131–140 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a carbon fee system grants transferable credits for sequestering ambient carbon, then it would pay for that too.
This ignores the fact that the resources to sequester carbon simply do not exist at the required scale.
We always had climate change. Not having climate change is the exception. Is it man made? Is it caused by CO2? Ist it getting warmer? Is this a good or a bad thing? Can we and should we do something about it? This are many questions and climate change is one of the most complex phenomenons. I have a STEM PhD and would not be able to make a quick judgement. "Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think" Given t…
The fact that climate is not especially stable is precisely the problem.
We always had climate change. Not having climate change is the exception. Is it man made? Is it caused by CO2? Ist it getting warmer? Is this a good or a bad thing? Can we and should we do something about it? This are many questions and climate change is one of the most complex phenomenons. I have a STEM PhD and would not be able to make a quick judgement. "Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think" Given t…
Heat wave deaths in Serbia and Canada: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/07/02/climate-chang...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-canada-1.4...
(disclaimer: I work in a Climate&Energy research group) I just want to remind everyone that there are solutions to climate change. We know how to produce clean energy and sequester CO2. The current free market does not make those solutions profitable for investors, though, and we will have to change that. Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a…
Blasting China won't change it since a lot of China's pollution is due to the developed countries exporting their most polluting industries. Europe is seriously confronting the situation, America's denying it (starting by its president).
Here is a good article about it: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/25/lambas...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To claim any tax is a “scam” is to misunderstand tax.
Maybe by a strict/legal definition of scam, but you can easily imagine taxes that fit colloquial usage. Anything where the government is dishonest about the motivations behind the tax or how it will be used.
Still there 200+ years later in the UK, 100 years later in the US. Technically in the UK it still is a temporary tax, renewed every April 5th.
I am emphatically not against income tax. Regardless of whether or not there was honesty.
Im not sure why anyone expects these estimates to hold any water at all. From what I gather, pressure from the establishment has systematically caused scientists to lowball impact estimates and ignore second (and higher) order effects. Meanwhile the complexity and far reach of impact is beyond anything we can model. Consider how all the experts were surprised in the 2008 economic crisis. That was just an economic cri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ignores the fact that the resources to sequester carbon simply do not exist at the required scale.
The entire point of a carbon credit system would be to produce the funding to develop those resources.
This is a problem that is very well suited to direct public funding (we all benefit if a solution is found) and poorly suited for private enterprise (privatizing the benefit is unlikely to offset the costs to develop it on an average basis).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your first sentence is false (there are natural cycles but the next one is due to cause an ice age in a few thousand years’ time, not warming). Your second sentence is TBD, except that the actual natural cycle that would have led to an ice age in a few thousand years’ time has been disrupted and that ice age (and perhaps the one after it) will not now occur. Your third sentence does not follow from either of the firs…
>> Your first sentence is false (there are natural cycles but the next one is due to cause an ice age in a few thousand years’ time, not warming) I contend that the warming leads to a tipping point that brings on the glaciation. Its part of the cycle.
We always had climate change. Not having climate change is the exception. Is it man made? Is it caused by CO2? Ist it getting warmer? Is this a good or a bad thing? Can we and should we do something about it? This are many questions and climate change is one of the most complex phenomenons. I have a STEM PhD and would not be able to make a quick judgement. "Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think" Given t…
The 'we've always had climate change' argument is bogus. It's the rate of change and the multitude of system's abilities to adapt.
Life will go on, but not as we know it, Jim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One simple thing we can all do is never vote for a candidate if they are not for aggressive and immediate measures to combat global warming. If the roughly 60-75% of Americans who believe human activity is causing climate change were to stop voting for individuals who don't believe this, we'd have meaningful change coming from the federal government within 2 years.
What people _believe_ is largely irrelevant in almost all situations, whether you mean the voters or the elected officials. Only actions matter. This is not just semantics, some who believe in global warming fly every month or week, some who don't believe in global warming have not flown their entire life (to pick just one example). The latter do more to mitigate it than the former.