Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

As for price increases, yes, there would be some, mostly revolving around the products of the prime users of these carbon fuels. The studies I've looked at indicate that a 15$/ton CO2 tax would add ~16% to the cost of Coal and Petroleum industry products (gasoline, fuel oil, etc.,), ~15% to the cost of Coal mining products, 11.2% to cost of Utilities industry products (primarily electricity), non-fossil-fuel mining industries' products ~3.9%, Primary metals industries' products ~3.2%, Pipeline transportation industries' products ~2.4%, Air transportation industry products ~1.8%, Waste management/remediation industry products/services ~1.7%, nonmetallic mineral industry products ~1.6%, and paper industry products ~1.3%. Those are the top ten impacted industries and products. Overall industry service and product impact average of ~0.6%. Add to this that we are talking about a revenue neutral tax, where the proceeds are primarily used to eliminate and offset federal payroll taxes, federal sales taxes on fuels, etc., and you aren't going to place this burden on the people who can least afford it. Additionally, you are going to encourage competition from industries looking to improve energy efficiency and invest in alternative, non-fossil fuel energy technologies and infrastructure designs/processes.

And none of this matters unless it's adopted world wide. You aren't looking at the big picture.

 

[Furcifer]

Why should we continue to artifically pad corporate profits while picking up the tab for cleaning up their pollution, I'm just not into corporate welfare, some might call it a slide to fascism, but for me it is just plain, old fashioned crony capitalism, I see no benefit to society or the citizenry in such situations.

Because the money won't come out of corporate profits, it will come out of mine.

 

[Furcifer]

If you can do so, in a reasonable fashion, without creating a false dichotomy or generating a strawman argument, please, feel free to start engaging in this process. I, for one, would find it a refreshing change.

Likewise, if you can stop moving the goal posts and address the argument it would be a refreshing change.

 

[BenBurch]

Because the money won't come out of corporate profits, it will come out of mine.

Well, aren't you just a model victim?

Seriously, it's not corporations that create the demand for the products that cause GHGs to be emitted to the detriment of everybody else on the planet, it is the consumers. That's you.

You SHOULD be paying for the damage you do.

Unless you think you are "special" and should be able to do whatever you like without any consequences whatsoever?

 

[Furcifer]

That is a ridiculous statement, one you cannot even begin to justify.

It's already been justified in this thread. I suggest reading some of the economic papers associated with climate change, they're very clear on the matter. It's a undeniable fact actually, and one only has to look at CO2 levels to determine the economic strength of a country.
Believing otherwise would be pure fantasy.

 

[Furcifer]

Of course not. Burning gas to create heat which is converted to electricity at less than perfect energy efficiency to then convert the electricity back to heat is less efficient than using a natural gas heating system, where the heat produced is the desired end-product. This is not rocket science.

And yet the quantum jump to realizing natural gas heating is a necessity appears elusive to some. This is pushing an agenda and not rational discussion.

Anyone who's concerned to minimise the extent of AGW argues that we have to reduce emissions. You argue that we don't have to, or if we do it shouldn't be now, or soon. That's not a party line, it's an established fact.

Strawman. I've said numerous times emissions are being reduced. Your statement is fallacious.

In the UK, natural gas from the North Sea was frittered away on electricity generation since it was the cheapest option at the time; now we're importing natural gas because there's so much installed capacity.

lol, yes frittered away on that luxury we call electricity. That's just an absurd position to take.

Unlike those who just want things to stay just where they are.

Strawman. Nobody wants things to "stay where they are", quite the contrary. People are making changes everyday, you're just blind to everything going on in front of your face. Windturbines, electric cars, solar panels, high efficiency furnaces...there are so many I can't even begin to list all of them.

It probably helps you in some way, but most of the world is not like Canada. Mexico certainly isn't, it has a lot more people for one thing.

I'm just using Canada as a benchmark to show how absurd claims are about emissions and what can or can't be done.

Many homes in the UK have gas heating systems, and that gas would still be coming from the North Sea if so much hadn't been wasted on electricity generation. As it is, the Russians have us by the short-and-curlies.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt when it hopped.

 

[Trakar]

Because the money won't come out of corporate profits, it will come out of mine.

You do not seem to understand the concept of "revenue neutral." Your added expenses will largely be offset through individual tax credits and offsets, with the most likely mechanism for returning most revenues being a reduction or elimination payroll taxes (which doesn't just help working individuals, it also benefits the businesses they work for).

 

[Trakar]

And none of this matters unless it's adopted world wide. You aren't looking at the big picture.

This is a typical big-oil argument, but it assumes a static economy and does not look at the actual active economic interactions consistent with any real world, functional market system. Higher fossil fuel prices have traditionally sparked technological innovation both in energy efficiency and alternative-based power systems. The US, Europe, China and India (not necessarily in that order) are the largest markets on the planet, combined they make up nearly 90% of the consumer markets as well as nearly 90% of global production and wealth. Whatever is agreed upon and emplaced by these four national entities will defacto become global law and economic reality.

Most carbon tax systems I've seen proposed also include compensating mechanisms to deal with goods/services to and from non-carbon taxed nations, something generally known as Border tax adjustments/assessments.
There is some variation in how these function under the various carbon tax legislations and proposals but the usual action is a "playing field" levelling which add import taxes to goods from non-carbon-tax nations and don't charge carbon taxes to exports to non-carbon-tax nations. These are considered legitimate border-adjustments under WTO treaty restrictions.

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University (chair of Council of Economic Advisers '95-'97 and Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank '97-'00) has stated, “Not paying the cost of damage to the environment is a subsidy, just as not paying the full costs of workers would be.” Stiglitz's web page has links to his various papers and articles regarding carbon taxes and specifically, some of the specific border tax assessments.

((A side benefit, though largely irrelevent to AGW, if not its remediation, is that this makes justifying global military interventions based upon "threats" to foriegn oil resources that the current national industries depend upon.))

 

[Trakar]

And yet the quantum jump to realizing natural gas heating is a necessity appears elusive to some. This is pushing an agenda and not rational discussion.

Strawman. I've said numerous times emissions are being reduced. Your statement is fallacious.

It is irrational and disingenuous to claim that emissions are being reduced when overall emissions are rising at an accelerating rate.

"Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history..."
http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959

 

[stokes234]

And none of this matters unless it's adopted world wide. You aren't looking at the big picture.

Global warming is not subject to a binary outcome. There are plenty of shades of grey, and if one major world economy reduces it's emissions while others refuse, that will result in less global warming than if all refused.

 

[Trakar]

Likewise, if you can stop moving the goal posts and address the argument it would be a refreshing change.

I am unaware of any such behavior on my part, but if you care to post a citation or reference which supports your assertion, I will be happy to give your concerns their full and proper regard and adjust my behavior accordingly. Either way, perhaps we should strive to stay focussed on the facts and concerns of anthropogenically forced climate change, the impacts of this change, and the best possible remediations of this situation. Regardless of personal, or personality issues, these facts and concerns are too big and too important for our entire species and the rest of the species on the planet to allow such diversions to derail and detract from the focus on these issues.

 

[Furcifer]

You SHOULD be paying for the damage you do.

Why should we continue to artifically pad corporate profits while picking up the tab for cleaning up their pollution, I'm just not into corporate welfare, some might call it a slide to fascism, but for me it is just plain, old fashioned crony capitalism, I see no benefit to society or the citizenry in such situations.

The inconsistencies are astounding. Which is it?

 

[Trakar]

...Strawman. I've said numerous times emissions are being reduced. Your statement is fallacious...

How many times you make unsupported statements is irrelevent to the support of those assertions,...as is commonly repeated amongst knowledgable skeptics;"...the plural of anecdote is not 'data'." please provide support for your assertions in the form of supporting evidences.

 

[Furcifer]

It is irrational and disingenuous to claim that emissions are being reduced when overall emissions are rising at an accelerating rate.

And yet you've made that claim in this very thread. The goal post shifting ensues.

 

[michaelsuede]

New Satellite Data Smashes Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth

Libertarian News reports:

Scientists can calculate the amount of heat CO2 directly traps from human emissions. This amount of heat is incredibly small. In order for human emissions to cause any real change in climate, alarmist scientists have to incorporate “feedback” mechanisms in their models that greatly amplify the known effects of human CO2 warming.

These “feedback” mechanisms are entirely hypothetical constructs which are incorporated into alarmist computer models. This study destroys all of the scientific basis for those hypothetical models. In effect, the study turns anthropogenic warming models into works of fiction.

Dr. Roy Spencer comments on his research:

The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

Praise Mao.

 

[Trakar]

And yet you've made that claim in this very thread. The goal post shifting ensues.

Please cite and reference where I have argued that "that emissions are being reduced." I have argued that emissions are increasing at an accelerating rate. Your fallacious assertions are without support.

 

[excaza]

Well, the actual paper keeps timing out, so....

weeeeeeee...

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Perhaps my AP Stylebook is too old, I can't find the phrase "alarmist scientist" anywhere so I'm not sure how to use it correctly.

 

[michaelsuede]

Perhaps my AP Stylebook is too old, I can't find the phrase "alarmist scientist" anywhere so I'm not sure how to use it correctly.

Think of it in the same way "denier" is applied to people who believe in normal scientific inquiry.

The inverse of a person who believes in normal scientific inquiry would be an alarmist.

 

[Twiler]

Think of it in the same way "denier" is applied to people who believe in normal scientific inquiry.

The inverse of a person who believes in normal scientific inquiry would be an alarmist.

If that's the case, isn't 'alarmist scientist' an oxymoron?