Americans See Warming as Threat, but don't Want "Carbon Gas Tax"

The only way I'm getting on some type of rail is if it had private rooms. I'm not sitting next to homeless people.

 

The public wants the government to solve their problems guilt and risk free, and they'll crucify it if global warming ever spirals out of control.

I'll still bet on a frenzied public demanding a change and corporate interests happily notching another victory to "market forces".

The green movement was at its highest during the 70s when our lakes and rivers were dirty and animals started dieing from chemical sprays. It'll be cyclical because people only act with what they see in front of them and don't acknowledge the price that gave them the change in the first place.

 

So many Americans are hypocritical... what a surprise.

I'm leery of taxes but I'm convinced that without some sort of pain to people's pocket books we're not going to see any serious changes on energy use. In general I support the idea of a carbon / gas tax but I would like to see more details regarding how it will be used.

Considering that a lot of our foreign and military policy is now tied to our energy policy I would like to see that costs reflected in the price at the pump and would support the idea of paying off military expenditures with gas taxes rather than borrowing money for it like we are now doing. This would both encourage conservation but also make more people aware of the true costs of our military actions. As of now most Americans aren't feeling that costs.

 

^ You are correct that the PRC and India will overtake us in CO2 emmissions but it is important that we as currently the largest emitter set an example. At the moment even if people recognize the problem no one wants to do anything about it until someone else does and the problem just gets worse. So even if the PRC has yet to make serious moves towards limiting emmisision if the US does it that would go a long ways towards convincing other nations too.

Also as even you note by developing such technologies and practices that limit emmissions that could create a market for selling those technologies to other countries giving us a competitive advantage. At the minimum we could provide the best practices example for them to emulate.

Finally even if Global Warming doesn't prove to be a major threat it will still be a long term advantage for us to shift our dependence from fossil fuels. While The PRC is relying heavily on coal they are and will pay a large price for that in terms of public health and environmental degredation. The continued reliance on oil for transportaton is creating tons of problems both in regard to pollution but also global security problems as it fuels repressive regimes in unstable areas. In the long run it makes sense to develop local, renewable non polluting energy sources.

Also in regard to adjusting to a warmer world the problem is that we don't know what the costs of those might be. They potentially could be disastrous and far far far more expensive than the costs of moving away from fossil fuels. Why take that risk when there are already reasons to move away from fossil fuels besides climate change?

 

Sure, sell the global warming panic to the public, and then bring in new taxes that will supposedly be used for the benefit of the earth. BS.

 

A very important point. The prevailing conservative wisdom that government can do no good is one of the key unexamined truths that is putting the US behind in so many areas. Energy effciency, health care, vacations etc.
Things like the Interstate Highway system, the libraries and public schools could not have been done in the present anti-government craze from the 1980's to the present..

And to think the whole point anti-goverment movement has been shaped in think tanks funded by a few to save taxes on those whose incomes exceeds that of all but 1% of the folks in the country or on this bbs for example.

 

Solar variations not behind global warming: study
Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:03AM BST
http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKL101501320070710
By Ben Hirschler

LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.

Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity, not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.

There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming.

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend.

A dwindling group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

In order to unpick that possible link, Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, studied factors that could have forced climate change in recent decades, including variations in total solar irradiance and cosmic rays.

The data was smoothed to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which affects the amount of heat the sun emits but does not impact the Earth's surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat.

They concluded that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability, whatever mechanism was invoked.

Britain's Royal Society -- one of the world's oldest scientific academies, founded in 1660 -- said the new research was an important rebuff to climate change skeptics.

"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day," it said in a statement.

The 10 warmest years in the past 150 years have all been since 1990 and a United Nations climate panel, drawing on the work of 2,500 scientists, said this year it was "very likely" human activities were the main cause.

The panel gave a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century.
© Reuters 2006

 

It depends on the level of complexity the organization is responsible for. (Though admittedly, the Federal Govt. has recently been giving corrupt county sheriffs a run for their money, it isn't usually this egregious.)

As bad as the Federal response to AIDS was, it would have been much worse if the states had been in charge. Heck, places like Alabama would be sending bibles to HIV patients and putting gays in jail.

We have ample evidence that regarding emergency planning and response, a coordinated effort directing many jurisdictions is preferable to the reliance on one small entity. (Again, this administration shouldn't be used as an argument for my position.)

It's the National Weather Service instead of the Conroe Weather Service for a good reason.

Who is easier to bribe or get around... a meat inspector working for the city (who happens to be the brother of the mayor) or a Federal meat inspector? At least on the Fed side, they would have to work at it.

Even given all that has happened recently, if you're black you have to think the Feds do a better job of ensuring voting rights then the local folks.

Now, if you happen to be Native-American, you would be hard-pressed to overlook the fact the Feds have shafted you out of possibly billions of dollars, but the local folks haven't been too kind to you throughout history either.

So, a statement like "organizations that work best are run at the lowest level possible" is simplistic and demonstrably not true in many cases.

 

A lot to respond to. Generally, I oversimplified much less than you admit. Government works best at the lowest level with a defined interest in doing that job well.

Voting rights: I'm not talking about protecting rights. If a State or Municipality infringes on a person's Constitutionally protected rights, it is the Federal Government's obligation to protect those rights. That is a law-enforcement issue, not an issue of bureaucracy.

AIDS/Government charity: The AIDS response has been great. Really better than any epidemic ever. From the private sector, where it should have all come from. Canada's got this one right, regardless of what Bono says.

Emergency Response (purely anecdotal): From my experience (I was a volunteer firefighter for 3 years), municipalities, rural protection districts, counties tend to work together well. While pooled resources usually means better equipment, it also usually means slower response. When an emergency is beyond what that department can handle, neighboring departments almost always pitch in. There's a reason why emergency response hasn't moved up even to state and county levels. (Standardization certainly works well here, especially with mutual aid.) Read up on the effectiveness of the old neighborhood fire departments in New York. It's amazing what they could do.

National Weather Service is certainly an exception, but my company uses a commercial weather service that works even better. I still concede defeat here.

Inspectors: You're right on the meat inspector, and that's why I modified my statement. The city meat inspector is inspecting meat for people around the country. He or she has little contact with those offering criticism and doesn't have much of an interest in doing a good job. But the reverse would be true for a restaurant inspector. A national (or state) restaurant inspector would be susceptible to corruption and much, much higher magnitude of corruption than a local restaurant inspectors who is hired by people who will hear if there are restaurant problems.

In the discussion, however, we have forgotten the worst offenders for government inefficiency. Federal mandates that the states and municipalities are forced to figure out how to implement have gotten us tons of boutique gasolines, a school system that is getting worse and worse, and the Louisiana Highway System.

 

Maine becomes the most recent state to reject a carbon tax

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patric...ue-state-to-reject-a-carbon-tax/#361a36302595

 

Rich can pay for it. But guess what? The middle class will be the ones who make the sacrifice. Millenials at that. They are the ones being squeezed by boomers who borrowed against them and they will get squeezed to pay for carbon tax. We will be the debt slave donkeys of the generations.

 

Not arguing the case of whether it is a dire threat to reach the tipping point in a little over a decade, but how ridiculous is it that some people can fervently believe it is a life or death matter but don't want to pay any more taxes? If I believed something was about to kill me, my family and perhaps injure the entire human race, I can't imagine what I wouldn't be willing to pay.

Which brings me back to my dead horse argument in other threads: NOBODY wants to pay more taxes (yes, there really are exceptions so I am engaging in hyperbole). But, a lot of people are happy if others pay more taxes. Human nature.