Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sure. But it might be more effective if you add a couple of lines explaining how it relates to the CC issue, carbon tax, or whatever point you are trying to get across. Otherwise your devoted audience is all too often left guessing at the punch line.

Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979
Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?
Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

A carbon tax is simply a means of putting a cost on excess CO2. Any company that has waste products in a liquid or solid form has to pay to have it properly disposed. Are invisible gases exempt just because we cannot see them in the air?

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, supports a carbon tax. So does a large consensus of climate economists.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rbon-pollution

If you use less carbon you will pay less carbon tax. Not a hard concept.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A carbon tax is simply a means of putting a cost on excess CO2. Any company that has waste products in a liquid or solid form has to pay to have it properly disposed. Are invisible gases exempt just because we cannot see them in the air?

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, supports a carbon tax. So does a large consensus of climate economists.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rbon-pollution

If you use less carbon you will pay less carbon tax. Not a hard concept.

Herein lies the whole point of the matter. To get the populace to pay a tax. I am always amazed that people WILLINGLY get behind the governments who are laughing so hard at the gullibility of the masses....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

AAA Gas Prices

The rest of your post sounds like another emotionally charged rant. Take a deep breath and try again. Or better yet, go sailing.

Disengagement? But, Mr Left-vs-Reality, how will we ever know what's what?

At least you are aware that there is, as I said, alot of 'room' right now to implement a carbon tax on gas while remaining well below the peak gas prices of a few years ago.

Same applies to natural gas and coal as well. There's no better, more affordable time than now to start to pay the real cost of fossil fuel use.

Contrary to your assertion that carbon pricing won't work to change behaviour, a panel of economists weighed in on a carbon tax proposal from the Brookings Institute... and agreed that it would work. I hesitate to call it a consensus, I know that would immediately attract your scorn. Let's just say that there were a couple of undecideds but no one disagreed.

Here's a more recent opinion from a senior member of the Brookings Institute, where he advises the next president (whoever she may be ) that a carbon tax is a fair and effective method of creating revenue that could fund other policy goals like debt reduction and even cuts to personal and corporate taxes.

So, now you can be skeptical about economists too.

(I am getting some decent sailing in, thanks for asking. You?)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by weavis

Herein lies the whole point of the matter. To get the populace to pay a tax. I am always amazed that people WILLINGLY get behind the governments who are laughing so hard at the gullibility of the masses....

I am always amazed at the cynicism manifested by my neighbours to the south.

As one sage said "you get the government you deserve."

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Jdege]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/...st-4000-years/

Conclusions

There are several lessons to be learned from Behringer’s book and the timeline. First, there is no perfect temperature. Man, even in pre-industrial times, adapted to a variety of temperatures and he has always done better in warm times and worse in cold times. Second, why would anyone want to go back to the pre-industrial climate? The Washington Post says the goal of the Paris Climate Conference was get the world to agree to limit global warming to less than two degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. Pre-industrial times? That’s the Little Ice Age, when it snowed in July, a time of endless war, famine and plague. According to the Greenland ice core proxy data, temperatures 180 years ago were the nearly the coldest seen since the end of the last glacial period 10,000 years ago! Why measure our success in combating anthropogenic warming, if there is any such thing, from such an unusually cold time? It makes no sense, those times were awful.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by weavis

Herein lies the whole point of the matter. To get the populace to pay a tax. I am always amazed that people WILLINGLY get behind the governments who are laughing so hard at the gullibility of the masses....

Yes, but here is the problem with that. Not knowing if you are based in the US or not, I will say that our politicians introduce a tax for something as a temporary offset such as the earthquake in Ca. of 87 or a temporary gas tax and so on and some how it never goes away. In the rare instant that they do remove a tax, they scrambled to find the "financial loss" somewhere else because, they had grown government to accommodate the tax and never want to downsize.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A carbon tax is simply a means of putting a cost on excess CO2. Any company that has waste products in a liquid or solid form has to pay to have it properly disposed. Are invisible gases exempt just because we cannot see them in the air?

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, supports a carbon tax. So does a large consensus of climate economists.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rbon-pollution

If you use less carbon you will pay less carbon tax. Not a hard concept.

But unlike noxious waste gases in car exhaust, considering CO2 a "waste" or "pollutant" is an arbitrary position.

And why is it that the vocal warmists want to tax carbon rather than carbon dioxide? Is it because they could then start building a case to tax the carbon in sugar and sweet foods (large quantities of carbon) and wood products (large quantities of carbon) and paper (larger quantities of carbon) and carbon fiber sailboat masts and booms, and....

You're right...the concept is not hard. But it massively expands government (and opportunities for graft, one of the strongest incentives for politicians and bureaucrats to push for bigger government in the modern era). Yeah, I'm cynical. But I'm also a realist.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Yes, but here is the problem with that. Not knowing if you are based in the US or not, I will say that our politicians introduce a tax for something as a temporary offset such as the earthquake in Ca. of 87 or a temporary gas tax and so on and some how it never goes away.

I think you're exaggerating that, a bit.

Remember the Federal telephone excise tax? It was a temporary tax to help fund the Spanish American War, and it was promptly repealed, after the emergency, in 2006, 108 years later.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Jdege

I think you're exaggerating that, a bit.

Remember the Federal telephone excise tax? It was a temporary tax to help fund the Spanish American War, and it was promptly repealed, after the emergency, in 2006, 108 years later.

Yep. And the Federal telephone excise tax that would allow land line telephone service to be provided to rural areas...that now funds Obamaphones that reside in millions of purses throughout the fruited plain. And many of those phones seem to have multiplied, because many of those purses have multiple phones from that program.

Perhaps a tax should be levied on those who transit the NW passage when it's ice free, because they are unnaturally raising the temperature of the Arctic by discharging waste heat from their heating systems, AC/DC electrical system, radio systems, navigation systems, and otherwise fouling the environment with unnatural wakes and re-routing of wind across sails and deck/hull features.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

And why is it that the vocal warmists want to tax carbon rather than carbon dioxide?

The carbon is taxed before it is burned and becomes carbon dioxide.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am always amazed at the cynicism manifested by my neighbours to the south.

As one sage said "you get the government you deserve."

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Im much farther East than south, but that would require you to read to your left...

I dont get anything I deserve. No one asked me for my advice. I get a choice of candidates thrust on me. I get a choice of left sided pain or right sided pain.

I am cynical. VERY cynical and aware and suspicious.

Here is how you deal with a problem. YOU STOP IT. You dont tax it, you dont apportion credits, you dont spread the cost among the populace.. YOU STOP IT.

Taxing something is opportunist, thievery and the main aim of the whole exercise..

Aspirin is the same solution to a problem. Headache? Take an aspirin. It relieves the pain. It will not cure, but its presence looks good and indeed it relieves some of the pain... but cure is not on the agenda, there is no money in cure... an aspirin sale a day keeps the company in profit....

GW is a political agenda pure and simple. It depends on how you interpret the data...

As long as money can be made and power manipulated, it will be the darling of the governments agenda.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Jdege

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/...st-4000-years/

Conversely the MWP may have benefited Europe but it resulted in serious drought conditions in other parts of the world.

So what is the deal mean global temperature? 13C.

Economists have long known that different regions of the world respond differently to changing temperatures, but the reasons have been unclear. Now, new research suggests there is an optimal temperature for economic productivity: 13°C, or about 55°F, The Washington Post reports. Countries with average temperatures above that cutoff, which includes three-quarters of the world’s nations and nearly all of its poorest countries, suffer reduced productivity. The hotter they are, the greater the blow. As a result, the researchers say in Nature, climate change is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Whereas countries such as Russia and Canada stand to benefit from rising temperatures, the study predicts—if current trends continue—average global income will be 23% lower than it would be without climate change by the end of the century. The study predicts that the United States will lose 36% of its projected GDP, whereas poor countries in Africa, South America, and the Middle East will lose even more.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/sift...owth-13%C2%B0c

The US loses, Canada and Russia win.

The study itself.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture15725.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by weavis

Here is how you deal with a problem. YOU STOP IT. You dont tax it, you dont apportion credits, you dont spread the cost among the populace.. YOU STOP IT.

And just how do you propose we do that?

[weavis]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And just how do you propose we do that?

First you establish if there is a real problem.

Dont tax something that is unproven..

You have been sucked in.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The carbon is taxed before it is burned and becomes carbon dioxide.

That's what I figured...