5 ms·

Whatever it is, you can be certain that the solution is massive taxation and central control by bureaucrats.

by trentnix 10y ago

lakmear 10y ago
Try a revenue neutral carbon tax.
- orangecat 10y ago
  We're trying. The left opposes it because it doesn't make government bigger: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-opposition-to-a-carbon-tax-shows-theres-something-deeply-wrong-with-the-left/2016/10/27/2b6e6bea-9bb4-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-opposition...
  - lukeschlather 10y ago
    I'm not ideologically in favor of smaller or bigger government. I want smarter government, and there's nothing smart about passing legislation that will reduce the state government's revenue by between $80 and $900 million a year without defining what services to cut. Also, "bigger government" is a vague enough definition that it could easily apply to this initiative. It creates a new category of tax, and a new category of tax credit. It will probably reduce the government's revenue, but the legislature can and most likely will raise revenue in other places to plug the gaps rather than cutting necessary agencies.
    - MichaelBurge 10y ago
      The same people who want a smaller government are also usually in favor of a balanced budget amendment, which would force any proposal to cut taxes or raise spending to specify how it balances.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Meanwhile, the right can't even recognize it's a real issue. What do you think the bigger barrier is?
    - WillPostForFood 10y ago
      It is worse when the people who know they should act choose not to.
      - flukus 10y ago
        By and large the left aren't choosing not too, they are unable to act because we need to drag the right along kicking and screaming. If we don't bring the right along then they'll either block any action (America) or create a huge fear campaign and repeal the action (Australia).
- phs318u 10y ago
  In Australia we tried a scheme with very low economic impact (despite scaremongering to the contrary) carbon tax, which provably reduced emissions before its repeal. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-helped-curb-emissions-anu-study-finds-20140716-ztuf6.html http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-pric...
  - shakna 10y ago
    Our Environment Minister doesn't believe in Climate Change. I expect we'll utterly fail to do something like this again.
  - flukus 10y ago
    That reminds me, where's my $750 Mr Abbott/Turnbull?
melling 10y ago
Well, when you largely ignore a problem for 27 years, the solution tends to get expensive. The decades go by ... https://youtu.be/4Jnu09xQ4lk https://youtu.be/4Jnu09xQ4lk http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45811 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45811
mattstreet 10y ago
People have had 50 years to start solving the problem on their own.
- baddox 10y ago
  So have all the world's governments. That's not a very strong argument.
ChrisClark 10y ago
Nothing will happen otherwise. We've already shown that.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fsloth 10y ago
Don't you think this is a bit too serious issues to waste energy on petty political divisions? Anyway, they only entities that can do something are governments. People are good at locally optimizing their own lives. Not so good at optimizing the good of the whole.
- nylsaar 10y ago
  Where did the water for the ice come from? What is the optimal sea level for the governments to set? How do you calculate an energy output without knowing it's environment? Why do scientist, who are dependent on government funding, use words like 'suggest', 'surprised', or 'consensus'? The truth is that none of us know what the actual dimensions of our solar system were 5,000 years ago, nor do we know the measurements in the next 1,000. An object is never the same when nature is applied over time.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > What is the optimal sea level for the governments to set? I don't think anyone is suggesting or has suggested such a policy. Rather, the recommendation is "avoid changing things, especially when the outcomes are probably negative and their magnitude highly unknown". > who are dependent on government funding Plenty of scientists who are funded by non-government grants agree that climate change is real. Plenty of non-climate scientists have looked at the data and agree that climate change is real. Plenty of non-scientists with training in a scientific discipline -- who have never received and will never receive a penny of grant money in their lives -- have looked at the data and agree that climate change is real. This particular ad hom is tired and unfounded. > Why do scientist, who are dependent on government funding, use words like 'suggest', 'surprised', or 'consensus'? Suggest: because this is one study/measurement, and others should repeat the measurement and/or come to the same conclusions by other methods. Surprised: Because they're surprised. Consensus: When 90+% of trained experts agree on something, that's pretty much as close to a consensus as you can get in a large population. > Where did the water for the ice come from?... How do you calculate an energy output without knowing it's environment?... The truth is that none of us know what the actual dimensions of our solar system were 5,000 years ago nor do we know the measurements in the next 1,000. An object is never the same when nature is applied over time. We engineer systems and make scientific measurements and predictions with high accuracy every day without knowing the exact origin and trajectory of everything in the universe.

Whatever it is, you can be certain that the solution is massive taxation and central control by bureaucrats.

lakmear 10y ago

Try a revenue neutral carbon tax.

orangecat 10y ago
We're trying. The left opposes it because it doesn't make government bigger: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-opposition-to-a-carbon-tax-shows-theres-something-deeply-wrong-with-the-left/2016/10/27/2b6e6bea-9bb4-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-opposition...
- lukeschlather 10y ago
  I'm not ideologically in favor of smaller or bigger government. I want smarter government, and there's nothing smart about passing legislation that will reduce the state government's revenue by between $80 and $900 million a year without defining what services to cut. Also, "bigger government" is a vague enough definition that it could easily apply to this initiative. It creates a new category of tax, and a new category of tax credit. It will probably reduce the government's revenue, but the legislature can and most likely will raise revenue in other places to plug the gaps rather than cutting necessary agencies.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    The same people who want a smaller government are also usually in favor of a balanced budget amendment, which would force any proposal to cut taxes or raise spending to specify how it balances.
- flukus 10y ago
  Meanwhile, the right can't even recognize it's a real issue. What do you think the bigger barrier is?
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    It is worse when the people who know they should act choose not to.
    - flukus 10y ago
      By and large the left aren't choosing not too, they are unable to act because we need to drag the right along kicking and screaming. If we don't bring the right along then they'll either block any action (America) or create a huge fear campaign and repeal the action (Australia).
phs318u 10y ago
In Australia we tried a scheme with very low economic impact (despite scaremongering to the contrary) carbon tax, which provably reduced emissions before its repeal. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-helped-curb-emissions-anu-study-finds-20140716-ztuf6.html http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-pric...
- shakna 10y ago
  Our Environment Minister doesn't believe in Climate Change. I expect we'll utterly fail to do something like this again.
- flukus 10y ago
  That reminds me, where's my $750 Mr Abbott/Turnbull?

melling 10y ago

Well, when you largely ignore a problem for 27 years, the solution tends to get expensive. The decades go by ... https://youtu.be/4Jnu09xQ4lk https://youtu.be/4Jnu09xQ4lk http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45811 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45811

mattstreet 10y ago

People have had 50 years to start solving the problem on their own.

baddox 10y ago
So have all the world's governments. That's not a very strong argument.

ChrisClark 10y ago

Nothing will happen otherwise. We've already shown that.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

fsloth 10y ago

Don't you think this is a bit too serious issues to waste energy on petty political divisions? Anyway, they only entities that can do something are governments. People are good at locally optimizing their own lives. Not so good at optimizing the good of the whole.

nylsaar 10y ago
Where did the water for the ice come from? What is the optimal sea level for the governments to set? How do you calculate an energy output without knowing it's environment? Why do scientist, who are dependent on government funding, use words like 'suggest', 'surprised', or 'consensus'? The truth is that none of us know what the actual dimensions of our solar system were 5,000 years ago, nor do we know the measurements in the next 1,000. An object is never the same when nature is applied over time.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > What is the optimal sea level for the governments to set? I don't think anyone is suggesting or has suggested such a policy. Rather, the recommendation is "avoid changing things, especially when the outcomes are probably negative and their magnitude highly unknown". > who are dependent on government funding Plenty of scientists who are funded by non-government grants agree that climate change is real. Plenty of non-climate scientists have looked at the data and agree that climate change is real. Plenty of non-scientists with training in a scientific discipline -- who have never received and will never receive a penny of grant money in their lives -- have looked at the data and agree that climate change is real. This particular ad hom is tired and unfounded. > Why do scientist, who are dependent on government funding, use words like 'suggest', 'surprised', or 'consensus'? Suggest: because this is one study/measurement, and others should repeat the measurement and/or come to the same conclusions by other methods. Surprised: Because they're surprised. Consensus: When 90+% of trained experts agree on something, that's pretty much as close to a consensus as you can get in a large population. > Where did the water for the ice come from?... How do you calculate an energy output without knowing it's environment?... The truth is that none of us know what the actual dimensions of our solar system were 5,000 years ago nor do we know the measurements in the next 1,000. An object is never the same when nature is applied over time. We engineer systems and make scientific measurements and predictions with high accuracy every day without knowing the exact origin and trajectory of everything in the universe.