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."
Don't bet on that. They will just levy a tax calculated on your gross body weight, which will have to be reported year year to the IRS due to the future 'single payer' health care that will be based on your 'health'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I also have religious beliefs, like you. I believe in pink unicorns and fairies.
That's about the same effect any cap and trade/tax will have with global warming. If any of you enviro chicken littles were honest, you'd admit that these taxes /cap and trade schemesare about power and money and nothing else.
Ahh yes, defer to your betters and put on the blinders. Why are you unwilling to use that thing on the top of your head on this subject. There are plenty of Climate Scientists who don't think the recent increase in temperatures are anything to worry about.
What you and the clique of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists want is to limit my freedom for no good reason. They are at liberty to do what they want about the CO2 problem without taking my money, but would prefer to have their hands in everyone's pocket. It's no better than stealing. I leave you with a quote from Thomas Sowell that I think you would do well to read *and* understand.
****
Freedom is not simply the right of intellectuals to circulate their merchandise. It is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their 'betters.
Thomas Sowell
Experts once believed in racial theories, the benign nature of x-ray exposure, cranial measurements as proof of criminal tendencies.
If an expert can be wrong, then the problem comes down to discernment. If experts disagree, how do you choose which expert to follow?
If experts choose a course of action that is destructive to you, are you obligated to follow it? Are others obligated to impose it upon you? Are you obligated to impose it on others?
Does the fact that you renounce your freedom mean that I should also be enslaved?
Remarkably one-sided point of view. You think the only lobbyists in Washington are in the Oil/Coal Industry? The lobbying effort on the other side is massive as well, and guess what? You actually get something for cheap energy! Here's another. Guess what the Green Energy lobby will give you? A massive utility/petroleum price increase!! Good for you Mr. Naive!!
That says *nothing* about whether the warming is man made or natural. It's completely unrepsonsive to the issue.
And your health is going to get better how, when developed nations are getting taxed to the hilt for each ounce of greenhouse gases they put out while, China, India and all other unruly countries are polluting to their hearts' content, because they are "developing nations" ? Explain that one to me one more time please ! This is plain old transfer of wealth agenda by the bleeding heart liberal movement and has nothing to do with the environment, air quality or whatsoever. Because you wait for the government handout while I bust my ass to feed your friggen welfare check, you disdain that I am making more money than you do and want to punish me by taxing. This is the whole rationale behind this crap anyhow. And anyone with half of their supposedly active brain cells working can see that. The new TV set you disdain and choose not to buy in favor of your health is going to be manufactured and sold to you by a third world country, polluting the earth's global environment much more than it being produced in a developed nation no matter what. Choose your comparisons wisely I am gonna say but there is no wise comparison here for you liberal wackos, so you grasp the fist string coming your way. Good grief...
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Has it occurred to you that might have unintended consequences, such as discouraging investment?
I'm sure it has occurred to him, but if he is a typical Progressive, that would be an argument in favor. All this capitalism, free markets, limited government power, and individual freedom stuff is so...so...20th century.
Haven't you received your indoc^W^W^W^Winformation from your "official" EPA-sponsored church about "Environmental Justice", "Social Justice", and "Economic Justice"? It's the Gospel according to Saint Pelosi and His Obamaness.
Remember Brothers and Sisters, if your church isn't working with the EPA to promote "God's Agenda", it could find things very difficult economically. "Official" churches get special government-sponsored low-rate loans, etc.
Always remember children, Satan was a conservative! Burn one today!
Now, where are all those people who were screaming "separation of church and state!!!!" when GWB started his faith-based initiatives? The silence is deafening.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It's such a simple problem that yes, you must be deluded or crazy if you "checked the numbers" and concluded AGW is wrong. However, we have no idea what exactly you did when you "checked the numbers" so I can't really say if you are crazy or not. If all the numbers you checked lead you to doubt AGW, then I suspect you were looking at some misinformation. "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" is a testable hypothesis that you can prove through experimentation by yourself. Once that is known it becomes pretty obvious that there should be some concern about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
One convenient locations...in Africa.
So maybe this is what the tax revenue is used for: making sure those most effected by price increases on basic needs still get to eat. Which is more important, making sure everybody can eat today, or making sure the planet is in decent shape 50 or 100 years from now?*
Having the carbon tax seems like it would make sense. People can properly value the cost of green vs. not green energy. Otherwise, it's cheaper to pollute and that will be what most businesses choose.
Heck, someone posted a comment a year ago about automakers wishing there was a carbon tax: it would improve clarity in the gas/hybrid/all electric choice.
*(If we take climate change to the extreme:
If we don't change something soon, it could get so bad that only those people that can afford biodomes can survive. Yeah, it sounds kinda nuts, but can anyone honestly say they know when climate change will end? I do tend to trust the people who know about this topic, as I don't have training or the data. Here's a list of scientific organizations (not businesses, lobbyists, or politicians) that think greenhouse gases are changing the climate: Wiki. It's a long list. Do you really want to take the chance that they are wrong? Or are you just betting that someone will invent the "silver bullet" to capture carbon 30 years from now? Damage will be done by then, including the possibility of species becoming extinct. Are you ok with that?
)