• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Two simple questions for true believers [W:272]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

You need to read up more on the policies.

We have cap and trade here in California; no one is losing their home over it and it's working.

And many of the proposals do involve giving money back to people. But by pricing carbon at its real cost at the source, we drive decreased consumption, less global climate change, and alternative technologies can compete more fairly.

I strongly request you start some threads about that. It sounds too good to be true. I hope it is not so and is getting real results without suffering. I would like to hear about it in detail.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

So do the timber and paper industries get a carbon credit?
each pound of wood and paper produced sequesters about 3 lbs of CO2.
Taxes do not actually encourage behavior, but rather coerce a response.
This kind of policy encourages people to seek loopholes.
People will choose the alternatives, when it is the best choice for them financially,
without any outside influence.
This will happen on it's own,m without Government meddling.
Oil will become more difficult and expensive to extract, while the alternatives will
come down a bit in price as the technology develops.
I personally think the only real solution on the board right now is Man made hydrocarbon fuels.
The pieces are already in place for the transition to be transparent to the consumers.

Do they get a credit? Doubt it. Are they sequestering CO2 for the long term? Not if they are in the firewood business...

The solution is a carbon tax.... price the cost of AGW into the present fuel. The market will determine the most cost effective way to go then. Carbon sequestration in underground mines? Solar? Wind? Geothermal? All of the above? Whatever is most efficient and develops the fastest will dominate.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Revenue neutral means that the same amount of money is raised as spent. It does not mean that it is the same for each individual. So the poor who uses half the amount of fuel as the rich man pays half the amount of tax. Fine for the rich man, bad for granny.

Easy to understand if you stop to think about it ...... oh, I see the trouble...

Its actually probably much better for granny, and worse for the rich man, depending on how you set it up, of course.

Lets see what the carbon tax people have to say about your 'easy to understand' objection:

Debunking the Myths
Myth #1. A tax on carbon pollution will harm the poor and middle class.

Who says? Some low-income advocates, some left-of-center activists, some conservatives masking as populists.

Rebuttal: The wealthy use more carbon-based energy than the rest of us, by far. For every gallon of gasoline used by the poorest quintile (20%) of households, the richest quintile uses three to four. (See Slideshow, Slide #26.) A similar pattern holds for the other sources of carbon pollution: electricity, jet fuel, even diesel fuel that powers the trucks that deliver goods. It’s true that consumption taxes, a category including carbon taxes, are “regressive” — they take a larger share of income from low-income households — but that’s true only when the use of the tax revenues is ignored. The net impact can be made “progressive,” i.e., beneficial to people of below-average means, by proper distribution of those revenues.

One revenue option is direct distribution via “dividends.” Climate scientist Jim Hansen along with the Citizens Climate Lobby call for all carbon tax revenue to be returned to citizens in an equal, monthly “green check.” A worthy alternative, which Al Gore and many economists advocate, is “tax-shifting” — use carbon tax revenues to reduce regressive taxes such as sales taxes and payroll taxes. (See our Issues page, Managing Impacts.) British Columbia has enacted and annually increased its revenue-neutral carbon tax with popular support by dedicating all revenue to reducing a variety of other taxes ranging from sales taxes to business taxes.

What’s really regressive is the impact of global warming. Sea level rise, food shortages and storms like Katrina, Irene and Sandy hit the poorest hardest.

Easy to understand if you are willing to learn about it. Oh... I see the trouble....
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

I strongly request you start some threads about that. It sounds too good to be true. I hope it is not so and is getting real results without suffering. I would like to hear about it in detail.

Here's an article on California Cap and Trade -
California Readies for Cap-and-Trade Next Steps

Many organizations, taking a more holistic view, are making the case that cap-and-trade, along with the other programs under the umbrella of AB 32, are making a positive impact on the economy. The Environmental Defense Fund, for example, cites potential savings of $21 billion for the state by 2025 due to reduced health care expenses, a reduction in work days lost and a boost in energy security — and the cap-and-trade program, by creating a market for investment in energy efficiency programs and less carbon-intensive fuels, could account for 20 percent of the pollution cuts should all of AB 32’s programs continue as planned. And with transportation creating more pollution in California than utilities (in most states the reverse is true), the oil companies and their refineries have to be a part of this process.

Consumers are already seeing a difference. Walter Wang, an adviser with ZSA and Adjunct Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, pointed out that many utility ratepayers have seen a “climate credit” on their bills this year. “There is real value in these programs going forward,” Wang said, “and while ‘energy efficiency’ isn’t sexy, there is immediate value and a short payback period.”

And speaking of automobiles, during an interview I had with Adrienne Alvord, California and Western States Director at UCS, she explained that looking at only prices at the pump does not give the full story. “Our gasoline prices are higher per pump, but people are spending less on gasoline,” Alvord said. Despite California’s reputation as the land of the car, California ranks 15th from the bottom in gasoline consumption per capita; and despite prices higher than most of the country, per capita spending on gasoline is 13th lowest in the Golden State. As a result of cap-and-trade and other energy efficiency programs in California, a driver who buys a new vehicle now can expect to save $3,000 if he or she drives the vehicle over 15 years.

Consumers across all income levels are seeing the results, insisted Alvord. “We’re taking the revenue that we are raising from these auctions, and we’re using it to lower emissions,” she continued, “and 10 percent of those revenues from the cap-and-trade auctions are being directly invested in low income communities. We’re not just cleaning up the air, but are investing in those who can benefit the most, as in home weatherization programs that directly benefit those who live in some of the most polluted areas of the state.”

And another article re the program -
How Cap-and-Trade Is Working in California - WSJ

The utilities have to spend their proceeds on things like alternative or renewable fuels, or by giving relief to customers.

The state's share goes toward its Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which, among other goals, supports projects that reduce pollution. This year, Gov. Jerry Brown reached a deal with the state legislature to spend $250 million from the fund to help build a $68 billion bullet-train system; a quarter of all future revenue from the fund will go toward the project. The rest of the money in the greenhouse fund will go toward a variety of legislative priorities that include affordable housing and transit projects, as well as infrastructure and water conservation projects. In 2013, the state drew criticism for borrowing $500 million of cap-and-trade dollars to balance the state's general fund budget.

Critics such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the Pacific Legal Foundation—which are suing the state to block the program—say it increases the cost of doing business, though no measurable estimate exists. Severin Borenstein, co-director at the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business, says costs so far have been marginal, as most allowances were given away and remain relatively inexpensive.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Its actually probably much better for granny, and worse for the rich man, depending on how you set it up, of course.

Lets see what the carbon tax people have to say about your 'easy to understand' objection:

Debunking the Myths


Easy to understand if you are willing to learn about it. Oh... I see the trouble....

It’s true that consumption taxes, a category including carbon taxes, are “regressive” — they take a larger share of income from low-income households — but that’s true only when the use of the tax revenues is ignored.

OK, so to avoid the obvious problems with granny having to pay for her carbon we will give people money from the public purse.

Not at all a license for the empowering of bureaucrats.

You might like that idea I don't. I'm not a corporate-statist.

If there is no pain then behavior will not change.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

OK, so to avoid the obvious problems with granny having to pay for her carbon we will give people money from the public purse.

Not at all a license for the empowering of bureaucrats.

You might like that idea I don't. I'm not a corporate-statist.

If there is no pain then behavior will not change.

You don't get it.

Color me 'not surprised'.

You don't like the idea because it's not progressive.

I show you that it is progressive, and you don't like it because it's progressive.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

I would rather hear the answers from the people running around in a panic saying we change or we die. I want their answers not just their rhetoric.

I'm glad to hear that you don't think that the agencies, people and organizations that study the impact of climate change and have detailed proposed solutions are running around in a panic saying we change or we die.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

You don't get it.

Color me 'not surprised'.

You don't like the idea because it's not progressive.

I show you that it is progressive, and you don't like it because it's progressive.

His arguments are phony

First he complained because the taxes would hit "granny" hard. Then, when it was shown that "granny" would not get hit hard with taxes, he complained about that because "If there is no pain then behavior will not change"

He complains when the taxes hurt, and he complains when the taxes don't hurt. The only constant is his complaints.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

His arguments are phony

First he complained because the taxes would hit "granny" hard. Then, when it was shown that "granny" would not get hit hard with taxes, he complained about that because "If there is no pain then behavior will not change"

He complains when the taxes hurt, and he complains when the taxes don't hurt. The only constant is his complaints.

....and his adamant denial.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Don't understand my point about deferred environmental costs, I see.

LOL...

The audacity you portray. You either cannot explain, or refuse to explain that point and expect others to know what you mean?

LOL...
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

so you learned nothing. You refuse to accept the solutions that are available. Ok. Well, that's your call.

Yes, widespread adoption of solar panels would absolutely greatly reduce the needs for fossil fuels

Yes, cap & trade policies would reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere

Yes, a carbon tax would reduce the amount of carbon


We gave you lots of answers. you ignored them
Is it worth the cost?
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

You didn't answer my question: What conclusion is supposed to be drawn from your own post/s? I commented (negatively, in your opinion) on Ironhorse's posts/discussion style. So in response you've disapprovingly suggested that commenting negatively on others' posts/discussion style is immature.

If you are correct, you're both immature and a hypocrite. If you're wrong, you're just a hypocrite - and wrong, of course. And you're still going :lol:

LOL. Naner, naner.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Is it worth the cost?

Yes.

It's going to be very very pricey to ameliorate the impact of global climate change.

Sadly, we'll have to pay the money because there doesn't seem to be any desire to change our ways in time.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Yes.

It's going to be very very pricey to ameliorate the impact of global climate change.

Sadly, we'll have to pay the money because there doesn't seem to be any desire to change our ways in time.
Your statement implies we are doing damage to the climate.
Doubling CO2 levels,(If possible) could cause warming of about 1.2 C.
Total aggregate warming is likely to be about 1.6 C based on the empirical data.
But this will be spread over 200 years.
Will a warmer World be better of worse? It really could go ether way.
All of the doom and gloom predictions from the IPCC are contingent on the mid
to high range predictions becoming reality. Fortunately the mid to high range is
getting to be extremely unlikely, and is based on subjective feedbacks which have
never been validated.
Independent of cause, the average temperatures have been increasing,
but mostly the night time lows, not the daytime highs.
One could ask why CO2 which appears to be a well mixed gas, has a higher
quantum response in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere.
(I for one like my Physics to be consistent.)
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Your statement implies we are doing damage to the climate.
)

We are. Ask the insurance companies. Ask the farmers in California's central valley. Ask scientists. Ask residents of low lying islands/archipelagos who are being told they have to move. (Wait till the people in the low areas in Florida realize they're doomed) Ask Alaska about the impact of melting permafrost.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

We are. Ask the insurance companies. Ask the farmers in California's central valley. Ask scientists. Ask residents of low lying islands/archipelagos who are being told they have to move. (Wait till the people in the low areas in Florida realize they're doomed) Ask Alaska about the impact of melting permafrost.
The insurance companies sell fear, They have been over using the water all over for years.
Scientist do not actually agree on actual harm, but rather that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with a response between 1 and about 1.3 C for doubling.
The Sea levels have been raising for centuries, and the records do not show any acceleration.
(Note: Satellite data does show an increase in sea levels, but it is not matched by the more accurate
shore gauges. The Satellites only have a resolution of 2.3 cm.)
Florida is not going under anytime soon, and the permafrost is always melting.
Read about the construction of the Alaska highway during WWII.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

A: The IPCC does not represent a consensus of Scientist, and
B: The catastrophic predictions of the IPCC are predicated on the more extreme mid to high
range predicted temperatures actually happening. So far the data does not support the higher ranges.
The more likely response will be the second half of what has already been observed,
or a total of 1.6 C.
We do not know what the total of all of the feedbacks are, but we do know they are
included in the empirical data, in as much as the long term latencies allow.
If there are latencies of several centuries, that might actually be a good thing, as the
current round of CO2 increases likely only has a few decades left.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Yes.

It's going to be very very pricey to ameliorate the impact of global climate change.

Sadly, we'll have to pay the money because there doesn't seem to be any desire to change our ways in time.


So because there is no time to change the climate problem it makes sense to create an economic one to go with it?
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

A: The IPCC does not represent a consensus of Scientist, and
B: The catastrophic predictions of the IPCC are predicated on the more extreme mid to high
range predicted temperatures actually happening. So far the data does not support the higher ranges.
The more likely response will be the second half of what has already been observed,
or a total of 1.6 C.
We do not know what the total of all of the feedbacks are, but we do know they are
included in the empirical data, in as much as the long term latencies allow.
If there are latencies of several centuries, that might actually be a good thing, as the
current round of CO2 increases likely only has a few decades left.

Wrong.

www.ipcc.ch
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

So because there is no time to change the climate problem it makes sense to create an economic one to go with it?

I have no idea what you're saying here.

There is time if we act now to reduce the amount of climate change that is going to happen.

There will be economic consequences either way; but the costs - economic and otherwise - will be greater if we do nothing.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Wrong.

but at least now I know I can ignore your posts.
Perhaps, you should elaborate on which parts of the IPCC represent
a consensus of Scientist?
Do most agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? It is.
Do most agree that as a greenhouse gas, doubling levels will cause some warming?
Yep again, CO2 is a greenhouse gas!
Since the IPCC themselves state the direct response of CO2 is 1.2 C,
I suspect most Scientist with a physics background would agree that is an ok ball park figure.
Where I think you run into trouble, is when the IPCC moves out of the area of Science,
and starts making predictions based on feedbacks which have never been measured.
If fact the IPCC's own range of the amplified feedback is a factor of 11 X between low and high.
That is not a prediction, but a wild ass guess.
In case you question where I got this Baede from AR4, but cited in AR5 as the key concepts in climate science.
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
radiation.
Notice they believe the feedbacks will be amplified, but the amplified range is
so large as to be laughable.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Perhaps, you should elaborate on which parts of the IPCC represent
a consensus of Scientist?
Do most agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? It is.
Do most agree that as a greenhouse gas, doubling levels will cause some warming?
Yep again, CO2 is a greenhouse gas!
Since the IPCC themselves state the direct response of CO2 is 1.2 C,
I suspect most Scientist with a physics background would agree that is an ok ball park figure.
Where I think you run into trouble, is when the IPCC moves out of the area of Science,
and starts making predictions based on feedbacks which have never been measured.
If fact the IPCC's own range of the amplified feedback is a factor of 11 X between low and high.
That is not a prediction, but a wild ass guess.
In case you question where I got this Baede from AR4, but cited in AR5 as the key concepts in climate science.

Notice they believe the feedbacks will be amplified, but the amplified range is
so large as to be laughable.

Do I need to post the lists of dozens of major scientific organizations that endorse the basic finding of the IPCC......again?

It would be like the fourth time today.
 
Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Do I need to post the lists of dozens of major scientific organizations that endorse the basic finding of the IPCC......again?

It would be like the fourth time today.

They are just on the same team. Doesn't make them the winners.
 
Back
Top Bottom