Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Let me clarify something here, I am not opposed to government taxing people (sales taxes, income taxes, airline security taxes, etc). There is a clear case as to why people are taxed in order for the government to provide for common need things like roads, schools, librarys, oversight for safety of consumer goods, etc.

However, the taxes I'm talking about are these, in my view, phony carbon taxes, credits, and trading schemes. These taxes/charges discourage growth by trying to limit people's carbon footprints since it will raise prices. Ultimately businesses pass these extra fees and taxes on to the consumer (or the consumer is taxed directly) who is forced to pay more for travel, food, and other commerical items. When people travel less or buy less items it hurts buinesses who then have to cut jobs.

So please don't tell me to "grow up" if you can't understand the economic problems with imposing unreasonable and phony taxes which DO hurt businesses and ultimately jobs.

 

Thank you for clearly stating what my thoughts are on the schemes to reduce use which are really taxes. Just call it what it is.

 

For those of you opposed to any carbon taxes, what method do you propose for recognising environmental costs?

 

I don't oppose a carbon tax if it is demonstrated that carbon is actually doing significant harm and that such a tax is actually having an impact on climate outcomes. So far, even if you believe the first premise, Kyoto fails on the second. Which is why I favor this:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/T3tax.VVedition.pdf

"Global climate models predict that, if greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming, there will be a distinct spatial pattern to it, dominated by a rapid warming trend in the tropical troposphere, the region from about 1 to 15 km above the surface, between 20 degrees north and south of the equator. Observed warming trends at the surface are hard to interpret, in part due to data quality problems. But high quality measurements of tropospheric climate change are available from weather satellites and weather balloons, and according to models, this is where the most pronounced ‘leading indicator’ of global warming will be found. I suggest that we calibrate a revenue-neutral tax on carbon emissions to the mean tropical tropospheric temperature, starting it at a low level. That way, if global warming projections are right, the tax will start rising steadily over the coming decades. If the models are exaggerating the problem, the tax won’t rise; and under the circumstances we would not want it to. Also, the existence of the tax would create a strong incentive for the private sector to get involved in climate forecasting, improving the basis for policy planning."

 

(Thank you for clarifying you position on taxes however, sorry for any insult to you. My statement stands for some others though.)

Perhaps instead of worrying about "hurting business" and "cutting jobs" we should consider (and charge) the "real" cost of what we do. For a simple example burning coal (regardless of your feelings about CO2) has huge hidden costs in acid rain, respiratory illness in people, strip mining damage to local environment, lung disease in underground miners, and on and on.

My point is that there should be some mechanism for tallying these costs, and paying for them. We have cheap grid power that drives down solar R&D and demand because we don't pay the true cost.

Many people believe that the change to 'green collar" jobs will result in a net gain for the economy.

On another subject, why is economics the only "science "that not only believes that unlimited growth is possible, but is good. The economy might be hurt if we built products that lasted longer and were more efficient to use. The net /net is there may be fewer job/hours world wide, but we ALL might be better off.

I personally believe we have or are about to reach the Malthusian limits of what the planet can support. Economists would have us believe that we can "grow our way out " of any problem.

Icarus

 

This is an interesting discussion. I would like to toss out an idea that perhaps another forum member already has, can't recall. This has to do with exoatmospheric weapons testing dating back to the late 1950's

The US conducted high altitude nuclear tests, starting with the secret Project Argus in 1958. This test series was based on the ideas of Dr Nicholas Christofilos, and used relatively low yield - under 2kt - devices to cause changes to the earth's magnetic field.

Project Argus had three shots, the highest about 500 miles above the Navy support ships in the Atlantic. The test shots confirmed the work of Dr Christofilos

Operation Dominic was started in 1962 and included very high yield, high altitude shots. These tests were to further confirm Dr. Christofilos's theories, including HAEMP (High Altitude Electro Magnetic Pulse), the effect of HAEMP on radar jitter, etc.

Operation Dominic, shot Starfish Prime, was around 1.5 MT and did a lot of damage to the electrical grid in Oahu. Earlier tests with higher yields - around 4 MT - at lower altitudes produced more localized effects, such as the Teak and Orange series

With Starfish Prime, many scientists feel that the VanAllen Belt was significantly changed and may take hundreds of years to return to normal. Since everything around us is a complex relationship (Planet, atmosphere, exoatmosphere, solar events, extrasolar events, etc) I'm wondering what - if any - effect the exoatmospheric testing has had on climate?

 

I seem to recall hearing that the atmospheric tests gave us an idea of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Because there are too many economists making good money and shielding themselves from the majority of the destruction they tend to cause. It is easy to play Mr. Rich and turn a blind eye to the real sciences and assume that their little experiment is running perfectly because they fail to take all facts and figures into their models. Thankfully many new environmental economists ARE aware of the issues and are persuading companies and governments to work differently.

On one hand you have nutcases with views of taking over the world by force (the U.S. would never try to do that) and on the other you have a system being overwhelmed by consumption, degradation, pollution, and overpopulation. If human threats (warfare) were not an issue then it would not be hard to change our ways and start doing right for the environment and ultimately humans in general. Since we have to continue playing the warfare game and ultimately the arms race we "cannot" make the changes required because if you don't have a economy based on super growth how could you spend trillions of dollars in the arms race??? Ohh and 5,000 sq.ft houses with blingin' SUVs on 26's. It's pretty sad that we have so many environmental situations facing us and yet we continue to manufacture anthropogenic methods of destroying ourselves..

So I figure it will come down to.....

(Not Work Safe- Language)

 

I'm glad I could clarify my position on taxes.

I'm not opposed to changing how we do business when it comes to cleaner energy and more renewable energy, It think that is the future. As far as coal goes, big strides have been made in cleaning up the soot and other substances that comes from burning coal for electricity -- not to mention the safety in mining. Are we all the way there yet? Of course not, but we still need it. And believe me, I understand that it is not in the coal industries best interest to see renewable energies come on line. However, as the technologies develop for renewable energies, the market case for these new sources of energy will eventually outstrip the case for coal and oil -- the question is how fast do we get there?

I don't know any politician or economist who would argue that growth is bad. You see it now, the number one issue of this election is the economy, it has surpassed Iraq and national security! People want jobs, they want good pay with decent benefits. They only get these things if buinesses are doing well and able to at least break even or expand. And when the economy starts to go south, that becomes the number 1 concern of people.

 

"I'm not opposed to changing how we do business when it comes to cleaner energy and more renewable energy, It think that is the future. As far as coal goes, big strides have been made in cleaning up the soot and other substances that comes from burning coal for electricity -- not to mention the safety in mining. Are we all the way there yet? Of course not, but we still need it. And believe me, I understand that it is not in the coal industries best interest to see renewable energies come on line. However, as the technologies develop for renewable energies, the market case for these new sources of energy will eventually outstrip the case for coal and oil -- the question is how fast do we get there?

I don't know any politician or economist who would argue that growth is bad. You see it now, the number one issue of this election is the economy, it has surpassed Iraq and national security! People want jobs, they want good pay with decent benefits. They only get these things if buinesses are doing well and able to at least break even or expand. And when the economy starts to go south, that becomes the number 1 concern of people."

That is exactly my point, we are NOT paying the environmental costs for coal. Have we reduced harmful emissions? Yes. Have we paid for the damage to the environment for a century and a half of bad practice? No! My point is, if we paid, up front, the true and total cost of our choices, then the beloved "market place' would be truly level, and perhaps it would work. As it is now, the field is so skewed, to call it a "market place" is a sham.

As for politicians and jobs. I understand why people and indeed politicians are concerned about jobs. The fact that we are spending billions, nay trillions of dollars on subsidies for what can only be described as non productive items (oil, gas, coal production, the hidden tax/cost of protecting that oil in the name of national security etc) leaves that much less for those that work at those jobs.

My point is that there is plenty of "wealth" to go around. We just choose to distribute it very unevenly. Those of us in the developed world, live, to a large extent at the expense of the developing world. Economists would have us believe that everyone needs a new car and a wide screen every year or two, at tremendous cost, both personally and environmentally.

I am semi-employed,,,by choice (Not really retired, not really working too much) I live very well, on a fairly low income. The reason is that choose to live cheap. We drive cars until they drop, (300,000) miles typically, Watch a 13 year old TV etc. My point is that we don't have to have growth to live well, we need to make better choices.

Icarus

 

I concur with this assesment!

 

The science "isn't there"??! How ignorant. And arrogant? Wow. What's arrogant is humanity assuming the planet exists solely for our benefit, and all that matters is the 'bottom line'.

Sometimes natural selection works far too slowly.

 

When he says the science isn't there, the way I take that is the data does not support any definitive conclusions as to what is or is not happening -- in addition to what the causes actually are....

 

Just because you refuse to accept the conclusions doesn't mean there aren't any.

 

Oh there is no doubt conclusions have been drawn by some scientists. However, I don't believe this would be the first time scentific "conclusion(s)" were wrong.

 

My point is, when you get to the point of "needing a job and not caring whether it is good for the environment or not" is a "tax" on our current way of doing things.

I completely agree, on an individual basis, a person needs to feed their family and shouldn't be relegated to the ranks of the poor to do so. On the other hand, we need to, as a society, get past this notion of "jobs" above all else.

I contend that if we invested wisely and used the hidden "taxes" on poor environmental practice(s) to fund R&D, construction and retrofit of "green buildings etc, AND, we reduce the demand for stuff, we can all live higher on the hog than we do now (on average).

When you have a society that tolerates very rich people having "a lot" and a substantial number of people who are forced to do and live and consume in poverty, there is something wrong. I'm not a socialist, but I do think that a healthy society cares for the least among us. I don't consider us very healthy.


Icarus

 

Damn Scientists lying to us again....

Violent storms, water shortages in store for Canada: report

Canada can expect to see more devastating storms and extreme weather because of climate change, a yet-to-be released federal report concludes.

The report, prepared by more than 100 Canadian scientists on behalf of Canada's Department of Natural Resources, was released Friday, but CBC News learned Thursday what it contains from several people involved in compiling the report.

The report focuses on the impact climate change will have on the country, in terms of the weather it will generate, and the effects on areas like infrastructure, energy production and drinking water.
The report, the first of its kind done for the federal government in 10 years, says Canada can expect more ice storms, torrential downpours, floods, droughts and landslides, as well more days of extreme heat and smog........​

 

Water shortages in the rain forest sound like a significant climate change to me.

 

You should take the time to read some of timbikes posts, and you will know what I mean by the "science isn't there" comment. Concocting conclusions that fit your desired circumstances is a common folly of man, and I think many have observed some climate data and then jumped to the "man is the cause" conclusion because they want to use the issue to implement changes they think are desirable (many of which I would agree with). Only problem is that "under further review", many of these said conclusions aren't holding up to continued study.

And yes, it is arrogant to try to impose change on a society based on fraudulent science and fear because you think that change is desirable, no matter the means used to achieve it. All because you know better than the rest of us knuckle draggers, right?