• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question for warmers

To the board and mod staff:

THIS is the Kind of TROLLING that is simply intolerable.
I put a a good faith comprehensive plan only to have a 'response' by an 8 year old torcher.

Anyone who honestly believes what you just posted and then expects to be taken seriously after that is leaving an open goal for humour frankly.

Whatever sort of response did you expect other than derision ? :

By all means present your scientific evidence for this 'catastrophe' you believe is coming and is 'unavoidable' . Otherwise this is simply an example of the most extreme kind of alarmist hysteria frankly :roll:
 
Last edited:
I see that possibility, yet unless alternative energy was truely economically viable (and able to meet the actual energy demand) then the "pollution" tax must be so massive that it would hurt the overall economy (of those subject to it). Another thought about using taxation as a penalty for polluting, is that its true cost is not on really born by the energy producer but merely passed on to the customers (users) of that energy. Your point about increased energy costs reducing demand, by making energy efficiency more important is the best case for that method, yet many are unable to afford to "upgrade" to the more efficient vehicle/appliance simply because they have nothing left over after paying their higher utility bill caused by the new tax.
A revenue-neutral tax would balance out most if not all of those price increases, though.
 
To make any changes in taxation, requires much thought about the unintended consequences and, as you mentioned, supporting tariffs on those foreign products/services not subjected to that energy tax. Goofy programs like cash for clunkers did not work and solar credits do not help those that rent. Supporting green alternatives (regardless of viability) is another foolish use of public funds - likely to give us more Solyndras, while allowing the Chinese and others to pollute like crazy to offer cheaper "green" alternatives.
I'd think with a revenue-neutral tax system the consumer would have the option to chose/buy whatever products they want without the government pushing anything. There's a difference between subsidizing specific companies that offer alternatives and penalizing the pollution itself. By taxing the pollution and returning that money to consumers, they can make the decisions on what they want to do and market forces will do the rest. If they want to take their $1200/yr tax "refund" (for example) and spend it all on 600 gallons of gasoline @ $6/gal instead of buying an electric car, then that's up to them. Many will chose the latter and spend that $1200 on something else.
 
What 'deadly' emissions would those be then ? Can you cite a scientist or quote a scientific publication that has ever claimed our emissions are 'deadly'. You clearly get your soundbites from sensationalist media sources because calling a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas 'deadly' really is a total crock.

Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Global Warming Climate Change Facts
Still having trouble figuring out the difference between a greenhouse and a corn field?!? :lol:

A number of experiments have found that some plant species that respond positively to elevated CO2 when grown alone experience decreased growth under elevated CO2 when grown in mixed plant communities (Poorter & Navas 2003). This effect likely results because the direct positive effects of elevated CO2 are outweighed by negative effects due to stimulation of the growth of competitors. Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 may therefore lead to changes in the composition of plant communities, as some species reap more of an advantage from the increased CO2 than do others. In mixed-species experiments under high fertility conditions, C4 plants decrease as a proportion of the biomass of plant communities under elevated CO2. Similarly, under low fertility conditions, legumes increase as a proportion of the biomass of plant communities under elevated CO2 (Poorter & Navas 2003).

Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants | Learn Science at Scitable
 
Anyone who honestly believes what you just posted and then expects to be taken seriously after that is leaving an open goal for humour frankly.

Whatever sort of response did you expect other than derision ? :

By all means present your scientific evidence for this 'catastrophe' you believe is coming and is 'unavoidable' . Otherwise this is simply an example of the most extreme kind of alarmist hysteria frankly
This thread already posits that AGW is real, so that's not even an issue here. This is the OP:

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?
If you can't wrap your head around that position then you should probably write a post addressed your buddy, sawyerloggingon, and make fun of him for creating this thread. We're just following his lead and having a polite "What-If" conversation. If you don't like it then don't post, it's as simple as that.
 
By "civil" you mean starting/Flaming strings like Your: "Are Warmers Mentally ill".
Sure, suggesting 97% (trim it to 80% if you like) of scientists and most of the populous is Mentally ill as well as many others... is NOT Civil discussion.
Perhaps one of My Fact-filled string starts got you at least re-evaluating.

I believe it is too late to stop the Catastrophe that's coming but we can mitigate it by:

1. Even staying in Fossil fuels, Legislate switching Power plants from Coal to Natural Gas. (by 2020 latest)
It's easy to get rid of the worst fuel while we're having a Fracking O&G Boom.
NG creates HALF as much CO2 as Coal, not to mention particulate matter.
We Have ALREADY cut overall CO2 emissions this way
Breathe Easy: Natural Gas Is Lowering CO2 Emissions
and Report: As Natural Gas Displaces Coal, Carbon Emissions Fall | StateImpact Texas

1a. No exports of it either after 2020 to pigs like China.

2. Switch at least the whole National Commercial vehicle fleets to NG from Gasoline as well.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...al-gas-promote-independence-pickens-says.html
Trucks, Buses, and maybe trains too.
Burlington Northern is already experimenting with NG Locomotives.
And eventually go All vehicle NG or electric.

There's no net job loss in switching; in fact a job gain in redone infrastructure.

3. Build a series of Giant Solar plants, financed (as the TVA, etc) by the Government ASAP. (to eventually cut NG too)
I've previously read a SINGLE Gigantic solar plant in the 4 Corners area of the Southwest Could provide 100% of our power needs.
Of course, a series of smaller, but still Very Large, plants across the country would be better/more tactical.
3a. Wind, of course too.

4. Redo the grid to make it more efficient. We need to anyway to protect and update it.
Use superconductive materials prevent loss/wasted power.
The tech exists already.

Europe will gladly follow, they've already Lead us.
China is soot-city and the biggest fly in the ointment.
These pigs are the most ruthless abusers.
The have $1.5 Trillion of Our money yet plead poverty: "we're just developing".
They need to be isolated and embarrassed.

We will be the ones isolated and embarrassed as China leaves us in its financial wake.
 
A revenue-neutral tax would balance out most if not all of those price increases, though.

Providing no details for this "revenue-neutral tax" makes that assertion very hard to discuss. ;)
 
I'd think with a revenue-neutral tax system the consumer would have the option to chose/buy whatever products they want without the government pushing anything. There's a difference between subsidizing specific companies that offer alternatives and penalizing the pollution itself. By taxing the pollution and returning that money to consumers, they can make the decisions on what they want to do and market forces will do the rest. If they want to take their $1200/yr tax "refund" (for example) and spend it all on 600 gallons of gasoline @ $6/gal instead of buying an electric car, then that's up to them. Many will chose the latter and spend that $1200 on something else.

If their energy bills also increase by $100/month to cover the pollution tax, passed along to them, then they gain nothing. Since very few low income folks now pay any FIT, a "refund" is meaningless, unless that "refund" is simply more income redistribution like the EITC. Why must all "energy" and "environmental" solutions involve more income redistribution to make them happen? I am very skeptical of "solutions" that are based on more income redistribution.
 
Providing no details for this "revenue-neutral tax" makes that assertion very hard to discuss. ;)
It could be distributed among the people any number of ways. Alaska's oil dividends get divided equally among all the adults in the state, so that's one way - just like the tax "rebates" we've gotten from time to time. But that doesn't have to be the only way to return the money to consumers.
 
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.

I get it... extortion is the solution. Why didn't I think of that? Lets take all the resources from developing countries and see how they can survive. This level of response was bound to be posted. It won't work.
 
It could be distributed among the people any number of ways. Alaska's oil dividends get divided equally among all the adults in the state, so that's one way - just like the tax "rebates" we've gotten from time to time. But that doesn't have to be the only way to return the money to consumers.

Oil dividends are reduced, not increased, by an energy (pollution?) tax on fossil fuels.
 
If their energy bills also increase by $100/month to cover the pollution tax, passed along to them, then they gain nothing.
They gain plenty if they install more insulation that reduces the energy bill or buy a car that gets a higher MPG. That's the whole point of having the tax. Like I said, if they want to spend it on 600 of gasoline @+$2/gal that's up to them. They could buy a more fuel efficient car and buy only 300 gallons of gas, leaving them $600 for other things. That's up to them, which is why the tax works better then the government funding private industries. The market comes into play all on it's own.


Since very few low income folks now pay any FIT, a "refund" is meaningless, unless that "refund" is simply more income redistribution like the EITC. Why must all "energy" and "environmental" solutions involve more income redistribution to make them happen? I am very skeptical of "solutions" that are based on more income redistribution.
A lot of low income people use more gas than middle income people. Around here you may have to drive 30 miles to get to a so-so job and you'll probably be doing it in an old, lower MPG car, so they could actually lose some money. On the other hand, there are few rentals that include electricity so if they turn their A/C temp up a little they can save some money there.
 
Oil dividends are reduced, not increased, by an energy (pollution?) tax on fossil fuels.
I thought you were talking about how to give the tax money back to consumers. Making it an equal amount back to all adult consumers (like Alaska does with their oil dividends) would be one way. Using income up to a certain point would be another. There are a number of different possibilities. Where the biggest savings are likely to be found could be one. The largest extra costs as a variable could be another. Lots of options here and all would tend to reduce the use of those fuels.
 
What harmful emissions ? Modern submariners spend many months at sea in CO2 levels 10-20 times what we have today with no ill effects whatsoever . You've been listening to far too many green scare stories methinks :roll:

Nice attempt to muddy the water but even submariners have been documented to have respiratory disturbances due to CO2 levels.
 
I get it... extortion is the solution. Why didn't I think of that? Lets take all the resources from developing countries and see how they can survive. This level of response was bound to be posted. It won't work.

Not sure where are you getting extortion. It's a pretty basic concept that we live with every day. For example a factory having to pay for safe disposable of wastes that in the past they could just dump into rivers or the ocean. Cost drives everything and companies have every incentive to minimize their costs. Safe disposable of waste is a cost incurred due to regulation and the idea that either the cost is incurred by society or the person that creates the waste.
 
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?

I don't spend all my time debating this - but I note a lot of denialists do.

Why is that - are they paid to spread denialist propaganda?
 
I don't spend all my time debating this - but I note a lot of denialists do.

Why is that - are they paid to spread denialist propaganda?

If they were getting paid, you'd think they'd be doing a better job of it.
 
If they were getting paid, you'd think they'd be doing a better job of it.

not necessarily.

as long as they say it often enough and keep repeating that people will be worse off if we do something, that is all they need to do.

paid bloggers usually spend all day on the internet, on multiple sites, they start multiple threads on the same issue and have feeder sources so they don't have to use their brains or their time to find bovine ordure to roll out to a wider audience. They often receive notification as soon as an identified "enemy" posts so they can attack them.

that way they get to crowd forums.
 
Not sure where are you getting extortion. It's a pretty basic concept that we live with every day. For example a factory having to pay for safe disposable of wastes that in the past they could just dump into rivers or the ocean. Cost drives everything and companies have every incentive to minimize their costs. Safe disposable of waste is a cost incurred due to regulation and the idea that either the cost is incurred by society or the person that creates the waste.
Part of the issue and where the extortion comes in, is that they have redefined a byproduct
of just about every function on Earth as "waste" (Co2).
This redefinition was made without a working theory of the interactive role Co2 must play
to accomplish the alarmist claims.
The forcing or feedback would allow Co2 to somehow exceed the known greenhouse effects of Co2
by more than double, yet the quantum energy state transfers required have not been defined.
The real extortion would come in where someone sets a price on Co2 emissions, at that point
every breath is taxable as waste emissions.
As I recall Gandhi protested the salt tax, as being wrong to tax something on which life depended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March#Choice_of_salt_as_protest_focus
Gandhi said,
“Next to air and water, salt is perhaps the greatest necessity of life.”
I would choose not to open that door, on such weak evidence.
 
Part of the issue and where the extortion comes in, is that they have redefined a byproduct
of just about every function on Earth as "waste" (Co2).
This redefinition was made without a working theory of the interactive role Co2 must play
to accomplish the alarmist claims.
The forcing or feedback would allow Co2 to somehow exceed the known greenhouse effects of Co2
by more than double, yet the quantum energy state transfers required have not been defined.
The real extortion would come in where someone sets a price on Co2 emissions, at that point
every breath is taxable as waste emissions.
As I recall Gandhi protested the salt tax, as being wrong to tax something on which life depended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March#Choice_of_salt_as_protest_focus
Gandhi said,

I would choose not to open that door, on such weak evidence.

Someone doesn't understand the carbon cycle....
 
When we declare Co2 a waste product, or pollution, our breathing does in fact become one
of the sources of that pollution.
When they assign a value to each unit of Co2 emitted, We do not have to ask how long it will
be before some politician suggests taxing breathing, it has already happened.
Ask Pablo: Does Driving Really Emit Less CO2 Than Cycling? : TreeHugger

Ah, yes. The slippery slope.

I swatted a mosquito today and felt no remorse.

Therefore, I need to be careful because I could become a serial murderer or, with enough power, a genocidal dictator.
 
Back
Top Bottom