TalkClimateChange

I think outright bans on things because of their emissions is pretty pointless. You’re always going to forget something, and people will be asking why (say) SUVs are banned while (say) sportscars are allowed, which will lead them to try to circumvent the ban by whatever loophole the laws have - “oh, no new SUVs? Well, I bought this one in 2005, it says on this ticket someone helpfully forged for me.”

Much better is a carbon tax on fossil fuels which starts very low and gradually grows, funds to be used for alternatives to the things causing trouble now. That way, the high-emissions behaviour gradually reduces as the poorer and middle class people can’t afford it, replacing it with lower-emissions behaviour; rich people can still afford it, but they’ll be a very small market and very few companies will service them, and at least they’ll be contributing to financing the alternatives.

This type of socialist marketing is exactly what is going to kill your cause. Why don’t you just say “Let them eat cake”! The poor people I see are driving old clunkers that put out way worse than CO2. How are they ever going to purchase a $35K Prious?

I’m middle middle class and have to put a lot of miles on my vehicle for my job. Two years ago I went from a 22mpg mini-suv to a 32mpg Mazda 3. I couldn’t afford a Prious, nor would I even consider it. (way too ugly for me) Since then gas prices have shot up and up. So now what? I guess I’ll stay home and collect welfare.

Why are all the solutions (to make-believe problems) have to be punitive? There are alternatives if anyone cared to look, that wouldn’t break the bank. Natural gas burns cleaner than most biofuels and would be a great transition to the fabled hydrogen fuel. But nope, can’t do it; it would infringe on the spotted wingtail hermit mouse.

That right there is the problem. The greens have so many causes, and there can never be any compromises, that we get nowhere. The latest is the phony argument for putting the Polar Bear on the endangered list. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that some of their territory is in ANWER would it?

Sorry, rant off.

Perhaps more thought and less ranting would help you understand these issues.

The truly poor already don’t drive cars, so that a petrol tax won’t hurt them. I also didn’t hear many people worrying about the poor when we introduced sales taxes, which hurt them disproportionately since less of their spending is discretionary than those on higher incomes.

In any case, I’ve said before that a carbon tax, like all other taxes should have rebates for low-income people. No person on less than the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage should pay any taxes at all.

I didn’t say that we shouldn’t have natural gas buses, or that there ought to be no reward incentives - I would, for example, pay people who renounced their driver’s licence.

Amazingly, a person cannot lay their entire plan for society out in a response to a blog post. We have to discuss one thing at a time, or we never get anywhere. You’re confusing a focus on one topic at once with a general confusion and lack of planning.

I am more-or-less indifferent to the issues of polar bears and Alaskan fossil fuel resources. You need to understand that “green” is a label like “liberal” or “conservative” which encompasses a very broad range of views and concerns. As a greenish sort, I am no more responsible for (say) some other green talking about polar bears than some conservative is responsible for (say) some other conservative supporting the wiretapping of the entire US. When a group has millions of members, it will have a diversity of views. If you want uniform views, I suggest a visit to North Korea.

If the government truly serves the will of the people then I strongly believe any action to combat AGW should be subject to a public debate and referendum at the national level. A complete action plan for each country needs to be created and the regulations, taxes, costs, effects, risks and benefits be clearly communicated so the people can decide if this is acceptable.

This issue is far too large to trust to appointed officials making hollow deals in tropical climates, or even elected representatives voting their personal bias or political pandering.

If this is the single greatest threat to humanity, then should not humanity get to decide what action is taken?

Certainly I agree on public consultation, and even voting. I’ve previously written that I think it’d be a good plan to let each region choose what, if anything, to have generating power in their backyard.

Now assuming that this (referendum) I proposed happens and that the majority of people in a country vote that AGW is a real and avoidable danger to the overall health and safety of the population and that the impacts and costs are, and the risk is not, acceptable. This will then categorize AGW as a real and substanial threat to the health and safety of the general public.

In a previous article it was explained that an alternative energy installation was denied on environmental grounds, when the entire concept was to mitigate a possibly larger environmental threat.

So then in order to advance this, a weighted system of environmental concerns would have to be established.

Example: Wind farms and Solar Arrays would not be subject to site concerns for environmental impacts as they address a problem larger than wildlife habitat and preservation of natural asthetic vistas. Sites should only be required to be viable for the intended purpose as their benefits to the overall environmental health outweigh any other environmental concerns.

Does anyone think this approach will be accepted by the multitude of environmental groups mandates and residents opposed to projects based on “ugly and noisy” asthetic grounds?

If not, should it be illegal and prosecutable to oppose such projects on environmental and asthetic basis as interference with these projects could constitute a danger to the health and safety of the population at large?

“any action to combat AGW should be subject to a public debate and referendum at the national level.”

Try being a citizen of the European Union. We get very little chance of democracy on these issues since the accountability gap between the electorate and the decision makers is so wide then the EU parliament can do pretty much all they want. - And voters in many nations weren’t really asked if they wanted to join this union in the first place.

“emissions taxes, caps, and trading schemes are designed to incentivise industries and consumers”

This is the spin, but all of these measures are designed to shift costs to consumers and penalize business operations productivity and competitiveness.

“You catch more bears with honey then you do with vinegar”

Incentives should be just that “incentives”. I suggest that any emission reduction expenditures by businesses be tax-exempt and quailify for a 2 year capital cost allowance of 100% of the amount spent, and loans to businesses to make these purchases be under-written by the government to ease lending criteria.

I also think that Industry Specific Innovation development companies be created with voluntary investments by industry participants and venture capital. These start-ups would qualify for tax-free operations for 10 years to develop and market technologies. All contributions would also be tax-free investments.

Industries should be encouraged, again through tax breaks to provide more educational scholarships and intern programs. We need more scientists and engineers to staff these ventures.

Government would make available fund matching contributions for the first 2 years in the form of repayable grants. When a technology is moved to market then these monies would be repaid to the government without interest.

All other contributing parties would own a proportional to support percentage of the venture and first rights to implementation. They would receive profit sharing income when the technologies become viable.

Micro manufacturing investments in the form of tax relief and startup captial like above to decentralize manufacturing capacity to a more even spatial distribution to reduce transporation distances on finished goods.

Raw materials are much cheaper and less emission intense then finished goods to transport. All new facilities must equate to a emission reduction overall for the manufacturer.

Smaller manufacturing sites would produce less emissions if created with a low-emission strategy. This will also redistribute jobs and hopefully populations.

All rail systems should be expanded and enhanced with higher speed cargo and passenger service, with passenger service being clean fuel over electric or full transmission electric, the rail system then could double as an energy distribution grid with power transmission occupying the same right of ways. More renewable sites could be easily implemented using the right of way and access to remote areas where production would be more viable.

Track based cargo and public transit distribution systems servicing more areas of cities with major retail and wholesale installations having cargo tram tracks from universal central wharehousing.

The construction of this system would immediately create millions of new jobs and could be financed through reveue from state owned or subsidized transportation and energy industries in a form of tax free subsidy repayments. Also highway enhancements and expansion project money could be diverted to high speed rail systems.

International free trade agreements for all emission reduction technologies and uniform regulations regarding the products.

Now you will notice that none of my strategies require new taxes or penalties. They instead offer paths to reduced oerational expenses and re-claiming of investment in emission reduction technology and its development. They are also not mandated or regulated by quasi-judical bodies or the government again reducing cost of implementation in the form of little or no administration.

Global warming (ie. man made gases causing atmospheric temperatures to rise) are a complete myth invented by a posse of misguided politicians (like Al Gore) and pseudo-scientific left-wing liberalist thinkers in order to scare the rest of the world into accepting whatever the waiting-in-the-wings new world government decrees is right for us. It is time people ended their passive acceptance of this lie and challenged this unscientific baloney which has been shown to be based on inaccurate and falsified data which has been twisted in order to brainwash as many people as possible.

I guess those 928 separate studies, none of which disagree with anthropogenic climate change, are all just fabrications by communists or something

“The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Bunch of ****** commies, them scientists. What do they know? Some of them think Agent Orange, tobacco and burgers are bad for you, too.