Focusing on a carbon tax emphasizes the idea that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant -- a claim that is rapidly becoming scientifically unacceptable.
This is what we call an appeal to a claimed future outcome. Why is it 'rapidly becoming'? Why doesn't he say it is already scientifically unacceptable? Because he knows that is simply not true. So why should we believe him based on his claims about future science? We can't work predictions of what science will say in the future.
Carbon dioxide is currently reasonably classified as a pollutant.
A carbon tax is of course a consumption tax that raises the price of all manufactured goods and their transportation.
Please explain how this is the case? As far as I know a Carbon tax will not be a flat tax on all energy to be collected by government but rather a method of ensuring that high carbon industries are discouraged in preference for low carbon industries. How does this automatically raise the price of all manufactured goods?
Originally posted by twhitehead Third point in the link says:
Focusing on a carbon tax emphasizes the idea that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant -- a claim that is rapidly becoming scientifically unacceptable.
This is what we call an appeal to a claimed future outcome. Why is it 'rapidly becoming'? Why doesn't he say it is already scientifically unacceptable? Because he ...[text shortened]... ience will say in the future.
Carbon dioxide is currently reasonably classified as a pollutant.
He is saying the myth that CO2 is a pollutant is finally being recognized as that. Most people only accepted that false assertion because they often confuse carbon monoxide for carbon dioxide. The first being a poison and the second essential for life. I have had to set people straight on that on several occasions.
If you think it is reasonable to classify CO2 as a pollutant you are as wrong as wrong can get.
Originally posted by twhitehead Next paragraph he says:
A carbon tax is of course a consumption tax that raises the price of all manufactured goods and their transportation.
Please explain how this is the case? As far as I know a Carbon tax will not be a flat tax on all energy to be collected by government but rather a method of ensuring that high carbon industries are ...[text shortened]... or low carbon industries. How does this automatically raise the price of all manufactured goods?
Ask yourself why 'carbon industries' are prefered.
Originally posted by twhitehead Next paragraph he says:
A carbon tax is of course a consumption tax that raises the price of all manufactured goods and their transportation.
Please explain how this is the case? As far as I know a Carbon tax will not be a flat tax on all energy to be collected by government but rather a method of ensuring that high carbon industries are ...[text shortened]... or low carbon industries. How does this automatically raise the price of all manufactured goods?
A carbon tax is essentially a war on coal. Coal is the cheapest fuel in the USA and is used to generate a large percentage of electricity keeping the cost of electricity low. Since coal is very plentiful in the USA it is not in our interest to see it taxed more because it has more carbon. Dr. Singer is not in favor of a BTU tax at all, he is just pointing out it is better than a carbon tax. Any tax on energy will raise prices of all manufactured goods and their transportation.
I am against a carbon tax because it will benefit the natural gas and oil industry (like Exxonmobile) by eliminating competition from coal.
Originally posted by Metal Brain He is saying the myth that CO2 is a pollutant is finally being recognized as that.
No, I don't think so. I think he is claiming that it will in future be recognized. If he was saying it has already been recognised he would have said so.
Most people only accepted that false assertion because they often confuse carbon monoxide for carbon dioxide. Huh? What makes you think that? And besides we are not talking about 'most people' we are talking about scientific recognition, and that is not the sort of mistake that scientists make.
The first being a poison and the second essential for life. I have had to set people straight on that on several occasions. Well you must not be talking to scientists.
If you think it is reasonable to classify CO2 as a pollutant you are as wrong as wrong can get. I do think it is reasonable. Can you come up with any reason why I am wrong or are you just going to assert it?
Originally posted by twhitehead No, I don't think so. I think he is claiming that it will in future be recognized. If he was saying it has already been recognised he would have said so.
[b]Most people only accepted that false assertion because they often confuse carbon monoxide for carbon dioxide. Huh? What makes you think that? And besides we are not talking about 'most peopl ...[text shortened]... s reasonable. Can you come up with any reason why I am wrong or are you just going to assert it?[/b]
Originally posted by Metal Brain A carbon tax is essentially a war on coal.
Yes, that is the point. Coal is the worst emitter of CO2.
Since coal is very plentiful in the USA it is not in our interest to see it taxed more because it has more carbon. I fail to see the logic. Wind and sunshine are plentiful too, should they also not be taxed because they are plentiful?
Any tax on energy will raise prices of all manufactured goods and their transportation. And I asked for an explanation of why that is.
I am against a carbon tax because it will benefit the natural gas and oil industry (like Exxonmobile) by eliminating competition from coal. And what do you have against those industries?
Originally posted by twhitehead Yes, that is the point. Coal is the worst emitter of CO2.
[b]Since coal is very plentiful in the USA it is not in our interest to see it taxed more because it has more carbon. I fail to see the logic. Wind and sunshine are plentiful too, should they also not be taxed because they are plentiful?
Any tax on energy will raise prices of all manu ...[text shortened]... obile) by eliminating competition from coal. And what do you have against those industries?[/b]
Wind and especially solar are too expensive and grid improvements are a necessity that is very costly. CO2 is not a pollutant and never has been.
CO2 is not a pollutant and never has been. CO2 levels now are about the same as the Pliocene when the Earth was far more warm than today. There were no glaciers at that time. This shows CO2 is not the driving factor. The Vostok ice core samples prove CO2 is the effect, not the cause as Al Gore and others have falsely implied.
Now that I have shown CO2 is clearly not the cause and is actually the effect of warming it is only natural to ask what the cause is? That is what all of you should be asking. Since the Pliocene was a lot warmer with about the same CO2 levels as today CO2 should not be the focus since it is merely a factor and nothing more.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Wind and especially solar are too expensive and grid improvements are a necessity that is very costly. CO2 is not a pollutant and never has been.
CO2 is not a pollutant and never has been. CO2 levels now are about the same as the Pliocene when the Earth was far more warm than today. There were no glaciers at that time. This shows CO2 is not the driv ...[text shortened]... me CO2 levels as today CO2 should not be the focus since it is merely a factor and nothing more.
Once, I stepped in a pile of dog poop and bought a winning lottery ticket the same day. This shows that stepping in dog poop makes you win the lottery.
Say no to a carbon tax!
17 Jul '15 18:59
Back to Top