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."
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.
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.
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
A tax on carbon is a tax on everything. Food prices will rise. The price of everything ordered on Amazon will rise. The price of everyhtng transported by road or rail will rise. The price of running your heater or AC will rise, a lot. And it's a regressive tax, like all consumption taxes.
The last time America had a serious economic crisis, it was pretty directly caused by energy prices rising. Why are we so determined as a nation to magnify and extend the current economic crisis to match the Carter years?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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
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...
>because you haven't sufficently proven that CO2 is the cause, thats why. the current 10 year trend is actually cooling.
Oh, Really?
"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.
The combined surface temperatures on land and at sea averaged 14.5 C, some 0.76 C above the 20th century average. Average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for April and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record for the month.
NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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.
"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.)
Right, but that's 3% over equilibrium, and it's cumulative.
Do you really think that the members of the National Academy of Sciences haven't thought of these obvious questions?
If you really want to know the answers, you could start by reading articles on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_sun_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permo%E2%80%93Carboniferous_Glaciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleozoic#Climate
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.
Only by completely refuting all known science behind climate change research could someone say with as much certainty as you that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will do human civilization no harm. There is plenty of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, you would just seemingly rather believe it's all an elaborate hoax to destroy the economy and businesses, as if that's in the best interest of the global scientific community and the world as a whole.
And it isn't a straw-man, I was responding to your idiotic assertions that the left should embrace corporatism in the name of securing paychecks for the workers. If you meant in this particular situation only you didn't specify that, so maybe you should speak clearer next time? wizardforce also did not specify, and I am well-aware that Carbon Taxes are the beginning of the thread but the discussion took the turns that it did. Even speaking more broadly though and not about Carbon Taxes, your supposition is ridiculous and not worth serious consideration.
I want your crystal ball. I am merely advocating something I am not making the assumption as you are that the end-result is already determined. Speculate all you want on how things will play out, I don't care one whit. As for the China and India remark, one can only hope that in time they can be persuaded to understand the severity of the situation. In the meantime, that doesn't excuse us doing nothing about the problem. Being greener does not have to equate to increased poverty and less of a role in global economics, but for some reason you seem to think that the two are absolutely inseparable. Science is continuously developing more efficient strategies for alternative energy and if we could get some more funding going on for things then progress would be even greater. The status quo should not and cannot be maintained.
Lastly, why do climate change deniers always act like Al Gore is the only person or even the biggest/most visible person in the climate change debate? I and most others are curious about your obsession with the guy over the silly claim that he allegedly said he invented the internet (he didn't) or his contributions to the climate change debate (he is a minor player and is not a climate change scientist nor does he pretend to be). We are interested in debating facts, not persons. You guys win over the misinformed far easier by attacking persons though instead of using reason.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
Reminds me of when we had rolling blackouts in California a few years back.
You mean the ones caused by collusion and market manipulation of private power companies like Enron and PNG determined to drive profits regardless of the collateral damage to the rest of us?
I remember them too.
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...