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."
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.
Cap and Trade is just a fancy phrase meaning "tax" anyway. I hate the verbal misdirection.
I hate the fact that calling it "cap and trade" actually makes it more likely to get passed than calling it a tax.
Extra, Extra, read all about it! Quasi-governmental organizations tells government to do what head of government wants to do anyway!
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
...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.
It isn't the same thing at all. For one thing, direct emissions taxes are not as likely to hit specific levels of CO2. For another, the presence of trading in a cap and trade system allows for the efficiencies of the market to come into play. Thus, a cap and trade system works more efficiently than a direct tax.
This already goes on, it's rampant. The solution is more restrictions and regulations on Wall Street to stop people from being able to make money who don't actually produce anything of value. It shouldn't be possible to get rich skimming off the top and siphoning away wealth from the working class that actually moves the economy. This country produces thousands of college graduates every year who go on to be bankers or Wall Street traders when they should be engineers and scientists. We produce people who not only don't contribute anything themselves but actually make it harder for other people to be productive. This can't go on forever, and if we don't put and end to it it's going to put an end to us.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I'd definitely like to see IRS personnel inside an active volcano.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
People will be more willing to accept high taxes on energy related to transportation if they had alternatives. If you reinvest the tax money, or some of it, into a robust public transportation system it would make it easier to live without a car; something which is difficult to impossible in many places in the US. There is still a huge car culture in America, and it'll take a culture shift for that to change but it has to start somewhere. It no longer makes sense that we're reliant on each person owning and operating there own 2000 pound machine to move them to where they need to go. It is rapidly becoming economically and environmentally unsustainable and it's a change that has to happen.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
We definitely need a tax on politically active scientists.
Culture change time. Rethink atomic power. Rethink public transport.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
There's no reason why it couldn't work. There are cities just as large as LA in the world that do just fine with less cars. Tokyo and Moscow come to mind. There just isn't enough political/cultural will to get it done at the moment. $5+/gl petrol would probably change that.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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.
Trains are a backwards 1800s technology that lacks flexibility. Heck I can't even ride a train if I wanted to, because it's a 10 mile walk to the station..... and even if the station were right next door, it takes twice as long (1 hour) as a car to reach my job. Plus what if I need to make a sudden trip in the middle of night? No trains run after 10pm around here. So I'd be stuck.
Cars offer flexibility. And they are modular, such that they can scale up from minimal operation (a few cars running at 3am) to full deployment (rush hour). Trains can't do that. I see a lot of trains running almost completely empty, and therefore wasting fuel. Cars are more flexible.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
That's because the cap & trade tax goes to Wall Street instead of the government.
If I had a reason to suspect that that's what we'd do with a carbon tax, I'd be all for it.
Alas, past history suggests that we'd use the money gained to fund some congresscritter's favorite boondoggle instead.
Oh, and do we plan to impose a carbon tax on India and China? Not sure I see much point in crippling our industry unless they do the same, since we won't be solving global warming by any action that's not worldwide....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Every resource is "rationed." It just so happens that in Capitalism those with power get more rations than others.
Interestingly enough it's the same under socialism.......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What? You're opposed to eliminating Income Tax?
Of course they are. Cap and trade isn't about reducing carbon. There's a multitude of ways we could do that without imposing new taxes. Cap and trade is all about creating a new revenue source for Government. Apparently it's not enough that the Government consumes 1/4 of our economy.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That's an example of the "culture shift" that will need to happen for public transit to become viable. You buy ten bags of groceries and shop once every two weeks. That's the norm in the US. If you shopped every day or every other day and bought less at a time then public transportation becomes more acceptable. You'll say you don't have time, but again that's just another cultural value.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
You are painting with an awfully large brush there. The word "bankers" includes everybody from the CEO of Citi to the branch manager of Small Town Bank, Inc. The second guy is not making millions of dollars.
Besides, who appointed you the arbitrator of how much a profession is "worth"? And what would you do about it? Raise taxes? Cap salaries?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Make the top marginal rate 90%
Few people outside of the far-left would regard it as far to take 90% of someone's earnings.
There are also other creative solutions like making the board of directors of publicly traded companies elected by the workers.
Yeah that's fair. Take the vote away from the people who put up the money to get the company off the ground. Has it occurred to you that might have unintended consequences, such as discouraging investment?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The first thing is to shut down the coal-fired power plants. This will immediately decrease the CO2 emissions.
In 10 years or so we can have some nuclear plants built, but by then there will be far less need. Anyone that needs electricity to survive will have died off and the entire US food distribution system will have been reshaped - no refrigeration, no frozen food.
Besides, unless we can convince Mexico to get on board, just exactly where would we build a nuclear plant? Nobody in the environmental movement is going to allow one to be built within the continental US today. The procedures for preventing this from happening are well defined and have been used for the last 40 years or so. Any attempt to inject reality (like TMI where 0 people died and Chernobyl where 46 firefighters died) into the discussion will simply have result in being branded as an uncaring, environment-destroying fool.
I do not even believe that in the face of some pending shutdown of coal plants that a single nuclear plant would be built. It isn't going to happen, ever.
Likely within the next 20 years we are going to see electric power become extremely unreliable and costly for most of the US. It might be even less than that. We are probably completely out of time to build anything before there are serious consequences, even if the environmental folks would get out of the way, which they aren't going to do.
Yes, you can charge China and India a carbon tax. It would be collected as a tariff on imports and indexed to the amount of CO2 discharged by industry in countries that did not mandate control of CO2 emissions. China would notice this very quickly.
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.
No Scientists did not conclude that the high temperatures on Venus aren't cause by a greenhouse effect.
Anthony Watts, a climate sceptic and meteorologist, posted an entry by Steve Goddard (I don't know his qualifications) on his blog that said the high temperatures on Venus aren't cause by a greenhouse effect. If you want me to take that post seriously than show me the paper in a respectable peer reviewed scientific journal that says the same thing. That way I know that at least some knowledgeable scientists have looked at the paper and checked the data and calculations.
I'm sorry but I've seen more than enough "scientific" blog posts and it will take more than that to convince me of an argument.
I stole this Sig
"The EPA and others have begun pushing to label CO2 as a poison."
That statement is in dire need of a citation.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
97% of annual CO2 emissions are natural. Only 3% are anthropogenic. It mostly comes from decaying biomass. Look it up. What, don't they highlight this fact on the greenist web sites? My country (Canada) is responsible for 0.06% of total CO2 emissions. Hardly seems worth gutting my standard of living over.
No, you're miss-informed as to what Clean Coal actually is. It has nothing to do with CO2 reduction. It means that technologies (namely scrubbers) are used to dramatically reduce sulfur dioxides, nitrogen dioxides, and other particulate matter.
Life is not for the lazy.
"Checking the numbers" only works on those whose minds are open enough to step outside the comforting, narrative-supporting cocoon of Fox News and question the notion that everything that challenges your assumptions is part of the conspiracy. And even well-educated, otherwise mentally-capable people can be imprisoned by that narrative, because it's comforting.
So you're saying that all the people who have checked the numbers and still doubt AGW are... deluded? Crazy? Blind followers of Fox News?
The "you need an open mind" argument is only valid coming from someone who doesn't apply absurd stereotypes to those who disagree. (Which, if I haven't been clear, excludes you.)
they only way to get to 68% below 1990 levels is to bring the entire world economy to a halt
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?
I see a television weather reporter here, not a published scientist.
.
So what? The fact that someone makes a lot of money is not sufficient justification for the Government to take almost all of it.
Aren't leftists big on the concept of equal protection? Explain to me how "progressive" tax structures are compatible with treating everybody equally under the law?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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 $70 today.
Yeah, I'm sure that had absolutely nothing to do with skyrocketing demand, a relative leveling off of production capacity, general inflation, or the cartel that is OPEC. Your simplistic "it's the big bad government" answer *must* be the right one!
Listen to your gut, big guy, I'm sure it's right, facts be damned...
Just for gigles, go look at gapminder. See http://www.gapminder.org/world/?PHPSESSID=kinokshem5859bcbqa0iv1v1h3#$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
Actually large coal plants are more efficient than liquid fueled vehicles in the amount of CO2 they produce to generate a given amount of energy. But natural gas is 30% more efficient than coal in that regard.
One of my biggest problems with nuclear power is it can't be built without massive government subsidies. No private insurance company is willing to insure them. Several projects around the world have run into problems or been reexamined due to costs.
All I'm saying is it's hypocritical to shout "You need an open mind!" while simultaneously demonstrating one's own closed-mindedness.
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.
China is also investing more in clean/renewable energy than the US. If we don't get on the ball they'll eat our lunch in the field.
Well officer, you see it's like I was doing 150mph relative to the ground in a 30mph limit but the Earth is going around the sun at 67000 mph so my 120mph over the limit is totally irrelevant.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Excellent argument. You point out one of the reasons why a lot of people have (and had) problems with the global warming response:
- Ad-hominem fallacy - Anyone who does not agree is a crackpot. When this is the mindset it makes me doubt since this is not science but an ad-hominem attack.
- Fudged numbers - I understand this does not mean malice, but especially reluctance to find out the causes or let other scientists help find it raises doubt.
- Financial gain - Al Gore made a lot of money, and a proposal for 'carbon tax' will give the government a financial gain. Like I doubt any statement that greatly benefits the person who made it this raises doubt.
- Science incomplete - CO2 is a greenhouse gas (of many), but the model is not yet complete, there are a lot of unknown factors. By claiming this is the ultimate cause you blind yourselves to other possibilities which have not been sufficiently refuted (partially because of first reason, actual scientists who disagree or even raise valid questions are ridiculed).
I for one doubt some of the explanations given why the earth is warming up, and have been digging a little deeper and crunching the numbers... the results are unsettling, what if CO2 is not the main cause of the rise in temperature? If you are investing a lot in CO2 reduction you might be wasting resources that can be used for better purposes. We can better start by making changes that everyone agrees with, like reducing fuel consumption will lead to better air quality (not CO2 but other byproducts and fine particles). Forcing people to pay a tax or to buy imaginary 'carbon offsets' (fuck, how stupid are some people) is not a way to a solution, it's a way to monetize a problem...
Yes, god forbid I pass some of my life's work down to my children. The Government should come and seize it all when I die.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Forcing people to pay a tax or to buy imaginary 'carbon offsets' (fuck, how stupid are some people) is not a way to a solution, it's a way to monetize a problem...
Make no mistake, I think everything else you said is also wrong, but I though this deserved special attention. Of course, "carbon offsets" are a way to monetize a problem. It's quite obviously a bribe to capitalists to get them to support reducing CO2 by monetizing the problem. The way capitalism works, nothing will ever be done about anything that doesn't translate into money. As long as CO2 emissions are free, corporations will pay, at best, lip service to reducing emissions. Corporations only have one real duty, and that's to deliver profits to their owners. If it doesn't cost anything and the alternatives do, the alternatives will rarely be used (essentially only by specialty companies that cater to patrons who care and can afford to deal with such a companies).
Carbon Dioxide is an externality, there are really only about four possible way to fix an externality: Criminalization, Civil Tort law, Government provision, Pigovian taxes. If CO2 is a problem you have four possible solutions:
1) Criminalize CO2 emissions.
2) Allow citizens to sue companies because of their CO2 emissions.
3) Tax everyone to pay for large carbon sequestration operations.
4) Tax the people who release the CO2.
If you don't like option #4, what would you choose instead and why?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Not at all.
I'm just saying that Fox News panders to the internal narrative that their fans already believe. Their viewers aren't blind, they've just got their eyes tightly shut.
People who doubt AGW are sensible. It's the normal reaction to such extraordinary claims (such as "the earth is getting warmer").
When you disregard, out-of-hand, the work of tens of thousands of scientists, and say that "it's all a conspiracy or scam" then you start to wander into kook territory.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Make no mistake, I think everything else you said is also wrong
P.S. This kinda stuck with me... If you believe global warming is an imminent threat and CO2 reduction is the way to go I would think that you would want to do anything to help people understand this and share this mindset. The points I mentioned are opinions I have noticed that increase people's doubt, they are in no way factual since opinions may vary per person. That being said, you also can't conclude that everything is wrong since these are real opinions that do exist in people's mind. If your goal is to reduce doubt (and increase awareness) you should address these points (think of it as inside knowledge of how your 'opponents' think and use it to the advantage of your cause).
Al Gore could for example donate all money he makes to environmental causes and take away most of the doubt of that point, but of course not everything is in your power. On the other hand you personally can attempt to have meaningful discussions (like we do now), and in particular make sure not to fall back to ad-hominem attacks if people's idea's are strange to you.
Being that a carbon tax will have little to no effect (per "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" proponents that will greatly benefit, monetarily, should such come to pass) on the amount of human generated carbon in the atmosphere, all talk of such "carbon" or similar taxes should completely scrapped.
It is, and always has been, nothing more than A) a power grab and B) a method to bilk even more money out of tax paying citizens who are already over-taxed in the extreme to help cement further control and enslavement of the United States citizenry. Such taxes solve nothing except continue the craven "re-distrubtion of wealth" meme.
This should be opposed and thwarted at every level and at every opportunity.
Frankly, I think the fact that CO2 is a major problem has been sufficiently demonstrated. I'm no expert on the topic, but there's about a 95% or better agreement among the experts that it is a problem. You don't get that type of agreement from experts unless the issue is pretty much resolved. (When was the last time you asked for a 20th expert opinion before making up your mind?)
I don't understand your rhetoric over conflict of interest. I'm not sure who you're implying is going to benefit from climate change, after all it's not just scientists:
"Count a growing number of Colorado businesses among those deeply disenchanted with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its stance that climate change legislation is largely based on junk science and will further derail the American economy.
Earlier this month, heavy hitters like Apple, Exelon, Levi Strauss and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. outright quit the nation’s leading business organization. Nike resigned from the Chamber’s board but maintained its membership, and companies like Duke Energy, General Electric, Alcoa and Johnson & Johnson have disavowed the chamber’s positions on global warming.
The U.S. military also considers climate change to be a real issue:
The Pentagon will for the first time rank global warming as a destabilising force, adding fuel to conflict and putting US troops at risk around the world, in a major strategy review to be presented to Congress tomorrow. The quadrennial defence review, prepared by the Pentagon to update Congress on its security vision, will direct military planners to keep track of the latest climate science, and to factor global warming into their long term strategic planning.
So, what I'm confused about is, if there's a real problem, what incentive do climate scientists have to mislead us about the cause of the problem?
As for the taxes issue, fuel is not the only source of CO2 emissions and yes taxes on fuel do indirectly tax CO2 and if fuel was not taxed in most countries, we would be in a worse situation right now.
As far as taxes being entirely ineffective, there's two reasons why that's unlikely. The first is that consumption is factor of demand and price. Increase the price and consumption drops unless demand increases. There are different demand curves depending on the flexibility of the demand and the alternatives. The second is that at some point alternatives which produce fewer emissions will become more affordable than the C02 emitting energy sources we use now. At that point there will certainly be deflation in the demand for CO2 emitting energy sources. So yes, a CO2 tax should actually reduce the rate of global temperature increase.
Fanatically anti-fanatical