I agree. My intent was just to let a few guys know here and my group that I changed my name.
Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change
-
Fair enough Garg. If I stepped over the line, I apologise. I will try and keep things on-topic and off-personal (IL: Notwithstanding :-) )
Back to helping everyone make an informed decision: (Myself included.)
As for the carbon tax:
Yes, fuel consumption dropped overall in the world with the financial crisis. But it dropped more in BC and has stayed lower as other areas of the country recover. Economists aren’t stupid and people do respond to incentives. What Hoffamn brings up is right as well. The tax is not just on fuel it’s on almost all sources of CO2. So some of the reduction you wont even notice, because it is done far upstream at factories, smelters, mines, loading docks etc. Anything that emits fossil CO2 faces higher cost, so it is disincentivised, and if it’s efficient to do so, reduced.
As for ozone:
CO2 doesn’t destroy ozone. Chlorofluorocarbons do. That’s just a misunderstanding of the issue. Ozone depletion is largely a separate issue that has more to do with skin-cancer rates than with climate change. But it does serve as a great example of a global environmental issue that we actually solved. CFCs are virtually non-existent these days and ozone is actually growing in most places on earth (year to year it still may rise or fall). The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed in Montreal in '87 and detailed the phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochloroflourocarbons, which we have done very successfully over the last 25 years.
Somehow, this problem didn’t blow up-into a massive scientific/political debate, people believed the science, acted and we got the job done. The best part is that no-one even really noticed. (Seems to have something in common with that BC carbon tax, huh?)
-
You claim it has had no effect on you (you just dump the same fuel into your tank) but consider that business and income taxes are LOWER as a result. Which incentivises job creation and WORK rather than pollution and climate change (seems like a no-brainer to me).
Unfortunately, it also incentivises dumping like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
I am not saying you agree with the above method of “carbon reduction”, because I am sure you don’t, but I will point out that a system of carbon taxes and credits will foster this kind of scientific progress. I think it is dangerous for both the economy and the environment when governments get so involved in specific industries or fields, like scientific research, automotive or energy. Being the entities with effectively the ultimate power, people and companies want to get on the government’s good side and become a partner in their agenda so they can get tax credits, subsidies or grant money. Mostly it is done because they see a supply of “free” money and protection under the pretense of cutting edge innovation and continued government smiling upon.
It has happened in the United States with car companies, banks, and energy companies… it will happen with scientists and environmental advocates also. It is concerning that the Canadian government may have somehow been involved or at least permissive of an iron dumping in the ocean geoengineering project.
-
Please explain how a tax@LHoffman:
You claim it has had no effect on you (you just dump the same fuel into your tank) but consider that business and income taxes are LOWER as a result. Which incentivises job creation and WORK rather than pollution and climate change (seems like a no-brainer to me).
Unfortunately, it also incentivises dumping like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
Please explain what tangible benefit the BC carbon tax delivers to this crank-pot scientist. Carbon credits, perhaps, carbon trading schemes, perhaps, massive subsidies, perhaps, But I see absolutely no incentivisation for this kind of dangerous experimental science coming from a carbon tax like the one in BC.
-
Iron dumping in the ocean in theory can mop up some carbon. However one must be careful about the law of unintended consequences. If the biological blooms are not sequestered by dropping to the bottom of the ocean it just returns as possibly methane a much worse greenhouse gas.
I thought this article might be of interest.
Ice sheets may stabilise for centuries, regardless of warming
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/18/ice_sheet_retreat_stabilises_sometimes/
-
The carbon tax might be similar to Canada’s increased tax on alcohol and tobacco compared to say the US. People can drink and smoke but just have to pay more for it. These activities damage a ‘nation’, the citizens require more healthcare so there is increased cost to this activity. The increased tax does seem to decrease this activity without outlawing it. Same thing occurs with increased fuel taxes, it just moves the equation a bit more to one side or the other on any choice. I’m sure there will be questions of fairness and regressive tax structure but that is fixable.
-
Please explain what tangible benefit the BC carbon tax delivers to this crank-pot scientist.
I don’t really know, I was just throwing it out there because it relates to our discussion.
It is conceivable that somehow a project similar to this, which “reduces” greenhouse gasses, can earn individuals/companies positive energy credits in the form of tax breaks, cash rewards or government contracts. I don’t know that that is occurring here, but with the trend of intense government subsidization on greenhouse gas reduction don’t you think it is conceivable that a successful method of reduction would be viewed favorably and possibly rewarded by said government? The BC carbon tax doesn’t seem to have anything to do with this directly, but the fact that it exists does prompt research and experimentation like this. Unless this guy is an environmental zealot and ultimate altruist, why would he do this if there was no possible benefit to him or his research/company from an outside source? The earth itself isn’t going to say “thanks for helping me” and spit out some cash for him.
-
Yes, apparently he is hoping to sell some carbon credits off this scheme. The tax wouldn’t reward this which is one of the many reason why is is so superior to emissions trading schemes like the one in Europe.
-
This Scheme, That Scheme, your own schemes.
That’s what all this crap is isn’t it? A smoke and mirrors tax/revenue/rich-explioiting-the-poor scheme. Because carbon credits make us equal.
Wow… I think I just called it.
-
Carbon tax is supposed to help the environment. Really. What a joke. It is a way for all of us to give up more of our money and feel good about it. Wake up people.
-
For the record, and for the forward movement of our discussion, we should distinguish the clear difference between “Carbon Taxing” and “Climate Change”.
They are two totally different items/conversations, although the common ground is “Carbon Taxing” is a scheme to effect climate change.
-
Please explain what you mean by “scheme” and why carbon credits make us equal.
I don’t understand this smoke and mirrors concept. What evidence do you have for this?
I don’t think anyone has yet confused a carbon tax and climate change. Of course they are different. A carbon tax is a climate change mitigation strategy.
I thought this was supposed to be scientific, no politics. What’s all this conspiracy theory stuff?
-
Carbon tax is supposed to help the environment. Really. What a joke. It is a way for all of us to give up more of our money and feel good about it. Wake up people.
Exactly! Good post. Note the money pays for government pensions which in nearly every case are higher than the private sector. Next, the quacks who make a living at spooking people have a good paying career on the lecture/television/book circuit espousing these bogus “science” merits. Human carbon footprint in any event is a small fraction of the total aggregate cause of “Global Warming”. And on top of that 80-90% of it is cause by developing nations and China which have little to none in the way of environmental programs.
Everybody blames USA and Europe when this is all Asia, South America, or Africa causing the problems because they have to provisions for dealing with carbon treatment.
I just bet if i drive a car in Kenya, I must get a smog test every 2 years…yea right don’t think so.
The US and Europe have the most developed environmental laws and provisions and yet people still want to propose “carbon tax”? Yea sure.
The other influence from all of this is the ‘have not’s’ who run United Nations trying to compete economically with developed nations, they singularly espouse limiting only 1st rate nations and the rules never apply to developing 4-5th rate nations EVER.
-
Good post IL. Let’s solve global warming everyone. The sun is getting hot and melting the polar ice caps. Great Tax the developed nations to death under the auspice of a carbon tax and when we get the money lets throw up in the air at the sun and hope the problem goes away. Ask yourself if that makes sense.
-
At what point did this thread get hijacked by people who not only spew arbitrary, incorrect statistics that they pull out of their ass but don’t even read the previous posts.
It was halfway enlightening before people started belching their own uninformed opinion without even following the topic…
sigh
-
At what point did this thread get hijacked by people who not only spew arbitrary, incorrect statistics that they pull out of their ass but don’t even read the previous posts.
It was halfway enlightening before people started belching their own uninformed opinion without even following the topic…
sigh
While I disagree with Canuck’s general position on this issue, I do support him here. This thread was supposed to be about scientific fact and opinions related to that, not simply unsubstantiated assertions or a litany of why you like or don’t like aspects of climate change. It is fine to state your beliefs, but it would help your case to do so intelligently and with some semblance of evidence.
-
Please explain what you mean by “scheme” and why carbon credits make us equal.
I don’t understand this smoke and mirrors concept. What evidence do you have for this?
I don’t think anyone has yet confused a carbon tax and climate change. Of course they are different. A carbon tax is a climate change mitigation strategy.
I thought this was supposed to be scientific, no politics. What’s all this conspiracy theory stuff?
All the conspiracy stuff is because climate change is a reason to do everything one side wants to do anyway. Paradigm shifts are hard.
I covered this earlier in the thread and provided a link to an interesting article talking about that.
If the science can be separated from politics, I am at least more willing to consider implications and empirical evidence. But unfortunately, climate change has become a predominantly political (and increasingly social) tool. It is one thing to be clean and responsible, both of which I agree with, but when we as humans voluntarily dismantle our productive sources of energy, without having viable substitutes, we have severely misplaced our priorities.
The science is settled. It is as settled as science gets. The only thing in doubt is how bad and how fast. The argument is over what to do about the science. And those who don’t want to do what the science says is necessary either have to deny or obfuscate the science. If the science isn’t ‘true’ then Exxon can keep selling you oil and all of their assets are not suddenly made essentially worthless. This is the politics. Accepting the science leads down only one road – http://www.alternet.org/story/153230/to_conservatives%2C_climate_change_is_trojan_horse_to_abolish_capitalism
The money quote I whole-heartedly agree with:
The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their free market belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation. Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, Climate change is the perfect thing. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.
The science is separate from the politics. What to do about it is the politics. And what to do about is nothing that one side of the politics would prefer to do and the other side seems to think it can still make some kind of go along to get something done concessions. And we’ve dithered about making the changes for 30 plus years and are facing a need to quit fossil fuels cold-turkey and re-making the entire economic system and it’s underlying paradigm essentially overnight in political and social inertia terms.
-
See, I have to disagree with both Garg and Frimm now.
Mitigating and curbing climate change doesn’t have to be the panacea for the left. In fact I believe the only answer to the climate change problem is more effective and efficient free markets. More government control would be profoundly bad for the environment and for people in general.
You guys are both making this fundamental assumption that legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is going to change the foundations of our society as we know it. It certainly doesn’t have to and I sure hope it doesn’t.
I hate to harp on it, but the carbon tax in BC is a great example, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions, lowered income taxes and taxes on small businesses and no-one even really noticed. (Garg included). This is the model we should follow.
A carbon tax is, at it’s core, an extremely free-market oriented solution because greenhouse gas emissions represent a market failure where agents are allowed to impose negative externalities on other members of society without cost. We have laws in markets and in domestic society to prevent this from happening elsewhere but because greenhouse gasses and their negative effects are new, we haven’t come up with legislation yet to correct this market failure.
It’s not a leftist conspiracy, as much as Garg and Frimm seem to want it to be, (for opposite reasons of course). Or at least it doesn’t have to be.
The truth is, anyone with a genuine commitment to free market capitalism should support a carbon tax wholeheartedly.
-
It isn’t a leftist conspiracy. It is just seen as one because mitigation calls for a lot of things that the left is in favor of like more environmental regulation.
I certainly support any sort of mitigation strategy. I just don’t think the carbon tax is going to be sufficient since we are seriously behind schedule on avoiding really bad impacts. If that’s what we can get, that’s what we can get but really the entire planet has to get together on some sort of sustainability/planning ahead program.
The thing with free markets is they are built on a mantra of growth and we’re running out of room and running out of things to extract. We need some thinking unlike what got us into this mess and while a carbon tax would be a start it doesn’t address even longer term problems other than the climate that climate science should be bringing into focus.
-
The thing with free markets is they are built on a mantra of growth and we’re running out of room and running out of things to extract.
I will have to disagree. I think this is the root where out opinions diverge: We are not running out of room and we’re not running out of things to extract. Hubbard’s peak was supposed to happen 13 years ago and the peak-oil crowd has insisted every year since that “this is the one!” It’s simply not going to happen. Why? 1 word: growth. Technological growth to be precise. What is the primary driver of technological growth? 1 word: capitalism. You know how far a gallon of gas took you in the 70’s? Not very far. Now you can get 63mpg in the city! What got us there? High oil prices drives demand for more fuel efficient cars, markets respond and capitalists invest in more fuel efficient technology. This is the one areas where Garg is right. Technology is the main driver behind us reducing out impact on the environment. Think about LED lighting, solar power, lithium batteries etc. etc. All of these things have helped to reduce the magnitude of our environmental footprint. And if we had a properly functioning free market (ie: one where the cost of GHG emissions is internalised into the cost of production, by say: a carbon tax) we would get there all the faster.
No leftist conspiracy, no reshaping society as we know it.
-
Technological growth to be precise. What is the primary driver of technological growth? 1 word: capitalism.
I would say its actually the desire to kill others. War/the need to kill other human beings is the driver for technology…money/greed just has shotgun…
Suggested Topics
