The carbon tax

[Q9]

Quote:
You've strongly implied multiple times that you were pleased with the elimination of distinct cultures - you referred to it as "evolution," I believe, which is generally a positive comment.

Q, you will have to do better than that. I have not implied that the flat world concept is a great idea. I have only stated that it is happening and it is indeed evolution. Lack of regulation and tariffs as well as the destruction of unions started during the Ronny years started us on this path.
While the wealthy get more wealthy the middle class is shrinking and pay levels are eventually going to match the rising pay levels in what used to be 3rd world countries. Now they are developing nations. Good for them, not so good for us. It will be a difficult transition but it's happening as we speak. All the wondrous technology we helped to create is reshaping our country. The United Nations is going to continue to grow in strength. Our problems as a nation have nothing to do with the UN. They have to do with our trade policies and the numerous tax loopholes available to companies that go elsewhere to manufacture their goods. A lower corporate tax and elimination of those tax loopholes is the way to bring jobs back. Unfortunately those that can make that happen are better off politically voting against that kind of needed action.

The people of the USA need to quit trying to be isolationist while the businesses all take advantage of the global economy.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Sorta, anyway. Oddly enough, a lot of what you just said, I agree with. Altogether, I hate the UN as an organization AND as an idea. Quite frankly, the entire premise is ludicrous. Oh, yes, let's let everyone have a say in how everyone else is governed, even though humans are typically short-sighted and will happily damage one region to bring more cash to their own.

There have been multiple wars started over that kind of thing, and human nature ain't going away any time soon. Reminds me of one instance I read about. Back in the late 1920s, the League of Nations made war illegal. That didn't work out too well. And now I'm going on a rabbit trail. Again.

 

[chickened]

I really didn't say it was "OK" but if you treat your own people bad and are busy fighting among yourselves then invaders will take advantage of the situation. Some of the Indian leaders had the right idea but it was a little too late and that was banding together (little bighorn?). All races of people are capable of terrible things and all indigenous peoples have been invaded by others and I really feel for the Indians here but I fail to see the uniqueness of the situation for them above another just because it was more recent maybe or well documented. I think personally, it has become more of a means to an end to constantly reopen healing wounds for the Indians of past things that nobody alive today are personally responsible for.

Sorry for the off topic.
Quote:

the infighting among tribes did not even come close to the slavery torture and mass genocide of the invaders.

since the US has gang problems and infighting does that mean its ok for another country to come in and wipe us all out?

 

[Julia-Rose]

I don't think that there should be acarbon tax. ever.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Quote:
What's that supposed to mean?

Here in America a lot of people don't believe in global warming or that we are even capable as a race of harming our environment. Only God can do that according to some people. These people don't represent the majority bu any means but they do have the largest mouths about it. So they have created a myth concerning Al Gore and his movie and research. The myth is that the whole thing was created to put more money in the pockets of people that want to fight global warming through the collection of carbon taxes and building energy systems that don't destroy the environment. The people that are interested in destroying the environment in their pursuit of greater wealth have created a fantastic propaganda machine. They produce millions of gallons of kool aid and distribute it over the airwaves and the internet. People here call it drinking the Kool aid in reference to the late Jim Jones. In this case it has to do with the fact that if you believe that global warming is not happening you are drinking the kool aid and helping to destroy the Earth.

Try not to worry too much about it. The rest of the civilized world has figured it out. We're just a little slow over here.

Kristy. The carbon taxes and credits are as stated taxes on businesses and producers that produce carbons. Carbons of course are what is causing our environment to be warming at an alarming rate. It is the reason the average temperature of the ocean has gone up by 2 degrees and is causing all this crazy weather and melting the ice caps and glaciers around the world. So other civilized countries are charging for tonnage of carbon emitted into the air. The businesses are allowed to produce an acceptable amount of carbon emissions. If they produce less than they are allowed they can sell the unused credits to other companies that are exceeding their limit.It will encourage power companies to use better scrubbers on their coal plants and switch to the newest technology to avoid having to pay a carbon tax if they exceed their credits. Companies with fleet vehicles will have incentive to switch to vehicles powered by natural gas instead of diesel. Overall it would clean stuff up a lot and help lower our dependance on foreign oil. This of course would lower profits for many companies for a while until conversion cost are absorbed. Money or environment. Which is more important? When you're a 50-100 year old oil company executive the answer to that one is pretty clear. Just ask Rupert.

You're right about Wikepedia. Bit of a joke isn't it?

So please explain the scientific evidence that shows
1 carbons are not what is causing the enviroment to warm, the warming is causing the carbon to increase
2 what sort of suv's where people driving in the medieval period to cause the start of the mini ice age and the previous warm age (remember in the early history of England even in the north you could grow grape vines.
3 the fact that the t emperature of the trophosphere has not gone up but has actually gone down a bit
4 we are telling the poorest people in the world please don't develop because we are paniking about global warming

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...st-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/documents/FiveFacts.pdf

The same Antarctic ice core shows a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature that’s the opposite of what environmentalists would expect: temperature changes precede increases in CO2 by 100 to 1000 years. Even if carbon dioxide was the cause, there isn’t much we could do about it. Man made CO2 accounts for a very small percentage of atmospheric CO2. (Fig. 2.) There is a much stronger correlation between solar output and global temperatures. Solar output is influenced by radiant heat energy and solar winds, both of which appear to have natural cycles.
Proposed global warming “solutions” will not make a difference and will have tremendous costs, especially on the poor.
There is no scientific proof that proposed global warming “solutions” will have any impact upon the climate. These proposed “solutions” rely upon extremely intrusive government controls designed to reduce our energy consumption, thereby significantly increasing the cost of energy and the price of nearly all goods and services produced within our economy, as businesses pass these costs onto consumers. The poor would be the hardest hit by increases in gas, utilities, food and other essentials
I look for some others later but there are some very eminant scientists who are looking at scientific evidence rather than panic stories by politicans.

 

[Farmerboy16]

First off, the carbon tax is a very unnecessary, freedom taking, money grubbing, downright wrong idea, and its not going to help slow down global warming, for there is no global warming! No I am not in denial! Just a cycle that earth is going through, for why did the vikings named Greenland, Greenland? Because it was green back then! There is evident proof in the fossil record, that the carbon levels were much higher 4 thousand years ago then today. I agreed most of what Q9 is saying, though I am a few years older then him.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
If the entire world aka the globe is getting warmer than there is global warming. It might be 100% normal. Still global warming though. If man wasn't even on Earth and the temperatures increased and the seal levels rose it would still be global warming.

The vast majority of scientists around the world believe that it is caused by man. Of course they could all be in the pockets of people that want the carbon tax. Those people have a lot more money than the current oil companies, factories, power generating companies and all the other people that control the world. So it probably is just a conspiracy.

 

[NixNoodleNumbat]

I'm not going to bother arguing about it but I personally think that the carbon tax is a good idea. I find it interesting to read about other people's views and why they feel that way.