Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So the debate continues with those who are not convinced of the AGW theory being unwilling to jeopardize everything else for what might be a flawed theory, and the pro AGW camp accusing everybody else of unmitigated greed.

But Nordhaus, who works from the IPCC's global warming scenarios, doesn't jeopardize everything else. He suggests a worldwide hike the gasoline tax that starting 10 cents in 2010 and rising to almost a dollar in 2100. We know a hike like this doesn't jeopardize "everything". Europe has tried the experiment in the 20th century, for reasons other than climate change, and we now do live with a $2/gallon tax. It hasn't prevented us from being a rich country, even if we may not be quite as rich as the US.

A hike in the gasoline tax for what need? It's one of those slippery slopes of intrusive government when something is taxed just to punish it, inhibit it, diminish it, etc. And my libertarian soul resists any form of taxation other than that necessary for government to fulfill its Consitutional mandates.

0 Replies

Fox, You make a good, reasonable, position on taxation, but trying to limit it to Constitutional mandates doesn't control the waste of government.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

A hike in the gasoline tax for what need?

For the end of driving less, sharing rides, constructing more efficient engines, and driving slower. It would also help balance your budget, which is in disarray.

Foxfyre wrote:

It's one of those slippery slopes of intrusive government when something is taxed just to punish it, inhibit it, diminish it, etc.

Other things being equal, yes. But other things needn't be equal. For a libertarian, fuel taxes a lesser evil than the CAFE standards that you now have, which try to achieve the same goal by micromanaging how companies build cars. Raising fuel taxes would allow the government to relax CAFE standards. Gasoline taxes are also a lesser evil than payroll and income taxes, which, unlike fuel taxes, discourage activities you'd prefer to foster (working, saving, risk-taking etc.)

0 Replies

Gasoline taxes put a proportional load of cleaning up the effects of polluting directly on those who cause the most pollution - something I completely agree with.

It will be a wonderful incentive for companies to produce far more efficient cars; the sales of Toyota Prius alone justify this concept...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
A hike in the gasoline tax for what need?

For the end of driving less, sharing rides, constructing more efficient engines, and driving slower. It would also help balance your budget, which is in disarray.

Foxfyre wrote:
It's one of those slippery slopes of intrusive government when something is taxed just to punish it, inhibit it, diminish it, etc.

Other things being equal, yes. But other things needn't be equal. For a libertarian, fuel taxes a lesser evil than the CAFE standards that you now have, which try to achieve the same goal by micromanaging how companies build cars. Raising fuel taxes would allow the government to relax CAFE standards. Gasoline taxes are also a lesser evil than payroll and income taxes, which, unlike fuel taxes, discourage activities you'd prefer to foster (working, saving, risk-taking etc.)

Europe/Germany doesn't have CAFE standards for their cars?

Perhaps gasoline taxes are a lesser evil than payroll taxes--at least we can choose to buy or not buy gasoline--but do you think $5/gallon gasoline would change your behavior here where you could likely live miles from your nearest neighbor or a hundred miles or more from the nearest airport or other public transportation?

Or would that large gasoline tax just confiscate money available to spend, invest, save, etc. as all taxes do and thus business has less to expand and create jobs and government sees no significant net increase in revenues? I doubt it would do a lot to change behavior here but I can see how it could create significant hardships for many.

I think Americans would prefer not to enjoy the 10+% unemployment rate in Germany and some other European countries. Perhaps if you were less agreeable in handing over so much of your money for the government to spend, more of your people would be working and paying into government coffers through income taxes, sales taxes etc.

0 Replies

Commodity studies have shown that across the board, prices on goods have to rise tenfold before people really begin to change their habits.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Europe/Germany doesn't have CAFE standards for their cars?

I'm pretty sure we don't. (Walter?)

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps gasoline taxes are a lesser evil than payroll taxes--at least we can choose to buy or not buy gasoline--but do you think $5/gallon gasoline would change your behavior here where you could likely live miles from your nearest neighbor or a hundred miles or more from the nearest airport or other public transportation?

In the long run, I think it would. One striking difference you notice when travelling between America and Europe is that our cars are much smaller and fuel-efficient. I'm pretty sure our $5/gallon gasoline has something to do with it.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think Americans would prefer not to enjoy the 10+% unemployment rate in Germany and some other European countries. Perhaps if you were less agreeable in handing over so much of your money for the government to spend, more of your people would be working and paying into government coffers through income taxes, sales taxes etc.

That's a red herring, sorry. Our 10% unemployment rate comes from a generous welfare state, rigid protections against firing workers, and a too-rigid monetary policy. None of these have anything to do with gasoline taxes.

0 Replies

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/epa_lead_pollution

Now, why would we relax the standards on lead pollution in the air?

What possible reason could we have for relaxing the standards?

Why, could it be because... it is costing Corporations money to keep up with standards of cleanliness?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Europe/Germany doesn't have CAFE standards for their cars?

I'm pretty sure we don't. (Walter?)

There are no fuel economy standards in Europe, Canada or Australia. And I suppose, not in any other country than the USA (at least according to sources like wikipedia and EPA).

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Europe/Germany doesn't have CAFE standards for their cars?

I'm pretty sure we don't. (Walter?)

Foxfyre wrote:
Perhaps gasoline taxes are a lesser evil than payroll taxes--at least we can choose to buy or not buy gasoline--but do you think $5/gallon gasoline would change your behavior here where you could likely live miles from your nearest neighbor or a hundred miles or more from the nearest airport or other public transportation?

In the long run, I think it would. One striking difference you notice when travelling between America and Europe is that our cars are much smaller and fuel-efficient. I'm pretty sure our $5/gallon gasoline has something to do with it.

It's certainly possible that your $5/gallon gasoline has something to do with it. It could also be that you simply don't use your automobiles for necessary transportation to the extent that Americans do. Awhile back our Big 3 automakers started building those smaller fuel efficient cars and Americans didn't want them. All the Big 3 were in immediate financial troubles as a result.

There is no economy too in using two cars to travel the 500 or so miles to Grandma's for the holidays when everybody can fit into one bigger car or a mini van.

How many miles do you think the average German puts on his/her car in a year? Here 12,500 miles is considered average and very few Americans who use their automobiles in their work or who live in rural areas will log that few.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think Americans would prefer not to enjoy the 10+% unemployment rate in Germany and some other European countries. Perhaps if you were less agreeable in handing over so much of your money for the government to spend, more of your people would be working and paying into government coffers through income taxes, sales taxes etc.

That's a red herring, sorry. Our 10% unemployment rate comes from a generous welfare state, rigid protections against firing workers, and a too-rigid monetary policy. None of these have anything to do with gasoline taxes.[/quote]

I'll concede the analogy I used is probably a red herring. I do believe, however, that the more money that is left with the people, the less perception of necessity there is for the government to be 'generous'. The people will manage the resources far more efficiently outside of business.

To change their behavior in all matters that are legal, I prefer convincing them that it is to their advantage to do things differently rather than go the route of government coercion.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Second,

Quote:
We do not steal the oil from the Middle East. We are paying dearly for it, in fact far more than it costs them to produce. If anyone is ripping people off, it is the oil cartel, which is blatant price fixing, cyclops.

Of course we do. We buy oil which is stolen from the people who inhabit the countries of the Middle East, who see no return on the sale of their natural resources. We have propped up dictators to sell us this oil at a cheap rate.

...
Cycloptichorn

There you go again cyclops, you of the crowd that says everything is America's fault. Lots of your points that are out of balance, but I will pick this one and then hopefully try to shut up about oil companies.

So we steal the oil because the people in those countries choose or allow dictators to not give them any money for the oil, but instead build palaces for themselves? And we propped up the dictators so it is our fault? Where do you learn this stuff, for crying out loud? If we allow the dictator to rule, it is our fault. If we try to get rid of them, it is our fault. Why don't you just say it, cyclops, it is our fault, period, no matter what we do? How come we don't have our chosen dictators running England, France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, and a few other countries? Besides, if we get rid of a dictator like Hussein, that is our fault too, according to you and people that think like you. After all, whose business is it of ours to try to get the people to run their countries in a civil, open, free market manner? After all, being ruled by dictators is their way of life and we should respect it, right?

Believe me, we would love it if the political rulers and systems were different in the Middle East, where the people benefited more, but we cannot control everything and we should not be blamed for their screwed up situations. We have to deal with whoever is in charge there. What they do with the money we pay them for the oil is their responsibility, not ours.

And the oil is not so cheap. If there was no cartel, the oil would be cheaper. They could probably produce and sell the oil for less than $10 per barrel if they would. And if we really wanted to look out after ourselves, we could simply take the oil and pay them nothing, but instead we are a nice country, we pay market prices and respect their ownership of the oil, even though our companies helped them develop most of it to start with, so please quit blaming us for everything.

Try shedding the liberal doctrine and boxed in thinking, which says everything is our fault and oil companies are evil and greedy.

0 Replies

Okie posted in the middle of an edit of my immediately preceding post: I meant to say that people generally use resources more efficiently and effectively outside of government.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Second,

Quote:
We do not steal the oil from the Middle East. We are paying dearly for it, in fact far more than it costs them to produce. If anyone is ripping people off, it is the oil cartel, which is blatant price fixing, cyclops.

Of course we do. We buy oil which is stolen from the people who inhabit the countries of the Middle East, who see no return on the sale of their natural resources. We have propped up dictators to sell us this oil at a cheap rate.

...
Cycloptichorn

There you go again cyclops, you of the crowd that says everything is America's fault. Lots of your points that are out of balance, but I will pick this one and then hopefully try to shut up about oil companies.

So we steal the oil because the people in those countries choose or allow dictators to not give them any money for the oil, but instead build palaces for themselves? And we propped up the dictators so it is our fault? Where do you learn this stuff, for crying out loud? If we allow the dictator to rule, it is our fault. If we try to get rid of them, it is our fault. Why don't you just say it, cyclops, it is our fault, period, no matter what we do? How come we don't have our chosen dictators running England, France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, and a few other countries? Besides, if we get rid of a dictator like Hussein, that is our fault too, according to you and people that think like you. After all, whose business is it of ours to try to get the people to run their countries in a civil, open, free market manner? After all, being ruled by dictators is their way of life and we should respect it, right?

Believe me, we would love it if the political rulers and systems were different in the Middle East, where the people benefited more, but we cannot control everything and we should not be blamed for their screwed up situations. We have to deal with whoever is in charge there. What they do with the money we pay them for the oil is their responsibility, not ours.

And the oil is not so cheap. If there was no cartel, the oil would be cheaper. They could probably produce and sell the oil for less than $10 per barrel if they would. And if we really wanted to look out after ourselves, we could simply take the oil and pay them nothing, but instead we are a nice country, we pay market prices and respect their ownership of the oil, even though our companies helped them develop most of it to start with, so please quit blaming us for everything.

Try shedding the liberal doctrine and boxed in thinking, which says everything is our fault and oil companies are evil and greedy.

Sheesh, stop hyperventilating.

I never said that 'everything is our fault.' Once again, you are Appealing to Extremes in order to twist my argument. I have said that we are partly at fault for the situation, yes, and it is true that we are partly at fault for the situation we face today.

You say that

Quote:

We have to deal with whoever is in charge there.

But this is untrue; we don't have to deal with whoever is in charge. There is another perfectly valid option, and it's called: don't buy the oil.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okie posted in the middle of an edit of my immediately preceding post: I meant to say that people generally use resources more efficiently and effectively outside of government.

My apologies, Foxfyre. I'm done talking to Cyclops for a while about oil companies instead of global warming. I hope.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You say that

Quote:
We have to deal with whoever is in charge there.

But this is untrue; we don't have to deal with whoever is in charge. There is another perfectly valid option, and it's called: don't buy the oil.

Cycloptichorn

I believe we are doing that with the Hamas government now. That's our fault too. We are not dealing with whoever is in charge and because of that the left get to complain about what a crisis it has/is creating.

Yep, Okie is right. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Okie posted in the middle of an edit of my immediately preceding post: I meant to say that people generally use resources more efficiently and effectively outside of government.

My apologies, Foxfyre. I'm done talking to Cyclops for a while about oil companies instead of global warming. I hope.

LOL, I wasn't complaining Okie. Just excusing my incorrect syntax in my post. Smile

You can't really remove the oil companies from the discussion on global warming, however, since the oil companies have helped fund quite a bit of the research that disputes the AGW theories. Of course they've also helped fund some of the research that advocates AGW too, but that doesn't seem to impress anybody in the AGW camp.

Nobody seems to be focusing on anything other than curbing or eliminating petroleum use as a solution to any problem that may exist with AGW. Of course if humankind didn't create global warming, it stands to reason that humankind probably can't prevent it or stop it either. In that case it sure seems silly to be investing so much energy and emphasis to eliminate use of a substance that makes up so many useful, valuable. affordable products used by humankind.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You say that

Quote:
We have to deal with whoever is in charge there.

But this is untrue; we don't have to deal with whoever is in charge. There is another perfectly valid option, and it's called: don't buy the oil.

Cycloptichorn

I believe we are doing that with the Hamas government now. That's our fault too. We are not dealing with whoever is in charge and because of that the left get to complain about what a crisis it has/is creating.

Yep, Okie is right. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

That's an interesting non-sequitor. I wasn't aware that we bought oil from the Palestinians.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Okie posted in the middle of an edit of my immediately preceding post: I meant to say that people generally use resources more efficiently and effectively outside of government.

My apologies, Foxfyre. I'm done talking to Cyclops for a while about oil companies instead of global warming. I hope.

LOL, I wasn't complaining Okie. Just excusing my incorrect syntax in my post.

You can't really remove the oil companies from the discussion on global warming, however, since the oil companies have helped fund quite a bit of the research that disputes the AGW theories. .....

Cyclops and I were posting every minute or two, so my apology was for the blitz of posts, in a futile attempt to convince him that the U.S. and free enterprise might not be at fault for virtually everything, and that just maybe he should be grateful for oil companies. I think I give up. It is an exercise in futility.

Foxfyre, the research into global warming by oil companies and anybody related to the oil industry is automatically fraudulant and meaningless in case you haven't heard. The U.N. and environmental groups are the only unbiased mediums with which to evaluate this global scourge. Man is causing global warming, Foxfyre. It is an open / shut case, proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Oil companies know this and they will do anything, anything to prevent people from switching from using oil. We all know that nobody wants to use oil, but that the oil companies advertise and indoctrinate everybody to get hooked on the evil habit for which they cannot be weaned from, mainly because oil companies prevent any other technology from gaining a foothold. And Republicans insure this by giving huge tax breaks to their evil oil buddies and intentionally hide price gouging, collusion, and price fixing. Plus we prop up evil dictators ruling over helpless poverty stricken Arabs from which we steal the oil. Everybody knows there are better ways to do things. Hasn't anyone heard of horses, mules, bicycles, and oxcarts?

0 Replies

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

Mid Troposphere comes in at 0.16 degree C below historical average for November and Lower Troposphere comes in at 0.29 degree C above average.

And this site:

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/air/co2_record_high_levels_in_the_atmosphere.htm

A couple of quotes:

"This is a very worrying sign. It indicates that recent efforts to reduce emissions have had virtually no impact on emissions growth and that effective caps are urgently needed," he said.

"The sum total of our meagre efforts to cut emissions amounts to less than zero."

Looks like Kyoto is a failure and we are all doomed.

0 Replies

Here's the problem the AGW folks have. It's difficult to convince the rank and file citizen of a serious problem with global warming when you have a weather map showing wind chill index as follows:

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know