At this point I'm just trying to educate you, since I am a scientist and it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people misunderstand basic scientific concepts.
Are you an atmospheric or climate scientist? And if so what degree do you have and where did you get it? What make you more knowledgeable than the thousands of other scientists?
Did you google "greenhouse gas misnomer"?
Did you google greenhouses gases trap heat science? Heck I made it easy for you, I provided the link.
the greenhouse enclosure allows radiative heat transfer in, but prevents convective heat transfer out.
In other words heat is trapped in and warm greenhouses.
Without the greenhouse enclosure, the heat transfer process called convection would occur, transferring heat from inside the greenhouse to outside, and the temperature in the greenhouse would cool until it is the same as the outside world.
And gases help trapping heat inside.
But of course I should take your word you know more than the hundreds of Atmospheric and Climate scientists who say greenhouse gases are warming the planet.
Much like the sun rising in the east tomorrow. I never quite understood what w3c thought it was doing trying to override browser developers.
Yea, the W3C should have let the browser makers create their own non-compatible markups so we'd have a worthless web. Or one dominated by a single company, sorry to be repetitive.
I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML
I've used both, and because of the strictness and use of lower case tags of xhtml I prefer it. Maybe there's only a few people it bothers but using all large cap tags bothers me. I also like it that xhtml separates content from structure. I don't know much about html5 but I hope it includes these.
The HMTL5 spec is quite readable,but if you've not taken a stab at working with HTML5 (it runs all browsers) yet this article should be pretty useful: http://www.phpguru.org/static/html5
Thanks for the link. Though it's not finalized maybe I can start learning it.
You just unwittingly proved my point while displaying your own ignorance.
Yes, carbon is needed for plant growth, however that does not mean carbon dioxide doesn't need to be pumped into greenhouses for that. Soil and fertilizer does contain carbon. And CO2 is pumped into greenhouses in part to raise temperatures. Perhaps I should have included this link, "What is the Greenhouse Effect? which says:
"Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet."
"This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem."
It is very, very well-known in the science community that the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer.
It's well known in greenhouse gardening that greenhouse gases make greenhouses warmer than without them, because they trap heat. This is one way how growers are able to grow tomatoes in greenhouses in Scandinavia where it's too cold to grow them outdoors.
Seriously, just google "greenhouse misnomer" and you'll find many hits that explain it further. I will now accept your apology.
"Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet."
"This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem."
You seriously think that growers fill their greenhouses with a higher concentration of CO2 to keep their plants warmer - and you think that's why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas"? Well uh, that's not only wrong, it's just plain silly.
Yes, growers do pump greenhouse gases into greenhouses to warm them. And it's not silly or wrong, you are wrong and ignorant or trolling. Here are some controller and timers that control CO2 in greenhouses from the Horticulture Source. This page in the CO2 Generation section says:
"Carbon dioxide also known as CO2 or CO2 (sometimes people write CO2). Plants breathe in carbon dioxide while making food via photosynthesis. As such elevated levels of CO2 should only be present during light hours. Blue buring flames, our exhaled breath, and the digetion of sugar by yeast, etc. creates CO2. Where a commercial CO2 generator is used (burning propane), the area should be vented and fresh air be periodically blown in, e.g. generate CO2 with intake and exhaust fans off and maintain CO2 levels for 45 minutes, then stop generating CO2, vent CO2 outside and draw in fresh air, and repeat utilizing a controller. This ventilation will also help maintain temperature and humidity levels. At very high levels, 30,000 ppm and above, CO2 can cause asphyxiation as it replaces oxygen in our blood."
This article on "Hydroponic Vegetable Gardening Indoors" says "Hydroponic plants may be grown in a greenhouse. The correct mixture of carbon dioxide in the air is necessary in order for these plants to flourish." It then lists ways carbon dioxide can be added to the greenhouse.
You are obviously ignorant about the subject, or you're trolling.
I want **all** subsidies ended, every single one of them, farming, energy related, the whole kit and kaboodle.
Same here. No more subsidies! Well, not really no more but I don't see any need for any now. Subsides are only supposed to be temporary aid to get an industry going, but they've morphed into yearly handouts. Which is no different than the General Mining Act of 1872 and all of it's descendants as well as all the drilling and pumping on public property and off shore.
For some reason, snow and solar panels get along like a big house on fire.
What I heard is that there are small scale, ie residential, solar installations here in MN. Heck even solar thermal water heating is being used. MN is also good for wind. Though not much the state produces megawatts of energy from wind.
they are not just providing a link - they are also getting paid for sales make via that link.
Sure but they are not taking the orders then forwarding them. If they were required to collect sales taxes then they would have to process the orders themselves. Which would add a lot of costs, and may end up costing more than what they make from commissions.
While technically correct, a subsidy is more commonly used to describe an outright grant of money, with no requirement to pay it back. Such as the government subsidizing PBS, or the Arts programs, or giving grants for medical research. A loan guarantee, which is what the article is talking about, is not what most people would call a subsidy.
Yes, the article does mention a loan guaranty but it also says tax subsidies are used. It also says that because of the large upfront capital costs, "10 to 15 times as great as for a small gas-fired turbine", nuclear power has to be "substantially cheaper than coal- or gas-fired power to get orders in a free market." Notice how it also says that in China, France, India, and Russia, which do not have the regulations the US does industry does not decide what gets built, that the governments do. "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
one thing is it does not say anything about is cost overruns. In a thread about another article someone said how nuclear power in Finland is profitable. However CNN has an article, "POWER POINTS: Cost Concerns Loom Over US Nuclear Revival", about how a power plant's construction cost have been overrun. The plant is being built by France's Areva S.A., which is owned by the French government, has a "budget overrun so far at about $2.16 billion." NASDAQ, you know the US stock exchange, has an article by Dow Jones on it's website. "Study Warns Of Cost Overruns At Proposed Reactors" by Steve Gelsi has this as it's first paragraph:
"A new academic study warns the cost of building nuclear power plants will likely come in at the high end of current industry estimates of $5 billion to $8 billion each. It also warned it would be cheaper for the U.S. to instead focus on energy efficiency and alternative sources such as wind and solar."
Greenchange has the article "Cost overruns plague nuclear renaissance in Finland" about Finland's cost overruns. And there are many more.
You could also say that solar technology is highly subsidized by the government, and otherwise isn't profitable.
Notice how the guide you link to says "It's a little-known fact that governments subsidize the petroleum industry. In the U.S., for example (according to sources), between 5 and 10 billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money goes to the petroleum industry. Less than 500 million a year goes to renewables." Sure renewable energy sources get subsidies but those subsidies are a small fraction of the subsides coal, nuclear, and petroleum get. Without those subsidies alternatives like solar and wind could very well be cost competitive.
YouTube has the video of Rep Edward Markey's "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" speech. In it he details the subsidies he included in a bill he submitted. He starts by says that over the past years the nuclear industry has received $125 billion in subsidies whereas solar and wind combined have only received $5 billion. Nuclear power got 21 tymes as much taxpayer dollars as solar and wind.
I don't know, has it? I know in the 11 years I've lived in Minneasota, which shares a border with Canada it's been warm most of the tyme. I first flew up here from Florida to spend Christmas with my sister in 1998 and flew back on 1 January. On the way to the airport one of those bank signs with the tyme and temperature said it was 42 degrees F, but on the radio they reported that in Vero Beach FL, maybe an hour from where I lived, it was 41 degrees. So it was colder there than in Minneapolis. I moved up here the following summer and since then we have had sports retailers buy billboard ads asking God to make it snow in the middle of winter, because it was too warm.
Now it may not mean anything, but if it does then it may say warming, climate change, is real. Many winters I have been here I have been able to go outside wearing only shorts and t-shirts instead of being bundled up.
Deforestation is more at fault for any man made climate change than even our ignorant wasteful use of fossil fuels.
Yeap, it's getting to be that way. Indonesia is the third largest emitter of GHGs, behind China which overtook the US, and the US. And most of their emissions is from deforestation. And Europe is a big part of the problem. While Europe is trying to reduces it's emissions, all it's really doing is shifting where the emissions occur. Indonesia is being deforested to supply Europe with biofuels. The natural rainforests are being cut down so palm oil plantations can be planted. A lot of the land is also wetlands which is being drained of water. The dead organic matter left releases a lot of methane which is more than 20 tymes as powerful a GHG as CO2.
There is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused a change in temperature in the history of the planet.
You're wrong. Have you ever thought about why greenhouse gases are called that? It's because it's a known fact that a greenhouse rich in these gases will be warmer than the prevailing temperature around the greenhouse. Growers in cooler climates use that to grow plants that are not tolerant to cooler temperatures.
At the same time, to actually hurt the wealthy enough to change their habits, you would at the same time be hammering the workers because they have no option to reduce their pollution.
Ah a plan like the Net Zero Gas Tax would help the poor. They'd pay more for fuel but pay less income tax. The way the plan is laid out the working poor would actually keep more of their paycheck and thus have more money. Those who then take steps to reduce their fuel use will end up with more money.
Four of those listed are physicists and another worked for ExxonMobile. Of seven listed only two work in a related field, but even these two do not say what degree they have, neither the major nor whether it's a BA, BA, MA, MS, or PhD. Meanwhile hundreds of Atmospheric Scientists, Climatologists, and Meteorologists agree Climate Change is real.
Did you actually read that? The first paragraph says:
"This article lists scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful."
If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc. are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.
Yea, because alternative energy sources can't compeat with coal they shouldn't get subsidies. Only coal, and nuclear, should get subsidies. Here's Chevron teeming with the Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here's the freemarket CATO Institute reprinting a Forbes article saying Nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies".
The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).
Like the coal and nuclear industries, we even go to war over oil.
if the affiliate is in state then the Affiliate should be collecting tax for it's location for people in it's state placing orders just as any biz is required to do.
All the affiliate is doing is providing a link. They are not processing payments or shipping and should not be required to collect sales tax period. If they had to do what you propose then they'd have to set up their own stores basically. A hundred stores for a hundred jurisdictions in each state.
The problem to begin with is government is too big, shrink government and you shrink the perceived need for revenue.
I know someone who walks everywhere. He cackles with glee when the price of gas goes up; of course his grocery bills et al get larger when that happens.
He like everyone else pays indirectly. Businesses consider taxes as well as other expenses when setting prices.
An excellent public transit system should be supported by those who use the roads. After all, I have to get around. Subsidize my using public transit, and there will be less traffic.
No, just as drivers do you should pay your part too. Mass transit prices should reflect all the costs of transit. When I walk or ride my bike, and I do when I go shopping sometimes, first my use doesn't not put much stress on the infrastructure, not nearly as much as the trucks that deliver the merchandise, but when a business factors in fuel tax I pay a higher price. Or I would if the fuel tax paid for the infrastructure. The problem is it does not. With mass transit, if it moves people more efficiently then it shouldn't be paying as much in taxes as if the individuals drive themselves. However it isn't all that efficient, not where I live. I live in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St Paul, MN and it's mass transit is supposed to be one of the most efficient systems in the US. However I once took a bus to go somewhere I can drive to in 10 to 15 minutes, and it took me about an hour on the bus. I'd quite willing to pay another $2 a gallon on fuel for the convenience of reaching my destination a lot quicker. And get this, it cost more than $5 round trip even though I walked a couple of miles to get to the bus station, so even with fuel tax being $2 more I still would pay less driving. The one think I like about the buses here is that they have bike racks, so people can ride a bike to the bus stop, put it in the rack, then take it out when they get wherever.
Mind you I'm not against mass transit, I wish we had better systems, but even mass transit users should pay. Actually I've dreamed of building my own home an hour or two away from a big city but in a rural/wilderness setting and Off the Grid. What I'd like to be able to do then, and be willing to pay for it, is to drive from home to a train station where I drive my car onto a train car then drive it off when I've reached the city. If I was going to be in the city for a while and do some running around.
I tend to think schools should be paid for with income taxes. But I don't know what difference ad valorum vs. income taxes make. With police protection, you again get the freeloaders who benefit without paying.
Property tax not income or sales tax should pay for protection, and there are no freeloaders. Except those who live on the streets. But by allowing people to keep more of the money they work to earn the more jobs will be created thus taking some of them off the streets. And I've been there, having money as well as being broke and lacking a regular job. When I found myself like that, I went down to a labor pool and worked as a day laborer. And though there were others like me, many going to the labor pool were homeless. The pay wasn't much but it was enough to eat. Work for a day, then back at the pool get paid with a check. A couple of doors down there was a check cashing business, which takes a chunk of the money. Or a person could walk about half a mile to the bank the check was written from and cash it there, keeping all the money. With $40 or $50 in hand you could then take your family to a restaurant to eat. And yes there were families living on the street. Myself, I am and was single and was a college student then. Now I am disabled and collecting disability because of it. I hope to be able to start a photography business RSN, partially online and I don't want to have to deal with a bunch of different state sales taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point I'm just trying to educate you, since I am a scientist and it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people misunderstand basic scientific concepts.
Are you an atmospheric or climate scientist? And if so what degree do you have and where did you get it? What make you more knowledgeable than the thousands of other scientists?
Did you google "greenhouse gas misnomer"?
Did you google greenhouses gases trap heat science? Heck I made it easy for you, I provided the link.
the greenhouse enclosure allows radiative heat transfer in, but prevents convective heat transfer out.
In other words heat is trapped in and warm greenhouses.
Without the greenhouse enclosure, the heat transfer process called convection would occur, transferring heat from inside the greenhouse to outside, and the temperature in the greenhouse would cool until it is the same as the outside world.
And gases help trapping heat inside.
But of course I should take your word you know more than the hundreds of Atmospheric and Climate scientists who say greenhouse gases are warming the planet.
Falcon
Much like the sun rising in the east tomorrow. I never quite understood what w3c thought it was doing trying to override browser developers.
Yea, the W3C should have let the browser makers create their own non-compatible markups so we'd have a worthless web. Or one dominated by a single company, sorry to be repetitive.
Falcon
I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML
I've used both, and because of the strictness and use of lower case tags of xhtml I prefer it. Maybe there's only a few people it bothers but using all large cap tags bothers me. I also like it that xhtml separates content from structure. I don't know much about html5 but I hope it includes these.
The HMTL5 spec is quite readable,but if you've not taken a stab at working with HTML5 (it runs all browsers) yet this article should be pretty useful: http://www.phpguru.org/static/html5
Thanks for the link. Though it's not finalized maybe I can start learning it.
Falcon
Growers also pump carbon dioxide into greenhouses to warm them
No, they don't. Why do you insist on posting fantasies? Greenhouses become hot since they're closed environments trapping sunlight.
You'd better tell the Penn State College of Agricultural Science you know better than they do what greenhouse gases do.
Falcon
You just unwittingly proved my point while displaying your own ignorance.
Yes, carbon is needed for plant growth, however that does not mean carbon dioxide doesn't need to be pumped into greenhouses for that. Soil and fertilizer does contain carbon. And CO2 is pumped into greenhouses in part to raise temperatures. Perhaps I should have included this link, "What is the Greenhouse Effect? which says:
"Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet."
"This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem."
It is very, very well-known in the science community that the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer.
It's well known in greenhouse gardening that greenhouse gases make greenhouses warmer than without them, because they trap heat. This is one way how growers are able to grow tomatoes in greenhouses in Scandinavia where it's too cold to grow them outdoors.
Seriously, just google "greenhouse misnomer" and you'll find many hits that explain it further. I will now accept your apology.
Seriously google greenhouses gases heat as well as greenhouses gases trap heat. Go further, add science From Penn State College of Agricultural Science "However, greenhouse gases trap solar heat in earth's atmosphere, preventing it from being reflected away and causing an overall temperature increase.". Now I'll accept your apology.
Falcon
Growers also pump carbon dioxide into greenhouses to warm them. "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" from About says:
"Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet."
"This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem."
Falcon
You seriously think that growers fill their greenhouses with a higher concentration of CO2 to keep their plants warmer - and you think that's why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas"? Well uh, that's not only wrong, it's just plain silly.
Yes, growers do pump greenhouse gases into greenhouses to warm them. And it's not silly or wrong, you are wrong and ignorant or trolling. Here are some controller and timers that control CO2 in greenhouses from the Horticulture Source. This page in the CO2 Generation section says:
"Carbon dioxide also known as CO2 or CO2 (sometimes people write CO2). Plants breathe in carbon dioxide while making food via photosynthesis. As such elevated levels of CO2 should only be present during light hours. Blue buring flames, our exhaled breath, and the digetion of sugar by yeast, etc. creates CO2. Where a commercial CO2 generator is used (burning propane), the area should be vented and fresh air be periodically blown in, e.g. generate CO2 with intake and exhaust fans off and maintain CO2 levels for 45 minutes, then stop generating CO2, vent CO2 outside and draw in fresh air, and repeat utilizing a controller. This ventilation will also help maintain temperature and humidity levels. At very high levels, 30,000 ppm and above, CO2 can cause asphyxiation as it replaces oxygen in our blood."
This article on "Hydroponic Vegetable Gardening Indoors" says "Hydroponic plants may be grown in a greenhouse. The correct mixture of carbon dioxide in the air is necessary in order for these plants to flourish." It then lists ways carbon dioxide can be added to the greenhouse.
You are obviously ignorant about the subject, or you're trolling.
Falcon
I want **all** subsidies ended, every single one of them, farming, energy related, the whole kit and kaboodle.
Same here. No more subsidies! Well, not really no more but I don't see any need for any now. Subsides are only supposed to be temporary aid to get an industry going, but they've morphed into yearly handouts. Which is no different than the General Mining Act of 1872 and all of it's descendants as well as all the drilling and pumping on public property and off shore.
Falcon
a simple non-concentrated PV panel still works quite well with some (not much) cloud coverage.
That depends on the panel. On some panels a leaf can cut power production.
Falcon
For some reason, snow and solar panels get along like a big house on fire.
What I heard is that there are small scale, ie residential, solar installations here in MN. Heck even solar thermal water heating is being used. MN is also good for wind. Though not much the state produces megawatts of energy from wind.
Falcon
they are not just providing a link - they are also getting paid for sales make via that link.
Sure but they are not taking the orders then forwarding them. If they were required to collect sales taxes then they would have to process the orders themselves. Which would add a lot of costs, and may end up costing more than what they make from commissions.
Falcon
While technically correct, a subsidy is more commonly used to describe an outright grant of money, with no requirement to pay it back. Such as the government subsidizing PBS, or the Arts programs, or giving grants for medical research. A loan guarantee, which is what the article is talking about, is not what most people would call a subsidy.
Yes, the article does mention a loan guaranty but it also says tax subsidies are used. It also says that because of the large upfront capital costs, "10 to 15 times as great as for a small gas-fired turbine", nuclear power has to be "substantially cheaper than coal- or gas-fired power to get orders in a free market." Notice how it also says that in China, France, India, and Russia, which do not have the regulations the US does industry does not decide what gets built, that the governments do. "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
one thing is it does not say anything about is cost overruns. In a thread about another article someone said how nuclear power in Finland is profitable. However CNN has an article, "POWER POINTS: Cost Concerns Loom Over US Nuclear Revival", about how a power plant's construction cost have been overrun. The plant is being built by France's Areva S.A., which is owned by the French government, has a "budget overrun so far at about $2.16 billion." NASDAQ, you know the US stock exchange, has an article by Dow Jones on it's website. "Study Warns Of Cost Overruns At Proposed Reactors" by Steve Gelsi has this as it's first paragraph:
"A new academic study warns the cost of building nuclear power plants will likely come in at the high end of current industry estimates of $5 billion to $8 billion each. It also warned it would be cheaper for the U.S. to instead focus on energy efficiency and alternative sources such as wind and solar."
Greenchange has the article "Cost overruns plague nuclear renaissance in Finland" about Finland's cost overruns. And there are many more.
You could also say that solar technology is highly subsidized by the government, and otherwise isn't profitable.
Solar Financing, Subsidies, and Incentives
Notice how the guide you link to says "It's a little-known fact that governments subsidize the petroleum industry. In the U.S., for example (according to sources), between 5 and 10 billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money goes to the petroleum industry. Less than 500 million a year goes to renewables." Sure renewable energy sources get subsidies but those subsidies are a small fraction of the subsides coal, nuclear, and petroleum get. Without those subsidies alternatives like solar and wind could very well be cost competitive.
YouTube has the video of Rep Edward Markey's "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" speech. In it he details the subsidies he included in a bill he submitted. He starts by says that over the past years the nuclear industry has received $125 billion in subsidies whereas solar and wind combined have only received $5 billion. Nuclear power got 21 tymes as much taxpayer dollars as solar and wind.
Falcon
I'm getting power piped into my home at a few cents a kilowatt from a nuke plant ten minutes drive from here.
Without subsidies, never mind the cost of cleaning up, that nuclear power plant isn't profitable.
And the power plant will last a lot longer than solar cells stapled to some roof will.
And leave a lot of hazardous waste. Meanwhile as technology improves those solar cells can be replaced.
Falcon
I don't know, has it? I know in the 11 years I've lived in Minneasota, which shares a border with Canada it's been warm most of the tyme. I first flew up here from Florida to spend Christmas with my sister in 1998 and flew back on 1 January. On the way to the airport one of those bank signs with the tyme and temperature said it was 42 degrees F, but on the radio they reported that in Vero Beach FL, maybe an hour from where I lived, it was 41 degrees. So it was colder there than in Minneapolis. I moved up here the following summer and since then we have had sports retailers buy billboard ads asking God to make it snow in the middle of winter, because it was too warm.
Now it may not mean anything, but if it does then it may say warming, climate change, is real. Many winters I have been here I have been able to go outside wearing only shorts and t-shirts instead of being bundled up.
Falcon
Deforestation is more at fault for any man made climate change than even our ignorant wasteful use of fossil fuels.
Yeap, it's getting to be that way. Indonesia is the third largest emitter of GHGs, behind China which overtook the US, and the US. And most of their emissions is from deforestation. And Europe is a big part of the problem. While Europe is trying to reduces it's emissions, all it's really doing is shifting where the emissions occur. Indonesia is being deforested to supply Europe with biofuels. The natural rainforests are being cut down so palm oil plantations can be planted. A lot of the land is also wetlands which is being drained of water. The dead organic matter left releases a lot of methane which is more than 20 tymes as powerful a GHG as CO2.
There is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused a change in temperature in the history of the planet.
You're wrong. Have you ever thought about why greenhouse gases are called that? It's because it's a known fact that a greenhouse rich in these gases will be warmer than the prevailing temperature around the greenhouse. Growers in cooler climates use that to grow plants that are not tolerant to cooler temperatures.
Falcon
At the same time, to actually hurt the wealthy enough to change their habits, you would at the same time be hammering the workers because they have no option to reduce their pollution.
Ah a plan like the Net Zero Gas Tax would help the poor. They'd pay more for fuel but pay less income tax. The way the plan is laid out the working poor would actually keep more of their paycheck and thus have more money. Those who then take steps to reduce their fuel use will end up with more money.
Falcon
Four of those listed are physicists and another worked for ExxonMobile. Of seven listed only two work in a related field, but even these two do not say what degree they have, neither the major nor whether it's a BA, BA, MA, MS, or PhD. Meanwhile hundreds of Atmospheric Scientists, Climatologists, and Meteorologists agree Climate Change is real.
Falcon
Well there are these scientists to start with.
Did you actually read that? The first paragraph says:
"This article lists scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful."
The bold was in the original.
Falcon
And there is plenty of disagreement that there are much negative externalities about carbon dioxide. Besides that, what you say makes sense.
And how many scientists disagree?
Falcon
If the new technologies being talked about, worked on, etc. are not economically feasible because of the current price of other energy generation, too bad.
Yea, because alternative energy sources can't compeat with coal they shouldn't get subsidies. Only coal, and nuclear, should get subsidies. Here's Chevron teeming with the Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here's the freemarket CATO Institute reprinting a Forbes article saying Nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies".
The U.S. government is (and has been) in the hands of A) lunatics and B) people that couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it (the greatest majority of them, in any case).
Like the coal and nuclear industries, we even go to war over oil.
Falcon
...is that it's not progressive.
Nor should it be, you pollute you should pay. The more you pollute, and the wealthy generally pollute more, the more you pay.
Falcon
...a huge fraction of the economy will soon degenerate into a free-for-all of special interest group favoritism, graft, corruption, and kickbacks?
You mean we don't have that now?
Of course too many people want to make others pay for their own damage.
Falcon
if the affiliate is in state then the Affiliate should be collecting tax for it's location for people in it's state placing orders just as any biz is required to do.
All the affiliate is doing is providing a link. They are not processing payments or shipping and should not be required to collect sales tax period. If they had to do what you propose then they'd have to set up their own stores basically. A hundred stores for a hundred jurisdictions in each state.
The problem to begin with is government is too big, shrink government and you shrink the perceived need for revenue.
Falcon
I know someone who walks everywhere. He cackles with glee when the price of gas goes up; of course his grocery bills et al get larger when that happens.
He like everyone else pays indirectly. Businesses consider taxes as well as other expenses when setting prices.
An excellent public transit system should be supported by those who use the roads. After all, I have to get around. Subsidize my using public transit, and there will be less traffic.
No, just as drivers do you should pay your part too. Mass transit prices should reflect all the costs of transit. When I walk or ride my bike, and I do when I go shopping sometimes, first my use doesn't not put much stress on the infrastructure, not nearly as much as the trucks that deliver the merchandise, but when a business factors in fuel tax I pay a higher price. Or I would if the fuel tax paid for the infrastructure. The problem is it does not. With mass transit, if it moves people more efficiently then it shouldn't be paying as much in taxes as if the individuals drive themselves. However it isn't all that efficient, not where I live. I live in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St Paul, MN and it's mass transit is supposed to be one of the most efficient systems in the US. However I once took a bus to go somewhere I can drive to in 10 to 15 minutes, and it took me about an hour on the bus. I'd quite willing to pay another $2 a gallon on fuel for the convenience of reaching my destination a lot quicker. And get this, it cost more than $5 round trip even though I walked a couple of miles to get to the bus station, so even with fuel tax being $2 more I still would pay less driving. The one think I like about the buses here is that they have bike racks, so people can ride a bike to the bus stop, put it in the rack, then take it out when they get wherever.
Mind you I'm not against mass transit, I wish we had better systems, but even mass transit users should pay. Actually I've dreamed of building my own home an hour or two away from a big city but in a rural/wilderness setting and Off the Grid. What I'd like to be able to do then, and be willing to pay for it, is to drive from home to a train station where I drive my car onto a train car then drive it off when I've reached the city. If I was going to be in the city for a while and do some running around.
I tend to think schools should be paid for with income taxes. But I don't know what difference ad valorum vs. income taxes make. With police protection, you again get the freeloaders who benefit without paying.
Property tax not income or sales tax should pay for protection, and there are no freeloaders. Except those who live on the streets. But by allowing people to keep more of the money they work to earn the more jobs will be created thus taking some of them off the streets. And I've been there, having money as well as being broke and lacking a regular job. When I found myself like that, I went down to a labor pool and worked as a day laborer. And though there were others like me, many going to the labor pool were homeless. The pay wasn't much but it was enough to eat. Work for a day, then back at the pool get paid with a check. A couple of doors down there was a check cashing business, which takes a chunk of the money. Or a person could walk about half a mile to the bank the check was written from and cash it there, keeping all the money. With $40 or $50 in hand you could then take your family to a restaurant to eat. And yes there were families living on the street. Myself, I am and was single and was a college student then. Now I am disabled and collecting disability because of it. I hope to be able to start a photography business RSN, partially online and I don't want to have to deal with a bunch of different state sales taxes.
Falcon