Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

'Twouldn't be a loss of sovereignty, but rather an exercise of it. But I would prefer a binding agreement...

For several reasons:
-the primary reason is that agreements between the US and other governments requires the Senate to ratify them...it's the law. This agreement has not been presented to the Senate, because the administration plays word games with agreements to avoid Congressional action.
-another similar reason is that the agreement transfers large sums of money from the US to other countries, and appropriations of money require the House to take action to do so...it's the law. The 100B USD transfer payments in this treaty have not been authorized nor appropriated by the House.
-action by the Congress would include significant debate and perhaps public discussion of the merits (we can hope the grandstanding would be kept to a minimum).
-if Congress were to act, in either direction, such action would signify that the US has a position on the issue.
-a treaty generally includes provisions for bowing out, positive or negative reasons, and sometimes expiration clauses, which are needed (see Ken's initial post).

The failure to submit it to Congress might just have something to do with this:

In July 1997, the Senate resolved by a 95 to 0 vote that the United States should not sign any agreement that omitted binding targets for developing countries or that would seriously harm the U.S. economy.

The Senate hasn't voted on the Kyoto Protocol

In July 1997, the U.S. Senate of the 105th Congress was comprised of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Better to burn it in my wood stove or use it to build whirly-gigs.

The CO2 released in your wood stove would be released through forest fires or decomposition. The ash and other particulates would contribute to smog and could contribute to some cooling.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack I seem to remember you posting this exact post about 200 pages ago verbatim. Where's the new MMGW stuff

Some folks need reminding.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some folks need reminding.

You seem to be one of those folks who need reminding the most when it comes to repetitive posts. Whew!

Here are the parts you bolded from one of your favorite essayists:

the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated.

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.

Are you suggesting these measures haven't already been enacted in most of the developed world, and aren't steadily becoming more stringent? Advocating for more stringent pollution regs. is one thing, but trying to suggest indiscriminate dumping into the air is still OK might just be misleading.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Are you suggesting these measures haven't already been enacted in most of the developed world, and aren't steadily becoming more stringent? Advocating for more stringent pollution regs. is one thing, but trying to suggest indiscriminate dumping into the air is still OK might just be misleading.

The same rational applies to a carbon tax.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The same rational applies to a carbon tax.

If you mean the carbon tax in B.C. as previously discussed, then that (as I understand it) attempts to reduce consumer demand by raising the price paid by the supplier at the source/distribution point, and then passed to the consumer/end user. But the tax revenues that accrue to the govt. (again, as I understand it) are then funneled back to the consumer. Are any of the funds also devoted to reducing emissions in some way? If not, then I don't quite understand why it's not just moving money around instead of incentivizing reduced consumption. I remain open to the idea, just don't yet fully understand it. I am also dubious that the normal systems of incentives/disincentives operates the same with a worldwide commodity that is also a necessity. I don't believe we have seen a big uptick in demand for oil, for e.g., despite very low prices.

In contrast, emissions and fuel efficiency standards imposed on auto makers & coal plants, for e.g., actually reduce emissions independent of demand (at least on a per capita basis). The compliance costs are also passed to the consumer, but this is probably mitigated by the inevitable cost reductions which accompany new technologies over time.

But you are correct in the most general sense that both approaches purport to reduce and spread the costs of cleaning up pollution. Just not sure carbon taxes meet that goal.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some folks need reminding.

Or your Cut/Paste finger is itchy just in time for your Earth Day indulgence?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

Just not sure carbon taxes meet that goal.

Ah...but to the Contrary...increasing Taxes IS THEIR GOAL...

See the leftists that run the MMGWC believe that larger institutions and governments are the best user of Money. They alone, their religious dogma teaches, use the money in a moral way with the good of the collective in mind.

See consumers are evil and act in their own best interest and wants. Why else would they buy big trucks and SUVs when all the smart folks in Government say they should be driving small death trap cars, where more of people would die and thus take strain off the worlds resources.

It is FREEDOM the individual has to make his own choice (even if it is wrong) that these leftists, MMGW Cultists, and Masterminds hate. In their Utopia that choice would be taken away from the unwashed masses and given to...who else...but THEM. You know, the ones that predicted the world would be DEAD by now based on their Bogus MMGWC models....

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

[peghall]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Here's an interesting article on the subject of Climate Change and Global Warming, and why all the talk and worry won't matter in 20 years... and will matter even less in 100 years.

Climate Change Predictions

Unlikely that today's predictions will turn out to be any more accurate than these were:

7 Predictions From Original Earth Day in 1970

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by peghall

Unlikely that today's predictions will turn out to be any more accurate than these were:

7 Predictions From Original Earth Day in 1970

Daily Caller - really? No science?

I have already posted 16 predictions that climate science models got right. Remember?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Daily Caller - really? No science?

I have already posted 16 predictions that climate science models got right. Remember?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Predicting more climate hype isn't a prediction I would exactly count as a plus for my side but hey, not everyone is a scientist like me.

[TurninTurtle]

Al Gore will burn 27,000 lbs of jet fuel in his private jet to go make a speach about how we should reduce our carbon footprint... then another 27,000 lbs of jet fuel to go home.

If he really believed in this crap... he'd at least fly commercial so the fuel moved appx 200 people instead of just him and his security detail...

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

Al Gore will burn 27,000 lbs of jet fuel in his private jet to go make a speach about how we should reduce our carbon footprint... then another 27,000 lbs of jet fuel to go home.

If he really believed in this crap... he'd at least fly commercial so the fuel moved appx 200 people instead of just him and his security detail...

But he did buy carbon offsets....From himself. ..ha ha ah

You can't make this stuff up...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

If you mean the carbon tax in B.C. as previously discussed, then that (as I understand it) attempts to reduce consumer demand by raising the price paid by the supplier at the source/distribution point, and then passed to the consumer/end user. But the tax revenues that accrue to the govt. (again, as I understand it) are then funneled back to the consumer. Are any of the funds also devoted to reducing emissions in some way? If not, then I don't quite understand why it's not just moving money around instead of incentivizing reduced consumption. I remain open to the idea, just don't yet fully understand it. I am also dubious that the normal systems of incentives/disincentives operates the same with a worldwide commodity that is also a necessity. I don't believe we have seen a big uptick in demand for oil, for e.g., despite very low prices.

An assessment of the BC carbon tax.

How to fight global warming without destroying the economy? Use a little Econ 101 - The Globe and Mail

Alberta is implementing a plan to rebate some money to lessen the impact on the lower 60% of the population. Other money will be spent in technology to reduce carbon emissions.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

An assessment of the BC carbon tax.

How to fight global warming without destroying the economy? Use a little Econ 101 - The Globe and Mail

Alberta is implementing a plan to rebate some money to lessen the impact on the lower 60% of the population. Other money will be spent in technology to reduce carbon emissions.

Ah so lets see.
The Government taxes people (the losers) and then gives this nice little rebate (Corporate Welfare to companies and Welfare to the people) that the Government picks as the winners. Ha ha ha...how did that work out with Solyndra?

As much as the left hates it...it will one day be forced to admit that the free market works and the masterminds can't plan and oversee the economy anymore than they can predict El Nino, which they BLEW once again this year in California.

I for one love the BC Carbon Tax...
You can already hear that Giant sucking sound of Jobs heading South to the USA. It's great for the economy of USA/Canadian border towns...almost as good as all those shippers who have Canadians ship their stuff to and then drive across the border to pick it up to duck the TAX...ha ha ha.