urges Carbon Tax
eldavojohn writes "Moving for the first time from a cautious message to a message of urgency, the National Academy of Science has advised the United States government to either adopt a carbon tax or cap and trade legislation. This follows a comprehensive study in three parts released today from the National Academies that, for the first time, urges required action from the government to curb climate change."
to tax all the volcanos around the world for their CO2 production?
Its weird that I am not allowed to drop rubbish in the street but disposing of some types of effluent in the atmosphere which we all need to breathe is perfectly okay.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
It makes a lot more sense to tax a negative externality than it does to tax something we want more of like income.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The whole Global Warming scheme was thought up by Ken Lay and discussed with both the Bush Jr and Clinton Administrations. Now Al Gore is a parter in a firm that trades CARBON CREDITS and is set to make billions off this scam. I think you all better wake up and research the NWO and GLOBAL GOVERNMENT and see what all are leaders are up to. Its time for the world to change and not in the way the Illuminatti want as they are about to have the light shined right on them and I doubt they will survive.
... either adopt cap and trade legislation.
or... what?
"Either" requires an "or" you stupid dumbfuck.
Cap and Trade is just a fancy phrase meaning "tax" anyway. I hate the verbal misdirection.
Oh noes, the climate is changing. We can't have that, now can we? We should have the climate be like the way it was billions of years ago (eg: not fit for humans), because climate change is bad, right?
is a much "bigger" greenhouse gas. When are we going to start taxing nuclear cooling towers and refineries?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This may be the first time the NAS have advised specific policies. However the first time NAS warned the US government of the problem was in 1958. This Bell Labs video summarises the contents of that first warning. The NAS has not suddenly flipped from cautious, the urgency has steadilly increased over the last 50yrs to the current position of virtually screaming at congress to pull their head out of their collective arses.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Has anybody ever been required to clean the air? Doubt it. Most polluting companies are just fined and then have to clean their exhaust after they have been caught polluting.
So the question I have is, how many "Carbon Credits" would BP have to purchase in order to avoid having to clean up their spill?
In today's political climate, there's far far too much controversy surrounding the individual issues of taxes and energy, alone (much less combined), to permit any real legislation to succeed.
A sane society would tax things like gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, etc., highly enough to discourage its profligate consumption and apply the funds to develop practical implementations of an array of alternative renewable energy sources (fusion, solar, biofuels, etc.).
But in the USA, if you proposed adding another $2/gallon tax on gasoline, it would be political suicide. (Hell, just suggesting it on /. risks karma suicide.) In the meantime, many of us still drive gas guzzling hummers and SUVs, and pride ourselves on it.
We need to break the loop somewhere. As long as that behavior is affordable, it will continue to be popular; as long as that behavior is popular it will continue to be affordable.
And eventually, when scarcity will inevitably drive up the cost of this fuel, it will be the energy corporations who will make the profits on the higher prices, not the governments... perpetuating another problem of too much corporate money influencing government policy. The smart thing to do is drive the price up now, via taxes, and use the revenue to do something more useful than line the pockets of corporate executives and stockholders.
I can see the fnords!
Does anyone else think that naming "carbon" is being overly-specific? I think "greenhouse gasses" provides the right scope and expectations to actually deal with the problem at hand: GHG Tax. Carbon is used constantly by the press as a symbol of greenhouse pollutants, but other gases like methane are a problem too.
Extra, Extra, read all about it! Quasi-governmental organizations tells government to do what head of government wants to do anyway!
Did I mention I'm a scientist? That means you're helping the environment by making me rich. Oy vey iz mir
I'm not an expert in a relevant field to understand fully this issue, and chances are neither are you. Other than wait and reserve judgment, the only logical choice I can make when there is overwhelming consensus among experts (there is on climate change) is to listen to them. I support cap and trade, not because I think it's a good idea - because I'm not qualified to know that - but because the majority of those who are qualified think it is, and science is not a political process even when the conclusions polarizes people along political lines.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
...however, if one of them is truly necessary, a carbon tax is the lesser of evils. Cap and Trade is Al Gore's personal get-rich-quick scheme with a slogan of "Save the Earth" and a collateral consequence of global Socialism (i.e. the productive must purchase "credits" from the unproductive). No thanks.
...but reduced the deficit, income taxes, sales taxes, or all three, it would be a win-win situation. If they do what government normally does -- spend the money faster than it comes in -- at least it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[who is going] to tax all the volcanos around the world for their CO2 production?
The CO2 out gassed by active volcanoes comes to about one percent of anthropogenic emissions.
Learn to be check the numbers when you hear outrageous claims like this.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Finally, we are there as a nation.
Taxed
Enough
Already
All the companies are going to do with this overhead is roll the cost into their products and this increase the costs of everything from electricity to food. Plus it has not been proven that man released CO2 is the driver for increased global temperature as the record shows that temperature rises BEFORE CO2 concentrations. Oh, and then there is the fact that the global temperature has been decreasing since 2001 and is predicted to continue to decrease for the next couple of decades, at lease, which the environmentalists are scrambling to "explain", but first need more of our tax dollars to explore theories.
Quote:
"The study, released on Jan. 28 by Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios A. Tsonis, who are professors in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, found that the Earth has been cooling since 2001 and projected that due to “global variation” the climate would continue to cool for the next 20 to 30 years."
WOW! I sure didn't see THAT coming!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
We definitely need a tax on politically active scientists.
Its weird that I am not allowed to drop rubbish in the street but disposing of some types of effluent in the atmosphere which we all need to breathe is perfectly okay.
Speak power to truth, comrade!
The "effluent" CO2 coming out of your body in every breath certainly needs to be regulated. In the future, when my "carbon zero" plan is adopted, all people must wear CO2 rebreathers as they go about their daily business - or be "cap and taxed", if you know what I mean. The guillotine is a carbon-neutral device, my friend!
Together we shall end this imperialist capitalist pig pollution chemical weapon! Death to CO2!
The only way to sell it to the masses would be to promote it as the elimination of Income Taxes. Set a date (20 years?) by which point income taxes will be eliminated, and slowly ramp up the Carbon (GHG) tax while reducing income tax over the same period of time.
What? You're opposed to eliminating Income Tax?
Reality has a liberal bias
atricle in nature online, where the Ice in greenland was melting at the fastest rate of the last 50 years, and on the side bar of related articles it was saying that the sea levels were heading down. No corralation? Some ones figures are wrong. The scientists be wrong? How. The tempreture goes up in several local tempreture stations, and we have the warmest tempretures in 50 years, in my local, where the article was created, the wetest spring in quite a while, like the early 1990's. floods around, streams overflowing, and cooler then average by a full 15 deg F. They wrong, or the local newies wrong?
Record calving off the coasts of antrictia, and alaska, I always heard that the calving was present before before global warming, caused by the extension into the water lifting the Ice cracking the ice, and wave actions shifting the weakened ice dropping. the presure pushing down the hillsides, bend the ice, fracture it, and the snowpack above the ice, actually shelters the ice to help keep it cool enough to move. Global warming cycle or educated men lying to make money.
And the only way a tax makes sence, is to tax all business out of business. but then there is no business to pay the tax, which then falls on all the shmucks that voted for a tax, to drive them to poverty. After all didn't we tax ourselfs enough with the bailout of business(rich people) who lost money to goldman sachs, which is called by many, facisism. where the few, businesses control the governments of the world. The idea of global warming is real, its from a cycle of the sun and a loop in the earths cycles. look that up, be sure to read the papers of the 1950's geology and archeology. where they put the cycles together. and show the outcomes of now, and look about 50 years to the future, what they say is about to happen.
Read the finance books on taxation by anyone but austria, and see how business is the culprit of the carbon tax, and wants the cap and trade to come about now. Read what the head of the last NY fed said about cap and trade at builderberg, and then say you want to become a slave, which it is designed to do.
So far any carbon trading scheme I've heard of doesn't fully take into account international trading. My country like several others is a huge net agricultural exporter. Argiculture being responsible for 50% of our emissions. Therefore its as if other countries are poluting here, yet the producer/exporter gets the bill under current proposals.
What then of all the high value goods we import (which have a high impact per given mass compared with food), these don't polute here, but some other country has paid the price both in impact and in tax.
What a way to collapse global trade.
Any system needs to a per-ton value on carbon, as a baseline, and then build the system bottom-up from there. Slapping taxes on everything seems to be the only option being considered.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
At least you're trolling in the right thread. I've yet to meet a jew that didn't think a tax on somebody else was a great idea.
One scientist who predicted the run-up in temps in the 90s, and the subsequent leveling off in the 00s (meaning he's been much more accurate than most of the pro-AGW scientists) says we're heading towards a few decades of global cooling. Perhaps a carbon tax isn't what we should do?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If you thought patent trolls were bad, wait till we now have carbon trolls for cap and trade.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The same group of deluded elites that knew the Duke Lacrosse team was guilty of rape, now wants to sell you on carbon taxes.
Nuke those mofos.
I've been taxed enough - NO MORE. Especially for something that is GOOD for the environment (it helps plants grow in case you missed that in school).
The US government created the Department of Energy in the early 1970's to regulate the price of a barrel of oil. It went from $3 to a high around $150 to about $70 today. They clearly have failed. Given that solar power is free(once you buy the solar panels), if the consumer had the choice to pick don't you think the consumer would opt for FREE rather than $70/barrel.
Meanwhile, there are little to no regulations on computers and Bill Gates gets the cost of them down to the point where just about everyone on the planet can afford one. Of course pollution is blamed on the free market while neo-libs continue to destroy our country.
Seems to be working very well in Europe, not. Why don't all the green morons just stop having babies, after all the only solution if it is really a problem is population control.
Bottom line: if you don't get the BRIC nations to sign on to any type of comprehensive deal and they actually abide by it, Cap and Trade in the US isn't going to amount to much on a global scale.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
EU has it right that we need to address this. EU's solution which is the carbon tax as well as Tax/Trade SUX and is failing BAD. Now, why do I say that? Because they put this in place and yet, America, China, Russia, Brazil, India, etc have done relatively little to drop their CO2 emissions. And if America puts in place the same horrible solutions, it will actually make things WORSE. The reason is that other nations ESP. CHINA will massively increase electrification and transportation. Why? To try and grab as much American companies as possible. And they will not grow it slowly. We will see LOADS of new China's poppiing up while everybody seeks to grab what they can. That means Coal plants and Roads.
So, is there a solution that will work? Yes. And it is the ONLY one that I know that CAN.
Tax ALL goods based on CO2 emissions / km^2 for the item and primary sub-component. The emissions and size of land is verifiable by satellites (co2 out - co2 in == your part). THis has to be done slowly, BUT ASSUREDLY, to give all nations and businesses time to adjust. In addition, and more importantly, it rewards those nations that actually DO change. Finally, one of the bigger issues with making these changes is that it brings success which will actually increase emissions. With this tax, it has a negative feedback to prevent that from happening.
If this has ANY chance of working, this is likely the only way.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere during the Cambrian was 7000ppm and the average global temperature was 20C, and during the Jurassic the CO2 concentration was 2000ppm and the average temperature was still 20C? Shouldn't the temperature have been much, much higher during these periods? And shouldn't the temperature of the Cambrian be much higher than the Jurassic?
Step 1: mess up the environment
Step 2: mess up the financial system
What is step 3?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Climate science has abandoned evidence and data and gone straight to propaganda. Check out the data and evidence for yourself, don't listen to the anti-technological propaganda from the politicized climate scientists. http://joannenova.com.au/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Ever seen a CO2 truck pulling into a soda plant? An entire TRUCKLOAD of CO2 destined to be released as fizz and well, pardon the grossness, flatulence. But you never hear anyone investigating what a ban on carbonated beverages might do for the environment.
Bill Gates had nothing to do with getting the cost of computers down. In fact, the price of Microsoft's operating systems has continued to increase over time, not just in dollars but as a percentage of the total purchase.
Why don't all the green morons just commit suicide?
how do I voice my support for this measure?
The reason is that they need to be HOT in order to function. And they are hot if the engine is running rich, so that unburned fuel particles can burn in the catalytic converter.
Today's engines with fuel injection and MAF sensors (and complicated computerized calculations) can run very clean without catalytic converters. In fact, cars from the factory run RICH just to employ the cat.
That's why aftermarket tunes that lean out the mixture get more power AND better fuel economy.
unless he continues to be right. So far, the "CO2 is the cause" crowd have continued to get it wrong, so why do so many people continue to listen to them? The initial theory of CO2 heating the planet up was based on the observations of Venus' atmosphere and temperature. Venus was described as a runaway greenhouse effect. While it's true that the atmosphere of Venus has a much higher concentration of CO2 than on Earth, it's also true that Mars has a higher concentration of CO2. Venus is much hotter than Earth, Mars is much colder. So what gives? Scientists have more recently concluded that the high temperatures on Venus aren't cause by a greenhouse effect.
The only reason I would support this is if the money goes straight towards research into affordable ultra-capacitors, solar energy plants, geothermal energy plants, wind farms, and high speed train service between major cities.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
People hate taxes; they tend to assume government doesn't spend the money on something for them, but rather flushes it down the toilet in some way. (And this can be hard to dispute some days).
So make it a sinking fund. Take a ton of carbon out of the ground and into the biosphere, pay $50 into the fund. If you take a ton of carbon out of the air and put it in the ground (biochar a hectare of trees, say) and you can take $50 out of the fund.
Coal-generated power goes up by a crippling 5 cents per kWh; nuclear and renewables become competitive. The price of gas, alas, barely changes, but it's starting to look like electric cars can kick their ass anyway, given one more advance in batteries.
Theoretically, the fund stabilizes in size when as much carbon is going out of the air as into it, either because most forms of carbon emissions have been replaced with cleaner (and now cheaper) fuels, or because "biochar" and ocean-iron-seeding and all that stuff actually works at $50/ton like they claim.
If not, you re-analyse and tweak the $/ton figure. Please note: by definition, this does as much good to the overall economy as harm. Some things that have been causing externalities get more expensive, some things that repair externalities get cheaper.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When you run the numbers and see that a gallon of gasoline per hour is equal to 39 kilowatts you'll understand why we don't have electric cars. The technology is just not there yet and it won't be for a long time. What else contains that amount of energy and can be refilled in minutes? Nothing short of cold fusion will replace gasoline.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Remember that post a few hundred lines up that suggest fact checking? I would suggest some sanity-checking.
So for a simple tweak in software, cars would not only gain performance, save more gas, but also eliminate the need for expensive (cats are one of the world's biggest uses platinum) catalytic converters? ... oh yeah it's completely wrong and stupid.
Man, it makes complete sense now that the car companies of the world, especially those on the verge of bankruptcy in this economy, don't want the public to know that they are totally IGNORING this simple reprogramming of the ECU for the great reason of...
Cats are there to change NOx (smog, eventually becomes ground level ozone, the kind you WANT depleted) emissions into more harmless NO2.
Problem is NOx emissions come from higher ignition temperatures (why Diesels get great fuel economy and power, but have always been seen as a dirty fuel source/powertrain), _which are a result of running lean_.
As a general point, it's also important to remember that CO2 emissions are different from the "Emissions" that they usually talk about in cars (LEV, ULEV, ZEV). Even the "Zero emission vehicles" (many of which are fuel celled) still emit CO2 and water, it's just that they don't burn anything containing nitrogens, and thus emit "zero" NOX (still a bit arguable since fuel cells run hot, and the atmosphere is 80% diatomic nitrogen).
Anyway, point of the matter, and man I hope people have read this far, is that CO2 is what is being attributed to global warming (save that debate for another thread), but the "emissions" coming out of tailpipes are what's important for whether your children have chronic asthma by their teenage years.
We need solutions, not taxes. Money does not solve problems. Solutions do.
But aren't you at least a little concerned that Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012? And what of the Bats eating kids? Won't anyone think of the children?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
But only about 10 or so of those 39 kilowatts are actually useful for moving the vehicle. The rest is just getting blown out the radiator as waste heat.
I will admit that batteries are not yet there, which is why plug in hybrids are being made.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Maybe because the effect of the effluent in question is questionable at best. Why should I wish to reduce myself to a caveman level of civilization to appease some group that recently got caught making the whole thing up?
Ok so it is pretty much a given that China, Mexico and the other Asian nations are not going to implement this
in their own countries to the detrement of their fast growing industrial economies. Implementing this is about
as beneficial to the US job market as the new health care bill. Our countries manufacturing industry is already
treading water adding additional costs to do business in this country only quickens the pace.
Got Code?
A two buck a gallon tax increase on diesel, plus the ups and downs of the speculators we endure already, would put like half the independent truckers and the bulk of the farmers into bankruptcy in short order. It's already tough enough to make any profits at all now.
I hope you have some alternative way to move goods and to get food. Me, I don't care much anymore if I provide food to other people or not, I'll just feed my dogs better with my beef, and all those pro fast fuel tax increases advocates in the cities can..I guess grow lettuce in window boxes and eat rats and pigeons. Or whatever they figure out. Heck, I bet your good friends in places like china, your wall street dream nation, would love to ship you some really "nutritious" cheap food, while you ride your bicycle around. Because they won't be taxing themselves on fuel that much, and are rather lax in the "quality" department. And they are more than happy to take over any market you decide to kill off in random nation x,y or z. They'll take it. they love when national policies kill markets there so they can move in. But that will be your option then once you bankrupt people who directly have to use fuel to work to move your goods internally and provide you with food.
Now there is an alternative to the punitive tax, it is called the anti tax or the tax *credit*. Instead of the tax, the stick (or the club, which is a better analogy), you offer a tax credit, the carrot, the reward.
If the government offered a 100% tax credit for actual implementation of alternative and cleaner energy solutions, it just might work and boost the economy better. Even the partial credits they have and offer now work fairly well, the 10-30% credits, but just imagine if you had 100% credit, something like a five or ten year pro rated credit (say for 25 to 50 grand) for doing such things as adding solar panels to your house, or getting some new efficient car that got over 60 MPG, stuff like that. Think about it, which would you rather. Here's a scenario. Government takes X-dollars income tax from you every year, now you add in the new extra carbon fuel tax and every single thing you buy or use goes up in price to cover that new tax. OR, the government offers the multi year tax credit, and you could finance 25-50 grand worth of your own solar panels, or something like that. Same money out of your pocket, that's a wash, it's spent in advance already, so which would you like better, and which would help to get cleaner energy solutions out there fast?
Me, I always like the carrot method better than the stick method. Ain't if funny only the stick method, the carbon tax, or "cap and trade" swindle, which will go to enrich already bloated government and wall street, is the only one recommended by these grant sucking scientists? None of them ever heard of the tax credit?
That's why I don't take their pronouncements as serious as perhaps I should, because years ago I heard about this carbon tax scam, and you can follow the economic breadcrumb trail right up into the pockets of the goldman sachs crowd, and the global nanny state political activist crowd, the watermelons.
I am really pro cleaner energy and pro much cleaner environment and always have been, I invested some in solar panels when others where investing in dot bomb wall street fairy tales or house flipping perpetual economic motion scams. And I also actually work for a living as a food producer and know what fast sharp energy price hikes do to the economy, at least this subset of the economy. It kills it in a nutshell. So go ahead and do it, throw that tax out there, institute your new legions of carbon police and carbon commissars to go along with it, see what happens.
This is like short term memory theater. We had a fast price rise in fuel due to wall street speculators mostly just two years ago, and there are a lot of us here who remember and had to pay those fast price hikes back during the oil embargo. That combined with the big fast paper financial products
He has investments in the cap and trade plan. I am sure he wont make a buck off of it.
4.5 billion people by 2012 is a bit hyperbolic. If methane in the atmosphere increased drastically it's maybe possible in several decades. What I've heard from the scientific community on the subject is that methane emissions may increase somewhat from global warming effects but they don't see any mechanism short of a volcanic eruption in a methane clathrate bed that would lead to massive methane releases.
So why doesn't the National Academy of Science make China their top priority? Not only is China the largest emitter of CO2, it is also the fastest growing. Not much can be done with the fully-developed countries like the US, Canada, and Japan. "Cap and trade" is really just a variant of "tax and spend", which inevitably leads to "inflate and borrow".
If this is the best these people can do, their budget should be slashed. Whoever puts out this crap is wasting my tax dollars. Let's just downsize 'em and call it our national contribution to reduce global warming.
Investigate the National Academy of Science and you will find one of those "think tank" organizations that is funded by the government in order to write white papers consisting of what the government wants to hear.
Hmmm... an organization that gets 85% of its funding from the government is advising the socialist government to enact whopping taxation. Oh my, what a surprise!
If you really want to cut or even eliminate CO2 emissions then the last thing you want to do is turn CO2 emissions into a revenue stream for the government. That's just the WORST thing you could do. It's like trying to get rid of cows by eating them. Why not just make other energy sources more attractive by removing bureaucratic nonsense (nuclear energy) or making investments in R&D (solar and wind)?
When the gas engines run for a day to cut an acre of trees,
more CO2 is released in cutting down that one acre of trees
than what the trees would ever release in being burned or
decomposed.
Now, step away from the keyboard and breath a prayer or two
onto your vegetable dinner to take as much poison back in
your body so I don't have to put up with your stink. Bad
enough I breath the same air as eco cowards like you.
So you did get the joke then. That's good. I had thought my sarcasm might be a little too subtle.
It's comforting to know that when we've sucked the Arctica and Antarctic oil reserves dry there's still far more carbon fuels tied up in clathrates sitting on the floor of the oceans than all the oil and coal fuels we've used so far, waiting for anybody who wants to scoop them up and liquefy them. That's nice because I bought my daughter a '69 Camaro for her high school graduation and she's only three. It would be a shame if she couldn't afford gas for the thing in 2025. I should have it running by then. It's a convertible so if the climate is warmer by 2025 then she can tour Canada in it with the top down.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Just for gigles, go look at gapminder. See http://www.gapminder.org/world/?PHPSESSID=kinokshem5859bcbqa0iv1v1h3#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=21;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti=2006$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1gkNuUEXOGag;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1NHPC9MyZ9SQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;iid=pyj6tScZqmEfbZyl0qjbiRQ;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=294;dataMax=76977$map_y;scale=log;dataMin=-1.2196;dataMax=26$map_s;sma=58;smi=1$cd;bd=0$inds=;modified=6 Your argument is a bit silly. It it like a glutton complaining that his neighbors their 3 children eat more than he does, so they should be the ones to go on a diet. Yes, 1.32 billion Chinese use more energy than 0.31 billion Americans. Are we so special that we deserve 4x the CO2 per capita as the rest of the world?
Think global, act loco
is nothing more or less than a pinus, sometime large sometime small, mostly small, for the President of the Unided States.
Any reports from the National Academy of Science must be received with the utmost contempt as they have been minulipuated to support what-ever psycho-bable the President of the United States is espousing for what-ever resason to appease or pay-off those who have payed billions of dollars into his secret money laundering acconts spread accorss the globle.
With each passing year the U.S.A becomes the C.C.C.P (just spend a few hours at OHare in Chicago and you will see the C.C.C.P.).
"Food prices will rise."
You've answered your own question, at least if you know that depopulation is the goal held by many. The easiest way to kill off large numbers of people is to simply starve them out. The death camps are only for if people wise up and start growing their own food, trading in life sustaining drugs/vitamins, or otherwise attempt to organize and promote life.
Ever notice that those proclaiming most loudly that we must be taxed and "control our carbon footprint" maintain multiple huge estates, have fleets of vehicles, fly in private jets, and are so much wealthier than the average Joe that their taxes are something their team of accountants handle and they really could are less?
Ever notice the busybodies are always extremely concerned about what you eat, how you live, and the choices you make?
FYI. Just because you are famous, wealthy, well-connected, or elected to office does not mean that any of us actually believe you are special, smarter, or somehow better. In fact, it is my observation that the majority of your statements are incredibly ignorant and idiotic.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I restate the words for those who have forgotten why we declared our independence. BTW, you can take your carbon footprint garbage and shove it in the orifice of your choosing, as long as it is your own. I want no part of it.
Tell that to all the people who are driving BMW Mini-E's or Telsa Roadsters or other pure electric cars out on the roads today (some as for-sale cars, some as test cars from the automakers and some as 3rd party conversions).
Tell that to the people who have signed up to preorder/reserve cars like the Nissan Leaf electric car.
a carbon tax??
WTF
What makes this smell of political agenda rather than a genuine concern for the environment is that they urge action that will ultimately have no real value.
People will still need to drive to work. Trucks and trains will still need to run. Airlines will still fly, people will still run their AC, wash their clothes and dishes, watch TV, power their lights, etc.
The only difference will be that they will pay more and the government will get a big fat check to spend on more crap we don't need. Gee, more tax and spend, who'd a thunk?
If they had a real concern and really did want to reduce carbon, they would have forcefully and whole wholeheartedly endorsed nuclear power. They would have suggested a Nation Mandate, special legislation limiting lawsuits, standardization on just a few designs, mass production of parts and encouraging U.S. industry to make the parts (I seem to remember that the turbines are ONLY made in Germany and Japan), etc, etc.
Of course all the anti-nuke wackos will start lining up to poo poo this , but they cannot deny that nuclear power is carbon free, far safer than any other energy when properly handled, and far more efficient than any other fuel. And if you can push aside all the crap ( 5 year environmental impact studies, endless lawsuits, etc.) they can probably be built for far less than their traditional cost.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Any responsible environmental policy includes a plan for reducing the world population over time.
Availability of contraception
Improve life expectancy
Improve rights for Women
When you run the numbers and see that a gallon of gasoline per hour is equal to 39 kilowatts you'll understand why we don't have electric cars.
Umm, we do have electric cars. I've seen a Tesla Roadster (two, actually) on the street, I know they exist. Otherwise, I'm going to be really disappointed come December when Nissan tells me they lied about delivering my Leaf.
What's really weird is that anyone would consider atmospheric gases, WHICH ALL PLANTS NEED TO BREATHE, as "effluent".
Seriously, how did the parent get modded Insightful?
Use boron and aluminium as fuel. They have volumetric (what really matters) energy far in excess of gasoline, and consistent or higher mass energy density. In a fuel cell system, you could easily refuel like a gas car.
But, the energy density for batteries is there with standard issue lithium-ion. A Tesla Roadster can go 244 miles on a charge. Its batteries energy density? 70 watt-hours/kg, or over 150 times lower than gasoline. Can it recharge in minutes? No. But it proves that it works. So why don't you drive one? Because its battery pack costs $20,000. Now, try to put that in a family car and you see that it is cost prohibitive. What we need is a cheap battery with similar energy density (NiCad?), not a 500 mile range battery. Second, it needs to be a plug in hybrid. Basically, stick a little 10 kW gas or diesel generator (or maybe a biofuel genset) in there and you solved the recharge problems. You can't recharge a battery fast right now because the grid just can't pump out enough electricity.
In the long run, I hope that cold fusion will replace gasoline. Boron and aluminium blow away gasoline. If you really want energy density, you have to move up to superconducting energy storage systems (think about 500 gallons of gas in the palm of you hand). But you don't need the energy density. You need to cut costs.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
The joys of malaria that have killed 40 million african children over the past 40 years came to you thanks to the blackballing of DDT by radical environmentalists back in the 60s and 70s. If you're worried about malaria, it's not the temperature that should concern you, it's the irrational demonization of life saving chemicals like DDT.
I like the Leaf, but the range is insufficient for anything other than daily commuting IMO. For me, even a day trip to the next city over would exceed it's limit.
If they made something like a trailer with a diesel generator you can hook up to it to extend the range, I'd be sold.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Where did they call it poison??? Ah, no they didn't. But if you love getting your jollies making shit up so you can spew crap into the atmosphere, fuck off.
This is offensive. The National Academy is supposed to be a scientific organization, not a pile of lobbiests. The whole AGW mess comes because scientists have mixed up science with politics.
Three simple steps: open mouth, insert foot, destroy credibility.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
No, go with burning pixie farts - it smells better.
and tell us to take our stupid tax and shove it.
The American consumer will merely be laden with another tax for rules the rest of the world will ignore.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
fuck their agenda
fuck their monetary system crashing
fuck their oath breaking
fuck their one world government
fuck their one world bank
fuck every candidate that is affiliated with CFT, TC, AIPAC, UN, UNEP, IMF, Copenhagen
It needs to be a simple tax on the amount of carbon produced. NO CREDITS FOR ANYONE!
The problem with the Cap and Trade in the EU is that too many companies got special credits.
Old companies with Old machines were grandfathered in. Polical allies got kick backs from it.
The traders made money moving them around. They did little to change the air quality. The production was moved off shore.
It is a "World" problem, so imports should be taxed based on how much CO2 was created when the product was produced.
Stinky India and China should not get a free pass.
i am 54 years old.i live in the usa. the air water,and land have never been cleaner in my lifetime. there are mare critters,(deer,possum,skunks,racoons,ground hogs,rabbits,hawks,eagles,etc,etc..)roaming the streets here in a 250,000 persons city, causing all sorts of problems. our parks are overrun with geese. this is not due to human encroachment.the animals adapt.cant hunt in the city. there are also more trees than when the evil columbus discovered america. its going to be 81 and sunny today.global warming. it may rain tommorow.global warming. it may be colder next week.global warming. we had a cold snowy winter.global warming. did i say global warming? i meant the new phrase meant to replace it,climate change. start believing your own eyes.not this hog wash thier cramming down our throats. cap and trade = tax america into the third world. nothing to do with climate change. if it did china,india,russia,and many other places would be on the hot seat. real companies buying carbon credits?from who? other real companies.you betcha. live long and prosper regards, mike
Yes, because governments love to give money back after they have taxed.
The money would more likely end up going to build the Nebraska corn museum.
Please... is it really so hard to understand that the choice is NOT between coal and nuclear? We need to get rid of BOTH. It IS possible to shut down every coal AND nuclear plant and still provide enough electricity. Sure, prices will probably go up, but most likly not even double.
A COMBINATION of multiple sources is the answer. With hydro, wind, solar and biofuels combined we can do this. Best would be also to combine it with energy savings.
This is simply more of the same marxist bent that the idiot in the white house is intent on imposing. The NAS is trying hard to justify their funding stream so they need to pronounce some edict from on high in a way that no different than the ninny who rules the free world now does frequently.
He rules from his skewed and polarized view of history and his science is just an extension of that. Of course his minions who permeate academia are no different and are now determined to turn us into the 3rd world.
But thankfully, the revolution will be televised this time around and those who simply refuse to adhere to the science will be made to suffer by it and for a long time to come.
In about 100 years the effects of global warming will start to become inconvenient for humans. During which time we will likely have made the technological innovations we need to solve this problem without giving up our way of life or stifling our progress and ability to make such innovations.
Frankly this whole carbon trading and carbon tax game is government greed. My trees are soaking up over 1,400 tons of carbon a year but the government taxes me on my land. My land benefits them. They should be paying me. Instead they steal the carbon credits, sell them to someone else like Al Gore who trades them with the toxic mercury spewing coal plants and makes money.
Tax Waste, Not Work
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Do you know what is causing global warming ? Did you know that the 'global' warming is tied with the entire solar system warming due to the fact that higher energy levels from the Milky way are making the Sun to burn hotter and emit higher energies ? Go ahead and research the full extent of this Scam called the global warming tax.
Have you looked up in the night and wondered why is it that the solar system is not in the same plane as the galactic plane ? Well, according to Matthew Perkins Erwin's postulate, Earth and the Solar System are from a neighboring galaxy called The Sagittarius Dwarf. The odd angle suggests that our Sun is influenced by some other system. Together with data from the Two-Micron All Sky Survey we now know what it is. We actually belong to the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy. "We sifted several thousand interesting stars from a catalog of half a billion," said co-author Michael Skrutskie, U.Va. professor of astronomy and principal investigator for the 2MASS project. "By tuning our maps of the sky to the 'right' kind of star, the Sagittarius system jumped into view."
Using volumes of data from the Two-Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), a major project to survey the sky in infrared light led by the University of Massachusetts, the astronomers are answering questions that have baffled scientists for decades and proving that our own Milky Way is consuming one of its neighbors in a dramatic display of ongoing galactic cannibalism. The study published in the Astrophysical Journal, is the first to map the full extent of the Sagittarius galaxy and show in visually vivid detail how its debris wraps around and passes through our Milky Way. Sagittarius is 10,000 times smaller in mass than the Milky Way, so it is getting stretched out, torn apart and gobbled up by the bigger Milky Way.
http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=1207&i=2
http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1942665.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
http://www.scribd.com/doc/128815/Sagittarius-Dwarf-Galaxy-used-to-be-home-of-our-Solar-System
<b>Other changes happening in our system</b>
The "marriage" of our birth galaxy with our new adopted Milky Way galaxy is causing energy shifts that are obvious just about everywhere. Here are some changes being watched by scientists:
* A growth of dark spots on Pluto.
* Reporting of auroras on Saturn.
* Reporting of Uranus and Neptune polar shifts (They are magnetically conjugate planets), and the abrupt large-scale growth of Uranus' magnetosphere intensity.
* A change in light intensity and light spot dynamics on Neptune.
* The doubling of the magnetic field intensity on Jupiter (based upon 1992 data), and a series of new states and processes observed on this planet as an aftermath of a series of explosions in July 1994 [caused by "Comet" SL-9]. That is, a relaxation of a plasmoid train which excited the Jovian magnetosphere, thus inducing excessive plasma generation and it's release in the same manner as Solar coronal holes inducing an appearance of radiation belt brightening in decimeter band (13.2 and 36 cm), and the appearance of large auroral anomalies and a change of the Jupiter - Io system of currents.
Update Note: A stream of ionized hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. is being directed to Jupiter from the volcanic areas of Io through a one million amperes flux tube. It is affecting the character of Jupiter's magnetic process and intensifying it's plasma genesis.[Z.I.Vselennaya "Earth and Universe" N3, 1997 plo-9 by NASA data]
* A series of Martian atmosphere transformations increasing its biosphere quality. In particularly, a cloudy growth in the equator area and an unusual growth of ozone concentration.
Update Note: Mars Surveyor Satellite encountered an atmospheric density double that projected by NASA upon entering a Mars orbit. This greater density bent one of the solar array arms beyond the full and open stop. This combination of events has delayed the beginning of the schedule
NAS? Nah. There was another group who were advocating AGW. Well the inconvenient truth is the academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
People will still drive cars, people will still use AC, people will still produce CO2... With or without a tax.
How else will they get to work? Or drive the kids to soccer practice?
Carbon Tax will not help the situation because its just another tax that is necessary to live the lifestyle we live.
No occurrence of the word poison in either of those pages, just an indication that greenhouse emissions are a danger to public health, and *NEWSFLASH* it appears they are, if indirectly.
>>if indirectly.
You're starting to get there, cupcake.
Guess what pollutants that are a threat to human health are called?