ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

This figure [$80 a metric ton] was determined, however, before the arrival of more pessimistic estimates on the pace of global warming. So let’s assume a tax of $300 a ton, just to be safe.

Under such a tax, the prices of goods would rise in proportion to their carbon footprints — in the case of gasoline, for example, by roughly $2.60 a gallon. [/quote]

Are you kidding?
That's EXACTLY the oversimplified thinking I'm warning about.
Most goods, raw materials, and products are shipped by truck. Also by train and ship and planes.
These vehicles don't have 10 gallon fuel tanks like your family car.
They buy 100s of gallons of fuel at a time, and ships, 100s of 1000s of gallons at a time.

And what is the purpose of the carbon tax?
To make people travel less?
or just more expensively?
If our goods and food and products and raw materials go up in price equal to the increase in fuel cost?
Will people also buy less?
Darn right. They'll be poorer compared to the cost of living.
And you think this is GOOD?

 

FORECASTS involving climate change are highly uncertain, denialists assert — a point that climate researchers themselves readily concede.

 

You are conflating the meaning of uncertain and unreliable. Science is always uncertain, and every measurement and every conclusion is always associated with a level of probability of accuracy. But just because something isn't known with 100% accuracy doesn't mean that it is unreliable.

And, again, you are incorrect that scientists "almost invariably admit at the conclusion of each study, that the climate is TOO complex to predict with current science." If you read the literature, which you claim to do, they almost always state what they are able to conclude from that particular study, and what they are not able to conclude. They try and be a clear as possible what they know and what they don't know; what they can conclude and what they can't conclude.

And they what they've consistently concluded is that because of AGW we are headed for serious problems if we don't take prompt corrective action.

 

the fact that using C02 to create the Global Warming conspiracy and ending up with a carbon tax and not EPA regulation to reduce it smacks of a convient scapegoat.
Its not about reducing C02 its about collecting tax
If lead in the fuel was taxed rather than legisilated out because it was bad for you we would still have lead in the fuel.
Australia wont sign the Kyoto but is happy to use its theory to invent a tax ( happy to jump on the band wagon due to its large current account deficit)

 

The purpose of a carbon tax is to decrease the amount of CO2 produced.

As a result, either people will spend a higher amount of their finite $$ on the same amount of CO2-producing hydrocarbons, and thus have less $$ available for whatever..

OR

they will figure out ways to get along with less CO2-producing hydrocarbons and keep more of those $$ to spend on whatever...

It's a matter of pay a little now, or pay a lot later. Our choice.

Looking at the piles of junk I see in folks garages and basements I'd say most people could cut back quite a bit on their expenses without lowering their standard of living very much.

 

Carbon tax or cap and trade isn't a 'maybe' detrimental influence on our economy. Those tactics are DAMNED 100% CERTAIN to further cripple our economy.
But you think they are 'necessary' to mitigate a 'possible' and i believe 'unlikely' future problem.
And the problem isn't even due next year or 20 years from now.
They talk about the END of the century. That's 88 years from now.

From 1900 to 1988, mankind went from horse and buggy and oil lamps to the internet, laptop computers, space flight, curing MOST deseases that plagued the early 1900s.

But if you destroy our economy, what chance does the NEXT 88 years have to make similar strides in technology?

Have faith in the growth of technology and improved life style, by continuing the culture that brought the previous improvements.

Yes! Let's study alternative energy and more efficient machines.

But! NO! HELL NO! Don't TAX us out of existence!
Carbon taxes are the STUPIDEST idea ever thought of! And the most DANGEROUS to enact!

 

Okay, I'll put you in the undecided group.

 

LOL.
i gave you points for that remark. Laconical in extreme!

 

WRONG. That is already taken into account by scientists. Of course land heights and changes are monitored. The man in the street may observe what you write below, but certainly not a credible authority.

 

Talking about "Laptop" versus "mainframe" models is total garbage. Just about any programme in existance today can run on a "laptop" with a couple of terabytes of hard drive and a few gigabytes of memory. In fact, these days most "mainframes" are just Windows PCs or Linux machines, often paralleled up. Either way, with access to data in the cloud anyway, it sounds like this is a total made-up argument.

 

You in I.T. Ray?
there's always a MIPS and FLOPS

 

Internet applications. Systems I've specified/designed are still running terabytes of data on cloud servers and many thousands of users running SaaS programmes with millions of lines of code. And systems of that size a decade ago that required a datacentre with dozens of computers in multiple layers of parallel redundancy now run on a single desktop CPU.

 

All the MORE reason not to hamstring our economy AND our ability to innovate with stupid smothering carbon taxes!
Technology advances AS customers buy the product enabling R&D.
If because of increased costs due to carbon taxes, people have to choose between eating and new laptops, computer technology R&D will advance more slowly as sales falter.

 

You obviously have no idea of Frosty's track record. I've had him jump in and start making obnoxious remarks about the US and Americans because I posted a recipe on the cooking thread, for Crissakes.
If the rest of the world thinks America is all screwed up and wants to blame it for every friggen thing that goes wrong, fine. That doesn't mean I have to endure an non-stop barrage from Frosty telling me so..

I didn't like Ronald Reagan's politics. But he was a successful politician for years after he stopped being an actor. He started his politicking as President of SAG (the Screen Actor's Guild), and worked his way up to being governor of California. He was a respected major figure in Republican circles long before he ran for President.

If you believe he jumped straight from doing B movies to moving into the White House, it's simply evidence that you aren't well-informed concerning this country's internal politics.

 

its not eating and laptops it will be cooked or raw food becasue the power will cost too much