Right now waste heat forcing on the climate is about 0.028 W/m^2 versus 2.9 W/m^2 for human caused global warming. That's less than 1%. So we have a long way to go before waste heat in a big enough issue to worry about.
And yet from the late 1940's until Kennedy/Johnson changed it in the 1960's the top marginal tax rate was over 90% on income equivalent to several million dollars today. Then until Reagan changed it in the 1980's it was 74%. The economy managed to survive just fine.
What drives capitalism is demand. Sometimes you can use your capital to create a new product that people didn't have demand for before but that presumes the people you're going to sell it to have enough money to buy it. The health of an economy has more to do with the rate at which money is moving through it than it does with how much wealth any individual accumulates. Right now the vast "consumer" class is holding on to their money or paying down debt if the can or is just barely holding on and not spending any money that they don't absolutely have to.
So theoretically at least if you confiscated Bill Gates wealth and distributed it to everyone ($30 billion/300,000 = $100/person) you would get a short term boost to the economy because at least half of those people would spend it immediately. Not something I advocate either but there it is.
Tax receipts (almost) always go up regardless of how you change tax rates because of growth in the economy and inflation. The exception being major recessions like 2008/2009.
One other thing business owners did was to leave the money in the business by investment and raises for workers. Wages and salary for workers tracked productivity very well from WW II up until the 1980s when Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate from about 74% to under 40%. After that people started living on credit which got easier because all of those suddenly wealthier individuals had gobs of money to invest. That doesn't help the middle class much.
ANOTHER HINT: Some of the greatest economic growth in this countries history (The USA) occurred when the top marginal tax rate was over 70%. Rich people accumulating money doesn't drive the economy to any great extent. Regular people with money to spend drives the US's economy which is 70% consumer spending.
Somehow I don't think you have much experience with farming. I grew up in a farming family. You gloss over a lot of stuff that's not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. Ideology often falls apart when it meets reality.
Scientific studies have found that even it the Sun's output retreated to Maunder Minimum standards the warming would continue. It would just be delayed for 5 or 10 years. I'd love to make a bet with you that the decade of the 20teens will be warmer than the 20aughts were. It would be easy money.
Accurate thermometers are far older than that. In 1724 Daniel Fahrenheit produced the first mercury thermometers. There were accurate thermometers before 1800. There are two kinds of accuracy to consider with thermometers, repeatable and absolute. Repeatable accuracy is how well a thermometer repeats the same reading for the same temperature, absolute is how well it shows the true temperature as defined by our temperature scales. For climate change it's the repeatable accuracy that's most important because you're interested how temperature changes over time rather than what the specific temperature is. Given the statistical nature of climate science it is not necessary to measure to tenths of a degree, one degree is good enough.
If the effects disrupt our food supply system enough, including ocean acidification reducing that food source and changes in precipitation disrupting the land supply that could cause civilization to collapse. Part of the reason for the Arab Spring protests in Egypt was an increase in food cost. If people get hungry enough they get desperate. As AGW continues the conditions we're seeing in the US Midwest this year could be the normal conditions in 20 or 30 years.
The cost goes up over time because the longer you wait the more drastic the actions you need to take become. What is the cost of our civilization collapsing because of AGW?
Well over 95% of the ice currently on Greenland was there when it was named. If not sea levels would have been significantly higher then and they weren't. If Greenland were to melt completely it would cause about 20 feet of sea level rise, that's 1 foot per 5%.
It's misleading to those without good reading comprehension.
On July 8, the satellites found evidence that about 40% of the ice sheet's surface had melted. Observations just four days later showed 97% of the surface had melted.
Well over 95% of the ice that is currently on Greenland was there in Viking times during the MWP. If it wasn't then sea level would have been significantly higher back then and it wasn't. All of Greenland's ice melting would lead to 20 feet of sea level rise so 5% would equal 1 foot.
Well over 95% of the ice that is currently on Greenland was there during the MWP when the Vikings lived there. If it wasn't then sea level would have been significantly higher back then and it wasn't. Since melting all of the ice on Greenland would lead to 20 feet of sea level rise 5% of it is equal to 1 foot of SLR.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. Did you include the emissions from processing and delivering the fossil fuels for your ICE car in your calculations?
Wow, sounds like you're pretty pissed off. Can't say that I blame you, there's a lot of truth in what you wrote.
They're only close to free if you ignore the external costs.
Right now waste heat forcing on the climate is about 0.028 W/m^2 versus 2.9 W/m^2 for human caused global warming. That's less than 1%. So we have a long way to go before waste heat in a big enough issue to worry about.
And yet from the late 1940's until Kennedy/Johnson changed it in the 1960's the top marginal tax rate was over 90% on income equivalent to several million dollars today. Then until Reagan changed it in the 1980's it was 74%. The economy managed to survive just fine.
Argh...
s/if the can/if they can/
s\($30 billion/300,000\$30 billion/300 million people\
Yes, the OP was out there a bit.
What drives capitalism is demand. Sometimes you can use your capital to create a new product that people didn't have demand for before but that presumes the people you're going to sell it to have enough money to buy it. The health of an economy has more to do with the rate at which money is moving through it than it does with how much wealth any individual accumulates. Right now the vast "consumer" class is holding on to their money or paying down debt if the can or is just barely holding on and not spending any money that they don't absolutely have to.
So theoretically at least if you confiscated Bill Gates wealth and distributed it to everyone ($30 billion/300,000 = $100/person) you would get a short term boost to the economy because at least half of those people would spend it immediately. Not something I advocate either but there it is.
Tax receipts (almost) always go up regardless of how you change tax rates because of growth in the economy and inflation. The exception being major recessions like 2008/2009.
One other thing business owners did was to leave the money in the business by investment and raises for workers. Wages and salary for workers tracked productivity very well from WW II up until the 1980s when Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate from about 74% to under 40%. After that people started living on credit which got easier because all of those suddenly wealthier individuals had gobs of money to invest. That doesn't help the middle class much.
ANOTHER HINT: Some of the greatest economic growth in this countries history (The USA) occurred when the top marginal tax rate was over 70%. Rich people accumulating money doesn't drive the economy to any great extent. Regular people with money to spend drives the US's economy which is 70% consumer spending.
I laughed.
But my pedantic amateur entomologist self says that maggots are for flies. Termites have nymphs which sounds a whole lot more appealing anyway ;)
Somehow I don't think you have much experience with farming. I grew up in a farming family. You gloss over a lot of stuff that's not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. Ideology often falls apart when it meets reality.
Scientific studies have found that even it the Sun's output retreated to Maunder Minimum standards the warming would continue. It would just be delayed for 5 or 10 years. I'd love to make a bet with you that the decade of the 20teens will be warmer than the 20aughts were. It would be easy money.
Suicide bombers think they're being altruistic too.
Cherry picking that line out of the whole sentence is rather disingenuous too.
Accurate thermometers are far older than that. In 1724 Daniel Fahrenheit produced the first mercury thermometers. There were accurate thermometers before 1800. There are two kinds of accuracy to consider with thermometers, repeatable and absolute. Repeatable accuracy is how well a thermometer repeats the same reading for the same temperature, absolute is how well it shows the true temperature as defined by our temperature scales. For climate change it's the repeatable accuracy that's most important because you're interested how temperature changes over time rather than what the specific temperature is. Given the statistical nature of climate science it is not necessary to measure to tenths of a degree, one degree is good enough.
If the effects disrupt our food supply system enough, including ocean acidification reducing that food source and changes in precipitation disrupting the land supply that could cause civilization to collapse. Part of the reason for the Arab Spring protests in Egypt was an increase in food cost. If people get hungry enough they get desperate. As AGW continues the conditions we're seeing in the US Midwest this year could be the normal conditions in 20 or 30 years.
I think it will be a while before the actual numbers are out. It takes time to analyze the data from satellites.
The cost goes up over time because the longer you wait the more drastic the actions you need to take become. What is the cost of our civilization collapsing because of AGW?
Well over 95% of the ice currently on Greenland was there when it was named. If not sea levels would have been significantly higher then and they weren't. If Greenland were to melt completely it would cause about 20 feet of sea level rise, that's 1 foot per 5%.
It's misleading to those without good reading comprehension.
On July 8, the satellites found evidence that about 40% of the ice sheet's surface had melted. Observations just four days later showed 97% of the surface had melted.
See how it mentions "the ice sheet's surface". One consequence of that melting is that the ice surface becomes more granular which lowers the albedo encouraging more melting. http://www.desmogblog.com/black-day-july-greenland-ice-sheet
Kipper? Is he sleeping with herring now? I think you meant Tipper.
Mostly what I've heard is it would cost something like 3% of GDP to mitigate AGW. That goes up the longer we wait.
Well over 95% of the ice that is currently on Greenland was there in Viking times during the MWP. If it wasn't then sea level would have been significantly higher back then and it wasn't. All of Greenland's ice melting would lead to 20 feet of sea level rise so 5% would equal 1 foot.
We have been having an unusual amount of solar activity this year.
Not that unusual compared to some previous solar cycles.
Well over 95% of the ice that is currently on Greenland was there during the MWP when the Vikings lived there. If it wasn't then sea level would have been significantly higher back then and it wasn't. Since melting all of the ice on Greenland would lead to 20 feet of sea level rise 5% of it is equal to 1 foot of SLR.