And my state use to collect royalties on timber harvest to fund public schools. Now we have high property taxes and get to breath burning trees each summer.
Harvesting timber is not land raping. Where I live, each summer we have the delightful experience of breathing burned trees. Last year it was so bad that there were air quality alerts for weeks on end. We can harvest and utilize trees, or we can breath smoke and pay to fight forests. A rational person would prefer harvest.
A pox on whoever first decided that tax laws should be used to manipulate the behavior of free citizens. Where do you suppose government gets this cash to distribute? Who gets to decide what activities are "beneficial" or "problematic"? If people are so dumb that they cannot make their own choices, what makes you think politicians are any smarter? I would argue that the evidence clearly points to politicians not being the Utopian philosopher-kings,but self-serving kleptocrats.
What entity gets the proceeds from "adverse environmental impact"? That entity will be prone to declare more and more activities to fall into this category and do nothing to mitigate any environmental impacts. Never forget that the essential mission of any government entity is to gain more and more power (money).
One of course wonders about the seriousness of a model that does not take account the oceans in the first place. These people don't care about reducing their own carbon footprints in any meaningful way. But they do care about reducing *your* carbon footprint, preferably using the heavy hand of an all-powerful state, that they envision themselves directing.
Taking credit for something an ancestor did is more than a little disingenuous. You had nothing to do with it. And to assert that the blessings of freedom and prosperity are only for white people is more than a little racist.
Given that 96% of CO2 comes from natural sources every year, your numbers don't add up. Tell me one death caused by atmospheric CO2. I can tell you that without it we would all be dead.
"Radically altering the composition of the atmosphere..." Really? Imagine a stadium of 100,000 people, each assigned a molecule present in dry air. 79,090 would be nitrogen. 20,950 would be oxygen. 930 would be argon. 39 would be CO2. Of the 39 CO2 people, 36 would have resulted from natural activity, and 3 would be because of human activity. 3 out of 100,000 is not a radical change, especially when the fossil record shows concentrations in the 5000 ppm range.
Slashdot Mirror
Who you going to believe, official coverups or your own lying eyes?
You must have missed the whole Climategate thing.
And my state use to collect royalties on timber harvest to fund public schools. Now we have high property taxes and get to breath burning trees each summer.
Harvesting timber is not land raping. Where I live, each summer we have the delightful experience of breathing burned trees. Last year it was so bad that there were air quality alerts for weeks on end. We can harvest and utilize trees, or we can breath smoke and pay to fight forests. A rational person would prefer harvest.
Actually, wilderness is far more restrictive. You cannot even ride a bicycle in wilderness. Wheeled game carriers? Forgettaboutit.
A pox on whoever first decided that tax laws should be used to manipulate the behavior of free citizens. Where do you suppose government gets this cash to distribute? Who gets to decide what activities are "beneficial" or "problematic"? If people are so dumb that they cannot make their own choices, what makes you think politicians are any smarter? I would argue that the evidence clearly points to politicians not being the Utopian philosopher-kings,but self-serving kleptocrats.
When did you ever see a tax/fine proposal that included distribution to citizens?
It rains a lot in the hot tropics. More heat, more evaporation, heat rises, cools, rain falls. Pretty simple, really.
What entity gets the proceeds from "adverse environmental impact"? That entity will be prone to declare more and more activities to fall into this category and do nothing to mitigate any environmental impacts. Never forget that the essential mission of any government entity is to gain more and more power (money).
who banned driftwood bonfires to combat global warming.
Kind of like saying that 3 additional molecules of CO2 out of 100,000 molecules of air is the driving function for temperatures. Just silly.
Your value is defined by the net present value of the future taxes the actuarial models predict you will pay. Nice.
One of course wonders about the seriousness of a model that does not take account the oceans in the first place. These people don't care about reducing their own carbon footprints in any meaningful way. But they do care about reducing *your* carbon footprint, preferably using the heavy hand of an all-powerful state, that they envision themselves directing.
AGW will be seen as the largest scam in the history of mankind.
Your question is built on a false premise.
Pretty much everyone alive in the 1860's is dead now.
So now everyone above unskilled labor is rich? Who knew.
Taking credit for something an ancestor did is more than a little disingenuous. You had nothing to do with it. And to assert that the blessings of freedom and prosperity are only for white people is more than a little racist.
Revisionist BS. People whose skills begin and end with unskilled labor should not be trying to support a family.
Isn't that the GOAL of Capitalism??
Only if you ask a Republican.
Republicans freed the slaves.
One has a very hard time envisioning much compassion from the man who voted against the "born alive" act at every opportunity.
The Prius has an internal combustion engine that can power the vehicle even though the batteries are worn out.
Name the person(s) who died because of global warming.
Given that 96% of CO2 comes from natural sources every year, your numbers don't add up. Tell me one death caused by atmospheric CO2. I can tell you that without it we would all be dead.
"Radically altering the composition of the atmosphere ..." Really? Imagine a stadium of 100,000 people, each assigned a molecule present in dry air. 79,090 would be nitrogen. 20,950 would be oxygen. 930 would be argon. 39 would be CO2. Of the 39 CO2 people, 36 would have resulted from natural activity, and 3 would be because of human activity. 3 out of 100,000 is not a radical change, especially when the fossil record shows concentrations in the 5000 ppm range.