- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Right now you guys spend all your time and energy berating anyone who does not believe in AGW and it makes me wonder what you would actually do if you ever won the debate and convinced everyone that AGW was a clear and present danger. Lets say we are all on board and you have absolute power to implement your save the planet AGW agenda. What exactly would you do once the battle was won and it was time to put your philosophy into policy?
We do have AGW. The debate is what is causing it. Political policies to control it is a whole other can of worms. I think what the first Bush put into place is plausible. Ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist won't do much about the problem btw.
AGW stand for ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. The term itself is claiming what causes it: human activity.
I believe in AGW but I think it is too late to reverse it even if we could get everyone on board all at once. Best to start planning for the fallout.
Right now you guys spend all your time and energy berating anyone who does not believe in AGW and it makes me wonder what you would actually do if you ever won the debate and convinced everyone that AGW was a clear and present danger. Lets say we are all on board and you have absolute power to implement your save the planet AGW agenda. What exactly would you do once the battle was won and it was time to put your philosophy into policy?
This has been done in most of the other developed nations in the world. Look at what Europe is doing.
The US is woefully behind the rest of the developed nations in both action to climate change and health care. But we do lead the developed world in firearm deaths per capita. So... we're number 1!!
But from a climate change perspective, killing off your population is a good thing. The less breathers to worry about the better, right?
This comment shows that you have absolutely no understanding of carbon cycles or AGW.
You learned people breathe out CO2, and you think you have it solved. You're kinda like sawyer, but a bit less sophisticated.
Nah, breathers are consumers. Their existence requires more resources, hence, the less of them, the better you are.
This has been done in most of the other developed nations in the world. Look at what Europe is doing.
The US is woefully behind the rest of the developed nations in both action to climate change and health care. But we do lead the developed world in firearm deaths per capita. So... we're number 1!!
Carbon tax. Have a means to convert carbon pollution into a dollar amount and attribute it to the source. Just because an 1800's era coal plant was cheaper to run and burn coal in doesn't mean that pollution didn't have massive effects on individuals that lived around that plant.
So what would the carbon tax be per gallon of gasoline in this scenario?
Right now you guys spend all your time and energy berating anyone who does not believe in AGW and it makes me wonder what you would actually do if you ever won the debate and convinced everyone that AGW was a clear and present danger. Lets say we are all on board and you have absolute power to implement your save the planet AGW agenda. What exactly would you do once the battle was won and it was time to put your philosophy into policy?
Can you be specific? What exactly would America do if you were in charge?
It would be a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels so that would be one of the ways it would play out.
Look on the last thread that was started on this about a week ago.
Start a new thread where you word things like an adult and maybe you'll get more reasonable answers.
I looked and couldn't find a similar thread. Which one exactly are you referring to? It would be helpful if you could just respond to my simple question in this thread though. Here it is again. We all end up in agreement that man is the cause of global warming. What would you have America do in response to this threat?
This has been done in most of the other developed nations in the world. Look at what Europe is doing.
The US is woefully behind the rest of the developed nations in both action to climate change and health care. But we do lead the developed world in firearm deaths per capita. So... we're number 1!!
It would be a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels so that would be one of the ways it would play out.
And collapse the economy in the process. Good job.
And collapse the economy in the process. Good job.
But the question is how much would a gallon of gas be taxed. That is the thing we all can see at the pump.
That would depend on how much you want to tax carbon. Nobody could give you a number until there is some agreed to price per ton of carbon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?