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."
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.
That's because you don't have huge lobbyists paying your senators to pollute the streets.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
That's because breathing CO2 just recycles CO2 that's already in the biosphere. Digging miles into the earth to burn fossil fuels releases CO2 that hasn't been part of the biosphere for tens of millions of years. As I've repeatedly explained, fossil fuel use can be causally linked to the skyrocketing CO2 concentration through the C-12/C-13 isotope ratio (among other techniques).
Oddly enough, the National Academy of Sciences is aware that humans exhale CO2. Imagine that.
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.
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
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!
I didn't notice scientists telling President Bush that it was perfectly okay to burn fossil fuels. In fact, it seems like scientists have been saying pretty much the same thing for decades, but the last head of government never listened.
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.
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.
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"
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.
All carbon credits are designed to do is to lower emissions through impoverishment of the "masses". This will dramatically increase the divide between the rich who can afford to invest in carbon credits, government workers (who will largely live exempt due to special "needs"), the special interests (unions who back political organizations, academics who live in government funded universities, and contractors who perform special services for government workers), and the rest of us. I have not seen an explosion in "green jobs" outside of the jobs that the stimulus package has created, and we all know that none of the "green energy sources" that are a reality today can even come close to providing a fraction of the power needed to sustain the way we live today.
There for, carbon credits are a method of reducing emissions through impoverishment... well... impoverishment of the "masses" (I hate that term). Corporations like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan will benefit greatly as the ones who provide access to the new carbon trading markets.
Folks, if you truly believe in "equality" and all that jive, carbon credits arent the way to go. They will create the greatest divide in wealth since the creation of the Feudal Society.
20th century Marxism is not progress...
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.
Basically because everyone knows that nuclear plants kill people.
Ask anyone about Chernobyl and they will tell you about the thousands of people that died because of it all across Europe. And how the entire state of Pennsylvania was nearly wiped out because of Three Mile Island. Then there are all those poor Japanese people that died because of a radiation release in Japan.
If you then show these people that (a) Zero people died because of Three Mile Island, (b) 46 firefighters died in the Cherynobyl accident, and (c) nobody died in Japan you will be branded a liar and some kind of anti-environmental kook. Probably a REPUBLICAN that believes in wierd religious stuff and wants money, not family.
We are about 40 years too late to educate people and the tabloids have taken over the job.
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.
There are still some people furious that the government is sticking its nose where it shouldn't belong by requiring catalytic converters. To some people, _any_ government action is an abuse of power. Most of us consider these people to be nut cases or seriously deluded.
Air quality has improved since the days of L.A. being famous for its smog. Maybe not directly the cause of catalytic converters, but it's very probable that it is due to taking the problem of air pollution seriously and implementing many steps to try and put a curb on it.
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
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.
"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.)
I see a television weather reporter here, not a published scientist.
.
Depending on your latitude, it may more more sense not to re-plant the trees, as snowpack reflects more IR back into space than the trees' CO2 sequestration offsets.
Assuming global temperature is the only concern, of course, but that seems to be the trendy thing to do.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Redistributing the wealth....isn't that the point???
It's because the impact is more secondary then primary. The entire cap and trade situation which is more or less the exact same as the carbon tax which would be the same as Stronger anti-smog legislation with the exception of efficiency, is little more then a revenue and control stream.
Cap and Trade was designed by political hacks who wanted to use Global warming to resolve the issue of the third world debt incurred with the oil crisis in the 1970's (which was a major issue in the 80's and 90's until Kyoto came about with the cap and trade system). A carbon tax is little more then the same except it gets to pick winners and losers so there is more control over who benefits and who does not. Cutting through the BS, is simply applying stricter regulations and fines in excess of profits made by ignoring the regulation. Both of the previous systems will eventual result in this except the penalties can be applied before the technology is available. This way they do not have to wait to extract revenue from businesses who will simply pass it down to the consumer which means you and me.
If anyone was serious about reducing pollution, then something way more simple would be in place. This is how you know that global warming- the political aspect of it anyways, it more about revenue and control then the environment. You see, if they were serious about Co2 being a problem, then treaties like Kyoto would take all those scientists sent to convince the world they needed to tax and impoverish their populations through IPCC reports, and put them in a room with the purpose of finding practical sources of clean energy or ways to make existing sources cleaner. Then they would patent all this and offer the tech discovered to any country or business operating within the country and possible make it a requirement of implementation on new facilities for admission or continues membership into international trade unions the WTO.
In fact, almost all of the so called problems could be solved by a system like that in which clean tech is shared with the users and all countries. Instead, they want systems where either the government of a country impoverishes it's population by tax or caps that do little more then make things cost more, or by building up impoverished nations like Kyoto accords specify. And just to put it bluntly but brightly so people can understand, the Kyoto treaty has something like 137 countries sign onto it with the US being about the only one not doing so. Of those 137 countries, only 38 or so had Co2 limits imposed and an effective way around those limits is to move your pollution to the third world countries which is why you see Europe relying a lot more in manufacturing from China and India which are now some of the leading polluters.
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.
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...
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.