What if this tax ends up being raised to the point that it hurts the working poor? Do they get a credit or do they still have to pay?
Climate change extremes?
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
What if this tax ends up being raised to the point that it hurts the working poor? Do they get a credit or do they still have to pay?
The money gets evenly redistributed so if they use less than average it ends up taking money out of Leo's pockets and putting it in theirs.
So, Leo plays hard, jetsets across the globe and damages the environment and pays $$ to advance global warming.
07 rides his bicycle to Walmart but still has to endure a damaged earth.
No. You tax emissions to an acceptable level so no one has to endure a damaged earth.
I just don't think this is going to happen in reality.
The pro man made global warming crowd has bungled the message so bad that I believe an event or series of events will be necessary to convince Americans and the other 85% of the world's polluters to actually do something.
Honest question, what do you think it would take to flip the naysayers?
Does CO2 generate heat itself? Where does the earth get it's heat and sunlight from? Does CO2 infinitely trap heat so that all of the solar energy that enters the earth's atmosphere is forever trapped?
Are there other greenhouse gases?
What is the precautionary principle? Are you saying we just go with the assumptions because we can't figure everything out scientifically? We can't prove there is or is not a god either. Should we assume there is one and do what the bible says because people predict dire consequences if we don't?
What would taxing to an acceptable level look like? This redistribution conversation sounds more like a political scheme than a solution to the predicted dire consequences of man made climate change. Sounds like the wealthy can do as they please as long as they're willing to compensate the rest of us for their behavior.
Hydrogen and carbon, hence why they are called hydrocarbons.
So your saying...
2 C8H18 + 25 O2 -> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
is the result when I put the pedal to the metal on the EcoBoost?
Those are the result of hydrocarbon combustion, not constituent parts as you asked.
You know what else produces CO2 in abundance? Humans. And birds. And horses. And cattle. And whales. And cats. And dogs. And logs. And frogs. And bogs. And the fermentation of stuff that leads to tasty alcoholic beverages.
What is the average sequestration timeline in each case? Maybe we can start with your farts... compare and contrast that with crude if you will.
Notice the top photo is taken during the spring/summer while the bottom is during the fall/winter. All your photos prove is whatever city that is has clear and not so clear days. Dallas has days like the bottom in summer when heat and no wind occur and days in the summer like the top with heat and lots of wind happen.
“Politically driven”
So one China city has clear and not clear days. Big deal. Your photos might be meritorious if you showed maybe a year's worth of photos showing all clear days.
Last edited:
Thought you didn't care about climate if it isn't local to you? So now you care about China. Good to know.
No, The sun, no, yes
- an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity-proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.
So then we should mandate religion and belief in god for everyone. We don't really want people burning eternally in hell, do we?
I forgot that we only discuss politically feasible things here. (I keed)
A carbon tax is just the most elegant way of regulating emissions and solving the dilemma that Medic brought up about who gets to fly and who doesn't. My prefered policies if I were president and I didn't want to waste all of my political capital is:
1. Tariff on foreign oil couched as protection of American oilfield workers being put out of work. As Trump has demonstrated people don't get upset about taxes if you call them tariffs.
2. Federal government level energy procurement is required to be 50% renewable (and scale this figure up every year)
3. All new federal government level vehicles must zero emission. All new federal building with solar on top. Sourced in the US
4. A bunch of Military initiatives around non-fossil fuel energy sources this will be couched in terms of readiness not the environment (this is to drive battery energy density and efficiency)
5. Infrastructure bill that will be couched as putting Americans to work that will focus on
A. Ocean shipping particularly harbor capacity and loading and unloading infrastructure at ports
B. Waterway shipping particularly dredging rivers and maximizing the amount of rivers navigable by large barges, also river port capacity
C. Freight railway, more tracks and many more hubs for loading and unloading
D. High speed passenger rail that mirrors the busiest air routes
E. Light rail in cities
6. Initiatives to increase the density of urban areas through the way programs like FHA are administered.B. Waterway shipping particularly dredging rivers and maximizing the amount of rivers navigable by large barges, also river port capacity
C. Freight railway, more tracks and many more hubs for loading and unloading
D. High speed passenger rail that mirrors the busiest air routes
E. Light rail in cities
None of these require you to be a believer in Global Warming to support (although believers are a majority) We all benefit from cheaper cleaner energy and cheaper transportation.
Absolutely the burden of proof is on the government to prove god exists before they require atheism.
I don't know. You would have to find out the elasticity of demand. The redistribution part is a political necessity if you are going to impose a tax on energy use. You could get rid of it but then the concern trolls will roll out the " what about the poor people" responses. Yeah it turns out wealth allows you to do lots of things that other people don't get to do, this is America.
How is that going to be funded?
Why not just create mandates that force people to live as carbon emission free as possible? Does anyone actually need a 3,000 square foot house for a family of 4? Does anyone really need an electricity gobbling pool? Does anyone really need a Cadillac Escalade? Does anyone absolutely have to fly in private jets? Does anyone actually have to travel for a vacation?
All of this and more are based on wants, not needs. We keep dancing around the fact that wealthier folks whose lifestyles are well above what they actually need have a much larger carbon footprint than folks who are poor. Wealth redistribution in the form of carbon taxes will likely just lead to more carbon emissions. The quickest and most effective way to rapidly decrease carbon emissions is to significantly curtail the lifestyles that create the bulk of them. Do you see that approach as politically disastrous?
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstit...-footprint-of-a-poor-household-over-8-months/
Yes, in that reducing one requires murdering. We can reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions 95% without murdering anyone.
If the rising CO2 is truly as dangerous as people make it sound, why do we continue to allow this? Having wealth allows people to produce a large excess of carbon emissions and all we are willing to do is shrug our shoulders while claiming the planet is on the verge of calamity? Sounds really dumb to me.
The government, probably on some public private partnership bullshit.
Why don't we just solve all of our problems in the least politically palatable way possible?
We can't do anything about existing farters, but we can certainly have strict policy regarding the production of future farters.
Read my lips. First step set the taxes so that aggregate emissions are at an acceptable limit. Second step let the market decide who gets what portion of that acceptable limit.
This is the last time I am going to address your "yeah but I'd rather argue against the dystopian authoritarian solution rather than the market based workable solution you provide" schtick.
Yeah, if that's what you want to go with I suggest you start a population control superPAC.
Sounds like the ongoing light rail nightmare in California. Ugh.
Are all of our problems on the scale of impending planetary peril?
You've created some word salads but have yet to disclose how "market based workable solutions" will actually reduce CO2 emissions. All I've seen is the wealthy can continue to produce large amounts of carbon emissions if they are willing to pay top dollar for the privilege.
Some lefties in Berkeley think we need humane population control to prevent the demise of planet. What if they're right?
