Kinja reply list

Read More
HappyFunDadHamilton Nolan
5/27/14 1:40pm
Australia has done this...instituted a carbon tax. It has basically gutted a lot of their manufacturing, especially domestic steel production, which is now completely dead. The problem is that they have no means of enforcing standards on imports, unless they want to jack up tariffs, which would only lead to further problems. So now, Aussies basically pay to have their raw material shipped off site, processed, and then shipped back.

A carbon tax would only work in the US if the US completely closed itself off to foreign competition or got other countries to sign off on it.

You don't need a carbon tax. Simply remove the subsidies we give to petroleum companies. When gas hits the same prices as in Europe, Americans will change their behavior. To me, that makes a hell of a lot more sense and is easier to do than create some convoluted carbon tax.

You want to get to the real issue...we are all power hogs. We consume an obscene amount of energy in our day to day lives and we are shielded from the costs of that.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton NolanHappyFunDad
  5/27/14 1:50pm
  "Simply remove the subsidies we give to petroleum companies." - Yes.
  
  "When gas hits the same prices as in Europe, Americans will change their behavior." - A carbon tax is an excellent way of driving up gas prices, and reaping some economic benefit for the public coffers along the way.
  
  In other words, both of these things can work in harmony.
  Reply
- Read More
  HappyFunDadHamilton Nolan
  5/27/14 1:55pm
  You know...you can use that money taken from the petroleum companies for something else. Its not like the tax credits just disappear. And you are ignoring the other issue I brought up. A carbon tax will only hurt US production. US consumers would still be sheltered from the costs of their carbon consumption, other than more jobs are shipped overseas. A carbon tax would really hurt the poor and middle class, whereas the upper class would not be affected at all.
  
  Hell, my idea of just eliminating the gas subsidies would destroy flyover country...but fuck em. You want to gangbang them...
  Reply
Read More
DSWrightHamilton Nolan
5/27/14 12:54pm
Not happening. Sorry, there was a genuine question whether humans were too stupid to deal with climate change and the answer is yes.

Prevention is off the table, now it's about mitigation.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton NolanDSWright
  5/27/14 12:57pm
  What form does "mitigation" take, if not reducing carbon emissions? Just moving to mountaintops?
  Reply
- Read More
  vo1tronDSWright
  5/27/14 1:00pm
  Not true! There's still a little under 500 days left!
  
  And if you act now, we'll also throw in this beautiful pendant key chain for our first 500 callers!
  Reply
Read More
EudaimoniaHamilton Nolan
5/27/14 12:59pm
"There is no other tactic that will have as big an impact..."

I believe that a general switch to a plant-based diet would have a comparable impact both in emissions reduction and in preserving land and water, etc.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton NolanEudaimonia
  5/27/14 1:01pm
  Even if that were true I will go out on a limb and say that the enactment of a carbon tax is a more realistic development than a global switch to vegetarianism within the next 15 years.
  Reply
- Read More
  HeresAnIdeaHamilton Nolan
  5/27/14 1:23pm
  Taxes that most definitely will be passed on to consumers post-hast in an already depressing and devolving middle-class economy.
  
  Here's an idea: Since NASA and the DoD are publishing doomsday analysis citing climate change, food & water shortages as a National/Global security threat...How's about...for National Secutity's sake...The Pentagon use 0.1% of their yearly budget to install Solar & Wind on as much Federal property as possible...No schizophrenic congressional approval necessary...after-all National Security trumps all...
  Reply
Read More
tsam3Hamilton Nolan
5/27/14 1:03pm
HamNo; I've always hated taxes to modify behavior because they have a dramatic and devastating impact on the poor. Replacing dirty energy production with clean energy should be government mandated and government funded. They need to just decide to do it and get it done. If our government wasn't made up of such small people with small minds that weren't scared to death that some prick billionaire might compare paying taxes to Kristallnacht, then we wouldn't have these constant wars over this shit.

I think we'd be better suited to show the costs of increased anomalous weather, rising sea levels, the possible impact on food production and the near certainty of wars over dwindling resources in ever increasing demand due to population grown than letting rich assholes buy a license to keep polluting the planet.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton Nolantsam3
  5/27/14 1:46pm
  You can give poor people tax credits or subsidies for a period of time as necessary. The larger point of a carbon tax is to drive down consumption and speed up investment in alternative energy sources. And yes, the government should be funding a lot more of this... perhaps with revenue generated by a carbon tax.
  Reply
- Read More
  HankHamilton Nolan
  5/27/14 2:21pm
  "You can give poor people tax credits or subsidies for a period of time as necessary"
  
  And where do we get the money to make up for those tax credits and subsidies? Who collects this tax, United Nations? You really want to give the United Nations authority to American Citizens?
  Reply
Read More
joshjocelynHamilton Nolan
5/27/14 12:56pm
The hockey stick graph has been proven to be a fraud. Enough with this scam. If Al Gore does not think it big enough a problem to not own many monster homes and fly in private jets why should I accept a greater proportion of my income going to taxes and energy costs?
Reply
- Read More
  Paul_Djoshjocelyn
  5/27/14 1:00pm
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsm…
  Reply
- Read More
  911Ducktailjoshjocelyn
  5/27/14 1:03pm
  no the hockey stick wasnt a fraud. ever. knock it off with the denial bullshit
  
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-…
  Reply
Read More
KaiFromDogtownHamilton Nolan
5/27/14 12:51pm
It's going to have to be quite a bit more than one thing. Most of the scientists out there are advocating an ALL OF THE ABOVE strategy when it comes to combating climate change.
Reply
- Read More
  BurningReburnsBurnsAgainKaiFromDogtown
  5/27/14 1:12pm
  Really? Most scientists don't seem to do much advocating from a revenue perspective on what to do. They are more interesting in proving that climate change is real, predicting what will happen and in providing scientific solutions.
  
  Relatively few of them seem all that interested in things like where the money will come from for those solutions or how exactly to convince voters to swallow the major economic slowdowns that would be required to get on to a more sustainable path.
  Reply
- Read More
  KaiFromDogtownBurningReburnsBurnsAgain
  5/27/14 1:25pm
  I agree on your second paragraph, although more scientists are increasingly getting into the public sphere and policy side on this issue.
  
  What I was really speaking to are all the things that need to be done to address climate change. Reducing emissions involves a lot of pieces. It's not just a tax - there also needs to be an effort focused on conservation, as well as an effort to reduce deforestation. A tax might help the former, but it's probably not going to be sufficient. There also need to be efforts on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and an increased emphasis on the use of renewables. Then we have people like James Hansen pointing out how big a role nuclear power has to play.
  Reply
Read More
911DucktailHamilton Nolan
5/27/14 12:58pm
HamNo, everyone always forgets the Clean Air Act of 1990 which implemented "cap and trade" for SO2 and by all accounts didnt kill the economy and eliminated Acid Rain

"Cap and trade" harnesses the forces of markets to achieve cost-effective environmental protection. Markets can achieve superior environmental protection by giving businesses both flexibility and a direct financial incentive to find faster, cheaper and more innovative ways to reduce pollution.

Cap and trade was designed, tested and proven here in the United States, as a program within the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The success of this program led The Economist magazine to crown it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002).

The following points highlight some real world results of that program:

GIF

* The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $579-$1,935 per ton of SO2; the actual market price as of January 2003 was $150 per ton.

* In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% - 7.3 million tons - below mandated levels.

* Prior to the launch of the program, cost estimates had ranged from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were around $0.8 billion per year. The long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The market-based approach enshrined in the U.S. Acid Rain program has demonstrated that environmental protections need not compete with economic well-being.

The following chart, based on government data, demonstrates this point graphically:

GIF

Why do market-based environmental protections work so well?

* Markets provide greater environmental effectiveness than command-and-control regulation because they turn pollution reductions into marketable assets. In doing so, this system creates tangible financial rewards for environmental performance.

* Because cap-and-trade gives pollution reductions a value in the marketplace, the system prompts technological and process innovations that reduce pollution down to or beyond required levels. This point is not theoretical; experience has shown these results.

What are the elements of a well-designed cap and trade program?

A successful market-based program requires just a few minimum elements. All of the following are absolutely essential to an efficient and effective program:

* A mandatory emissions "cap." This is a limit on the total tons of emissions that can be emitted. It provides the standard by which environmental progress is measured, and it gives tons traded on the pollution market value; if the tons didn't result in real reductions to the atmosphere, they don't have any market value.

* A fixed number of allowances for each polluting entity. Each allowance gives the owner the right to emit one ton of pollution at any time. Allocation of allowances can occur via a number of different formulas.

* Banking and trading. A source that reduces its emissions below its allowance level may sell the extra allowances to another source. A source that finds it more expensive to reduce emissions below allowable levels may purchase allowances from another source. Buyers and sellers may "bank" any unused allowances for future use.

* Clear performance criteria. At the end of the compliance period (e.g., one year, five years, etc.), each source must hold a number of allowances equal to its tons of emissions for that period, and must have measured its emissions accurately and reported them transparently.

* Flexibility. Sources have flexibility to decide when, where and how to reduce emissions.

Summary

An active cap-and-trade market enables those who can reduce pollution cheaply to earn a return on their pollution reduction investment by selling extra allowances. It enables those who can't reduce pollution as cheaply to purchase allowances at a lower cost than the cost of reducing their own emissions. It enables all participants to meet the total emissions cap cost-effectively. And it gives all emitters incentives to innovate to find the least-cost solutions for total pollution control.
http://www.edf.org/approach/marke…
Reply
Read More
BigPlopsHamilton Nolan
5/27/14 12:52pm
So how do you vilify carbon users to the point where the reason why people use carbon in the first place is forgotten as was done with smoking?

*from the distance, at the volume of a whisper*

"The power is yours."
Reply
- Read More
  unfortunatelylostburnerBigPlops
  5/27/14 12:54pm
  "So how do you vilify carbon users to the point where the reason why people use carbon in the first place is forgotten as was done with smokers?"
  
  What? Smokers forget why they smoke?
  Reply
- Read More
  BigPlopsunfortunatelylostburner
  5/27/14 1:08pm
  no, not the smokers/carbon users themselves, jesus
  Reply
Read More
falconflyer1Hamilton Nolan
5/27/14 1:11pm
"Yes; that is the point, you pitiful fucking excuse for a national leader. "

Thank you for that. :)

They should couple these carbon taxes with renewable incentives. Take the money made off of carbon taxes and put it towards subsidizing alternative energy. And start turning everything with a surface into a solar panel. Roofs, roads, and parking lots for starters.
Reply
- Read More
  Siuol11.2falconflyer1
  5/31/14 1:46pm
  You know why turning roads and parking lots in to solar panels is a bad idea (aside from the absurd cost increases)? Because they're used to CARS to drive/park on. Last time I checked those weren't transparent.
  Reply
- Read More
  falconflyer1Siuol11.2
  5/31/14 1:55pm
  Actually no...For starters, it wouldn't be that expensive and would in fact pay for itself. Also, especially for highways, a very small percentage is actually being covered at any point in time. As far parking lots, even if it was at full capacity there is still over 50% free for cars coming and going the would be taking in energy. When you consider the savings in ice and snow management on top of it (the concepts have heating coils to melt snow and ice) it's really a great idea and a lot of people a lot smarter than me (and I assume you) think so too.
  
  http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml
  Reply
Read More
DribblesHamilton Nolan
5/27/14 12:53pm
Lots too late. Prevention is off the table at this point, and effectively slowing the progress of change will take centuries.
Reply
- Read More
  SprocheteDribbles
  5/27/14 12:59pm
  Yep, we missed out chance when Carter was in office. Since then it's been too late.
  Reply