Climate Change Solution?

@wildgrass said
Your post is rambling and incoherent. You know global warming is a potential problem for mankind, so stop saying otherwise. People might have survived the Pliocene, but with markedly reduced economic output.

Not fully understanding a problem is no excuse for action.

This is a defeatist approach. Nothing will be done, ever. You don't fully understand the he ...[text shortened]... eenhouse gases, the solutions are indistinct. With less carbon in the atmosphere, warming will slow.

Man did not exist during the Pliocene. Talk about incoherent rambling. You don't even make sense.

What was your pragmatic solution? I don't recall you ever giving one.

In 2015, BG Group, BP, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil and Total sent an open letter to the UNFCCC calling for the implementation of carbon pricing and eventually link it all up into a global system. Exxon/mobile supports one as well.

Why do you suppose so many oil and natural gas corporations want a carbon tax? Do you think it could be to eliminate coal as competition to increase profits?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

@metal-brain said
Then why is there so much support for a carbon tax?

I am not a supporter of carbon tax in particular and never have been. Wisely or unwisely, it is an attempt to speed up the process that would eventually happen anyway but obviously it still would be better if it happened sooner rather than later. Whether THAT particular strategy is the best way to go about it is an entirely different issue which I have no personal opinion on either one way or the other although there is certainly nothing wrong with the MOTIVE behind it.
What about it?
Relevance?
Your point? -I don't see it.
Why is there so much support for a carbon tax? -Why not? I just explained the reason why above which should be always obvious to any half-wit. Explain your point...

@metal-brain said
It is obvious to me that this whole hyping of global warming theory is for the sole purpose of a carbon tax.

then what is "obvious" to you is just all a load of warped twisted nonsense to the rest of us.
What is obvious to us here is that the purpose of a carbon tax is to deal with global warming. Whether that is a sound way to deal with global warming or a flawed way to deal with it is the only real issue here and no doubt the arguments over that will continue to rage. I have no opinion on that argument. But nobody needs to be clever to know the purpose of a carbon tax as that is obvious to everybody but apparently you.

@humy said
I am not a supporter of carbon tax in particular and never have been. Wisely or unwisely, it is an attempt to speed up the process that would eventually happen anyway but obviously it still would be better if it happened sooner rather than later. Whether THAT particular strategy is the best way to go about it is an entirely different issue which I have no personal opinion on eit ...[text shortened]... explained the reason why above which should be always obvious to any half-wit. Explain your point...

It is interesting that you took the position that renewable energy sources can compete with fossil fuels and now you condone speeding up the process with a carbon tax.

If you were capable of showing the necessity for speeding up the process I would take you more seriously. You have not done that. Any long term graph of temps and sea level rise show there is nothing to be alarmed about. Alarmists like to cherry pick short term graphs with the most acceleration to omit the deceleration periods.

You can even see a pattern in the long term sea level rise charts if you look for it. This latest acceleration has happened twice before since 1880. You do not blame CO2 for the acceleration between about 1900 and 1920 do you?

@metal-brain said
It is interesting that you took the position that renewable energy sources can compete with fossil fuels and now you condone speeding up the process with a carbon tax.

1, I didn't condone that. Go back to my post and read it again. I said there was nothing wrong with the motive behind it but it is still not necessarily the wisest thing to do and had no opinion on its wisdom, so, not condone.

2, if I did condone it and said it was wise, why would that be "interesting"?

@humy said
1, I didn't condone that. Go back to my post and read it again. I said there was nothing wrong with the motive behind it but it is still not necessarily the wisest thing to do and had no opinion on its wisdom, so, not condone.

2, if I did condone it and said it was wise, why would that be "interesting"?

Does that mean you will always oppose a carbon tax and never waiver even if the majority is polled to support it?

@metal-brain said
Man did not exist during the Pliocene. Talk about incoherent rambling. You don't even make sense.

What was your pragmatic solution? I don't recall you ever giving one.

In 2015, BG Group, BP, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil and Total sent an open letter to the UNFCCC calling for the implementation of carbon pricing and eventually link it all up into a global system. ...[text shortened]... be to eliminate coal as competition to increase profits?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

They just passed a farm bill in US congress for a price tag of $867 Billion. I think we can all agree that is a lot of money. A lot of that money subsidizes outdated and inefficient farming practices that increase atmospheric carbon. One easy practical solution would shift those subsidies to prioritize land uses that absorb carbon rather than emit it. No taxes needed.

Why do you keep bringing up taxes?

@metal-brain said
Does that mean you will always oppose a carbon tax

No.
I CLEARLY never said/implied I opposed a carbon tax.
Go back to my post and read it again.
Exactly which part of "I have no personal opinion on it either one way or the other" do you not understand?
Let me try again;

I neither agree or disagree with carbon tax because I don't have an opinion on that.

-now, still confused?

@wildgrass said

Why do you keep bringing up taxes?

I have a theory on that:
It is just part and parcel of his highly ineffective rhetorics that involve injecting an irrelevant side-issue into the conversation in the futile hope that that would somehow distract us from effectively sticking to the real issue in hand and then just hope we wouldn't notice its irrelevancy. If that is true: That tactic never works; It convinces nobody; It makes him look stupid; And if only he had the intelligence to realize how stupid it makes him look, he wouldn't do it.

@wildgrass said
They just passed a farm bill in US congress for a price tag of $867 Billion. I think we can all agree that is a lot of money. A lot of that money subsidizes outdated and inefficient farming practices that increase atmospheric carbon. One easy practical solution would shift those subsidies to prioritize land uses that absorb carbon rather than emit it. No taxes needed.

Why do you keep bringing up taxes?

I asked you for a solution, not an incomplete solution. I know that no taxes are needed, but you have no plan that demonstrates that.

I keep bringing up taxes because that is what the establishment wants. You don't have a solution. It is incomplete and that is just an idea to contribute to the complete solution. In the end you will accept the carbon tax when that is what the corporate news media pushes with repetition. I think you know it too. That is why you will not give a complete solution. You didn't address fossil fuel burning and you clearly think that is the main problem.

Stop beating around the bush.

@humy said
No.
I CLEARLY never said/implied I opposed a carbon tax.
Go back to my post and read it again.
Exactly which part of "I have no personal opinion on it either one way or the other" do you not understand?
Let me try again;

I neither agree or disagree with carbon tax because I don't have an opinion on that.

-now, still confused?

You are confused.

con·done (kən-dōn&prime😉
tr.v. con·doned, con·don·ing, con·dones
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

@metal-brain said
I asked you for a solution, not an incomplete solution. I know that no taxes are needed, but you have no plan that demonstrates that.

I keep bringing up taxes because that is what the establishment wants. You don't have a solution. It is incomplete and that is just an idea to contribute to the complete solution. In the end you will accept the carbon tax when that is wh ...[text shortened]... fossil fuel burning and you clearly think that is the main problem.

Stop beating around the bush.

You asked for a pragmatic solution, not a plan that demonstrates anything. I'm not an agricultural or political expert by any means, but it's been floated by numerous groups as a solution for sinking atmospheric carbon. You can probably start here (https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2001/9996.pdf) if you are interested in learning more.

Here was the NY Times today. Aren't they part of the establishment? At least 8 tax-free solutions for mitigating carbon emissions in here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/opinion/climate-carbon-tax-innovation.html

@wildgrass said
You asked for a pragmatic solution, not a plan that demonstrates anything. I'm not an agricultural or political expert by any means, but it's been floated by numerous groups as a solution for sinking atmospheric carbon. You can probably start here (https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2001/9996.pdf) if you are interested in learning mor ...[text shortened]... emissions in here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/opinion/climate-carbon-tax-innovation.html

A solution is a plan.

Nuclear is not a solution most leftists accept. Even many of your fellow alarmists don't like it and you know it.

@metal-brain said
A solution is a plan.

Nuclear is not a solution most leftists accept. Even many of your fellow alarmists don't like it and you know it.

You don't seem interested in learning or pragmatic solutions.