What-They-Havent-Told-You-about-Climate-Change

originally posted by: mbkennel
Extinction level event, or paying fractionally more for coal and petroleum in a TAX whose revenues are recycled for other purposes? Clearly the second is much worse for some.

I wish that climate change were a terrorist plot.

I just love the constant fear-mongering rhetorical extremism.

I live in one of the few places in the world that actually has a carbon tax. It's revenue-neutral and life hasn't missed a step here. In fact the economy is churning right along with the rest of the country while our emissions have significantly strayed down from the national average.

It's working great.

But pretty much every time I fire up my laptop I get to read some raging right wing diatribe about how this minuscule tax I pay will destroy western civilization as we know it. Usually comes about in the same spittle-flecked outrage orgasm where those of us who prefer to err on the side of science get branded as "alarmists".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well it's believed that the Native Americans caused man-made climate change of their own by JUST deforesting the the Americas. Not even burning more CO2. Then when they died out after Columbus arrived due to disease, the trees grew back and caused the Mini-Ice Age in Europe.

That's a good example of system overshoot. When the state of the system changes as the input that is driving an action is diminished, the system may swing to the other extreme before it finally stabilizes. Rapid depopulation of CO2 generating humans could cause the same effect. However, climate change, presumed to be a function of human produced CO2, has significant inertia at this point. As I understand it, even if humanity stopped generating all CO2 immediately, it would still take many decades for the system to return to pre-Industrial Age levels.

So you'd be surprised what we as humans can do that affects the climate. Just slashing large parts of our population isn't going to solve the problem as to our technology that negatively affects the climate. As soon as the population grows back, the problem will just return.

But depending on the level to which the world is depopulated, and the resultant environmental and technological levels that remain, that population growth could be greatly reduced. In the meantime, new technologies could thrive and replace those currently utilized that are generating all that excess CO2.

-dex

a reply to: mc_squared

BC is an interesting example of how a carbon tax could work. In the case of your province, those extra taxes collected on fossil fuels and such are offset by reduced income taxes. So this is a tax neutral approach that at the same time discourages the use of CO2 generating sources. I'm glad that is working for you.

However, in the US, there is no such thing as tax neutral. When any new taxes are imposed, they aren't offset by tax cuts elsewhere. In fact, when people begin using more environmental friendly energy sources and energy consuming devices, they are subject to additional taxes and fees that other people who continue to use high CO2 generating devices aren't required to pay. So, that turns out to be more incentive to not curb CO2 generation.

Then there are those who have a legitimate beef with the Carbon Credit scheme. Consumers are taxed to create these CCs, then Wall Street makes money off of trading them. Then these CCs are used to fund environmentally responsible projects in the 3rd world, to replace the carbon sinks that they have destroyed. However, right now many 3rd world nations are completely out of control. So there's no way to verify that those CC funds are being used as they are intended. Or, if they are used properly, there's no guaranty that they won't create the problem all over again once the environmental corrections are made.

-dex

originally posted by: 727Sky
I suppose my question is about the three known periods of hot and cold over the last 2000 years. Continents were more or less in the same position plus or minus a foot or two yet during Roman times it was hotter. Dark ages (much war back during that time period as people fled to greener pastures; Vikings left Greenland ...to darn cold)) and then there was a warming period and another cold period about 300 years ago.. Natural oscillations in temperature due to Earth's orbit and planetary axis tilt has got to play a role in such things IMO. I agree many of the earth bound temp sensors are in cities where there is a heat sink but hopefully the slide rule boys and girls factor that in (doubt they do) however that would not have any bearing on the supposedly newer better and more accurate satellite data.

The video is just one more thought process on what is going on with earth's climate and as I said, the cycles of cold and hot he brought up during the video and last 2000 years was interesting to me.. Can Anyone show where he was wrong ?

Funny you bring up if they factor placement in the weather stations . Where i live at my local airport the damn thing is allways wrong . No rain when its raining, Temp colder when its hotter and less wind . You know why cause the air port built a back up generator house right next the the weather station that blocks everything . I brought it up to the airport manager and they never did anything about it lol.

a reply to: NewzNose

We certainly need to treat the Earth as the life keeper she is. Respect her and helping to keep her healthy helps us as well. A win-win.

Yeah we need to, but we're not. I think mother nature has had about enough of our #.
You know what they say "a thousand cuts". We're getting there. We're killing our Earth. Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but unless we change our Earth-raping ways, it's going to happen.

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: mbkennel
Extinction level event, or paying fractionally more for coal and petroleum in a TAX whose revenues are recycled for other purposes? Clearly the second is much worse for some.

I wish that climate change were a terrorist plot.

I just love the constant fear-mongering rhetorical extremism.

I live in one of the few places in the world that actually has a carbon tax. It's revenue-neutral and life hasn't missed a step here. In fact the economy is churning right along with the rest of the country while our emissions have significantly strayed down from the national average.

It's working great.

But pretty much every time I fire up my laptop I get to read some raging right wing diatribe about how this minuscule tax I pay will destroy western civilization as we know it. Usually comes about in the same spittle-flecked outrage orgasm where those of us who prefer to err on the side of science get branded as "alarmists".

Nobody said the tax would destroy western civilization as we know it. but what we "raging right wing diatribes" DO say is that it is an unfair money grab that does NOTHING to cure the supposed climate change.

a reply to: bronco73

Do you live in the USA? (nice rig, btw)
What money grab are you referring to?

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: mc_squared

BC is an interesting example of how a carbon tax could work. In the case of your province, those extra taxes collected on fossil fuels and such are offset by reduced income taxes. So this is a tax neutral approach that at the same time discourages the use of CO2 generating sources. I'm glad that is working for you.

Yes, BC is a perfect example... of how a carbon tax CAN NOT work.
thetyee.ca...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bronco73

Do you live in the USA? (nice rig, btw)
What money grab are you referring to?

Thanks, I do love my bronco No, I live in Canada... yes I am one of the few up here that is a "raging right wing diatribe" as me_squared called it lol!

Sorry, the money grab I was referring was to a carbon tax.

a reply to: bronco73

Sorry, the money grab I was referring was to a carbon tax.

I figured.
We don't have that. No socialized medicine either.

a reply to: bronco73

The opinion piece you linked is a little old, from 2011. The link from mc_squared is more recent, from 2014. So that information is lot more up to date.

However, this analysis from the Institute for Energy Research is more recent, from July 2015. It also questions the actual positive environmental impact of the BC Carbon Tax, though it doesn't go into any detail concerning the financial impact. The argument against a positive environmental impact is that, though the data indicates a significant reduction in gasoline purchases in BC, it can be explained by US cross-border purchases from the citizens of that province. This analysis provides links to a couple of other articles that provide refutations of that assertion however. I found this one to be rather enlightening, though it is 2013.

There are good points on both sides of the environmental debate. However the math indicates to me that there is some "leakage" across the border, but it is not sufficient to account for the entirety of the lower fuel consumption in BC. Furthermore, the way the data is presented in the IER article appears to have been heavily processed through a Mark Twain transform. This is always a red flag to me when I'm attempting to Deny Ignorance.

So, in light of what I've read so far, I'm still leaning towards accepting that the BC "Cap-and-Dividend" approach to a Carbon Tax is mostly successful.

-dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: bronco73

The opinion piece you linked is a little old, from 2011. The link from mc_squared is more recent, from 2014. So that information is lot more up to date.

However, this analysis from the Institute for Energy Research is more recent, from July 2015. It also questions the actual positive environmental impact of the BC Carbon Tax, though it doesn't go into any detail concerning the financial impact. The argument against a positive environmental impact is that, though the data indicates a significant reduction in gasoline purchases in BC, it can be explained by US cross-border purchases from the citizens of that province. This analysis provides links to a couple of other articles that provide refutations of that assertion however. I found this one to be rather enlightening, though it is 2013.

There are good points on both sides of the environmental debate. However the math indicates to me that there is some "leakage" across the border, but it is not sufficient to account for the entirety of the lower fuel consumption in BC. Furthermore, the way the data is presented in the IER article appears to have been heavily processed through a Mark Twain transform. This is always a red flag to me when I'm attempting to Deny Ignorance.

So, in light of what I've read so far, I'm still leaning towards accepting that the BC "Cap-and-Dividend" approach to a Carbon Tax is mostly successful.

-dex

I beg to differ, as do most analysts, including the very people that instituted it:

www.theglobeandmail.com...
canadafreepress.com...
business.financialpost.com...
business.financialpost.com...
www.huffingtonpost.ca...
billtieleman.blogspot.ca...
www.americanthinker.com...
climateandcapitalism.com...
vancouver.24hrs.ca...

I can continue forever... but really why bother. The carbon tax in BC is a failure despite what their government tries to say or spin. It has done nothing to curb emissions, and consumption is up not down.

a reply to: bronco73

Well one thing is clear to me: there appears to be supporting data on both sides of the issue. And dueling data sets take too long for an outsider like me to analyze.

Another thing is that I'm completely unqualified to judge the success or failure of this Carbon Credit scheme in Canada. There are cultural and other subtle nuances that have to be taken into consideration when analyzing this subject, and I'm completely ignorant of those factors.

So, I'll just say for now: I have insufficient information and context to judge the success or failure of this program.

Thanks for the additional information!

-dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: bronco73

Well one thing is clear to me: there appears to be supporting data on both sides of the issue. And dueling data sets take too long for an outsider like me to analyze.

Even though you and I are on different sides of this fence, I couldn't agree more. It's very difficult for most to be able to make informed decisions when there is so much information and disinformation floating around. It's just like the AGW debate.. there is information being skewed by one or the other side, or both. Infuriating.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: bronco73

Another thing is that I'm completely unqualified to judge the success or failure of this Carbon Credit scheme in Canada. There are cultural and other subtle nuances that have to be taken into consideration when analyzing this subject, and I'm completely ignorant of those factors.

So, I'll just say for now: I have insufficient information and context to judge the success or failure of this program.

Thanks for the additional information!

-dex

All good my friend. And thanks to you too for being so cordial. It's a rare thing around here these days lol! Have a good one!