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."
... either adopt cap and trade legislation.
or... what?
"Either" requires an "or" you stupid dumbfuck.
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!”
...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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
and even if you did, no one has come up with a believable price on CO2. i'll fully admit it would be no easy task, since your dealing with so many unknowns.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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.
The experts are politically driven to get grant money, This drives their science. If you believe the experts then you are just ignorant about the politics involved. You cant possibly understand the need to get money in science is the driving force. The whole community of experts would testify in writing that their rectum is capable of fitting over the top of their head and give evidence to support it if it involved getting a grant. Yes I am a scientist and understand the science. However did you go outside today. Humm It is May 19 and here in Cincinnati OH the temperature is now 62 degrees F and I haven't even run the AC yet this year. Where the Hell is the global warming when you need it. The cap and tax is just just a ploy to implement global governance and redistribution of wealth.
Aren't scientists the people that brought us wonderful innovations like eugenics and lobotomies? Seems to me I recall the consensus of scientific experts of the time thought those were a pretty good idea, too.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Because it will make some scientists, bureaucrats and the green lobby rich. These people don't care about the environment, just their jobs.
Learn to be check the numbers when you hear outrageous claims like this.
Learn to be check the English too :-)
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Um... That's because if you claim that no one died in Japan you are some kind of kook. We dropped two really big bombs on cities that they refused to evacuate.
What a total scam. My carbon footprint is less that 10% of Al Gore's but he justifies his 10x + carbon footprint because he buys "offsets". What a bunch of crap. What justifies anyone having carbon offsets to sell? Why am I not able to sell my "offsets" to Al ?
Don't mistake my disappointment in the (lack of) intellectual rigor of most non-scientists as anger. It's an emotion much more akin to sadness. And the point of my modified salem hypothesis was that computer science isn't really all that closely related to the radiative physics of the atmosphere. In my opinion, computer science should probably be called "algorithm engineering" in an attempt to emphasize the difference between it and the "natural sciences". The "standard" Salem hypothesis is similar and (as far as I can tell) very descriptive of reality; my only modification was that of generalizing the statement somewhat.
My current point is that a staggering number of crackpots stress the amount of time they've spent independently studying an idea, missing the fact that they have no objective way to determine if this "study" has actually enabled them to solve serious graduate physics problems because no one's ever graded their homework or exams. It's important to stress that this kind of independent verification is a critical part of the educational process.
No, but I disagree with your assessment that Real Climate are bullshitting deceitful hacks, for reasons that I've explained at length in my article.
Indeed, I just remembered that I asked people to mod up one of your previous comments. But I also disagree that "the IPCC has done a good enough job discrediting themselves, with their predictions historically overstating global warming" for similar reasons as Ambitwistor in his reply to your comment.
This is really what they want. It's kind of a pathological self loathing on a world wide scale.
People like wizardforce would more than happy to see us go back to horse and buggys, live on communes, eliminate most advanced forms of technology, etc.
Hey, I think I saw wizardforce in a video...yeah...here it is.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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?
Nuclear is not "far safer" than any other energy.
there are about a dozen clean, renewable sources that are infiintely safer and that do not generate waste that can be turned into weapons for hundreds of years after we are done with it.
it can be done for 0.25/kwh or less, right now (just considering solar PV, which isn't even the cheapest, just the most universally deployable), plus some investment in time shifting energy demands and in transmission improvements. by the time nukes are done being built, that number will be significantly less. there are areas of america paying 0.25/kwh right now. it's not the end of society to do that. and it solves all the same problems nukes do (anything that can be powered electricall).
if we don't do cap and trade we should at least add the entire american military budget to our gas taxes.
OR, we can strap our great (x50) grandkids with protecting a pile of weapons grade nuclear waste so we could continue to have "cheap" electricity. hmm. tough choice.
that's the "free market" for you though. do whatever you can pretend is "cheap" as long as you can keep pretending.