4 ms·

> Even better would be to tax all industries fairly, according to their greenhouse gas emissions. I mean, that would mean exponentially more expensive food… h

> Even better would be to tax all industries fairly, according to their greenhouse gas emissions. I mean, that would mean exponentially more expensive food… https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086822 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086822 My take is we need to allow unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (reduction in other stuff though actually toxic). It increases food growth (plants love carbon) and arable land and decreases poverty. Plus cheaper energy means improved quality of life and technological advancement. We have centuries of known fuel sources and can move to nuclear any time we wish. A carbon tax effectively increases human suffering for the hope of reduced temperatures. In reality, the cost is passed to consumers and there’s no indication it will reduce global temperatures.

freshpots 4y ago
"My take is we need to allow unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (reduction in other stuff though actually toxic). It increases food growth (plants love carbon) and arable land and decreases poverty." Your take is so misinformed that we all have to wonder how you could have twisted yourself into such a position CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and will do far more harm to these plants/crops that 'love' excess CO2 than you seem to understand. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Your take is so misinformed that we all have to wonder how you could have twisted yourself into such a position Having worked on climate models and read many papers I have become skeptical we know the manner or degree humans have an effect. Those with a statistics background should look at the data honestly. We have relatively poor data (very sparse, unknown error rate, high variance, measurements taken with different mechanisms, etc) that can’t be validated. With correlations abounding in every which way. We also have a precision problem when we look at global temperatures in the past, we simply don’t know when we are taking a 1-5% change in temp. You cannot prove carbon does absolutely anything. We have a correlation not causation. It could be natural carbon increases with temperatures. It could be our measurement mechanism is just wrong. It could be plant growth will expand to meet a new homeostasis with the carbon (imo highly likely). From the same measurements we use to show the Earth is warming we can show carbon levels have been higher previously on Earth. > CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and will do far more harm to these plants/crops that 'love' excess CO2 than you seem to understand. North America was covered in a sheet of ice until a few thousand years ago. The largest desert in Africa was a full of life during the same time period. Both disappeared before the industrial revolution and we have been seeing carbon increase exponentially ever since; as visible in the linked website https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm Now once we cover that, the question is what too do? We know cheap energy directly correlates with quality of life. Easy thought exercise - is your life easier walking or driving a car? Is it easier with a wood burning stove or a gas oven? The argument we should reduce something that we know improves life and remove it requires a high level of proof. The threshold hasn’t been met. Even if it had, is China going to cut emissions? Do you really think wealthy will? No. They won’t. China will expand and continue to produce more overtaking the US in every category - they’ll use the cheap energy we aren’t using. The US will be destitute due to us cutting all energy production. Now what? Is the world better off? Germany is doing that right now, let’s check back in a couple years and see how that goes… My point is that (1) we don’t have solid enough evidence to reduce the quality of life in our civilization and (2) even if we had said evidence, we couldn’t meaningfully make an impact- tax or no tax. So you’ll have all the downside, with no gain.
  - junofan 4y ago
    The upside is captured by dishonest actors consolidating power using lies that make people feel good. Obviously policies pursued locally won’t change outcomes.
  - cwalv 4y ago
    I'm looking forward to reading thoughtful and direct answers to some of your points. This deserves more than just downvotes, calls to just shut up and "accept consensus", or pitchforks.
  - freshpots 4y ago
    You should have a Nobel prize or at least be on the IPCC because you seem to know more than everyone else involved in the field. There's no point in arguing with someone who is as arrogant as you. This is probably where you get your information on CO2: https://twitter.com/CkDexter15/status/1569530162873516034 https://twitter.com/CkDexter15/status/1569530162873516034
tomp 4y ago
Not if the tax is revenue neutral. All taxes collected are redistributed back to citizens. Best of both words - progressive taxation and incentive to develop anti-carbon tevh.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Money goes into pot. Large player lobby to not be included. Government programs take from pot for programs. Pot get's redistributed based on political groups offering votes remaining goes back to the tax payers. Average citizen pays a dollar more per/gallon and is worse off. Environment no effect. This has been enacted in Canada. If you care about the environment this isn't the way to go.
blooalien 4y ago
There will be no "reduced temperatures" for rather a long while, even if we stop all excess human-induced carbon emissions this very instant. We've made quite a mess of things on that front, and despite the planet's resiliency, it's gonna take it a bit to re-adjust itself back to what we've been used to up to this point.

freshpots 4y ago

"My take is we need to allow unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (reduction in other stuff though actually toxic). It increases food growth (plants love carbon) and arable land and decreases poverty." Your take is so misinformed that we all have to wonder how you could have twisted yourself into such a position CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and will do far more harm to these plants/crops that 'love' excess CO2 than you seem to understand. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

lettergram 4y ago
> Your take is so misinformed that we all have to wonder how you could have twisted yourself into such a position Having worked on climate models and read many papers I have become skeptical we know the manner or degree humans have an effect. Those with a statistics background should look at the data honestly. We have relatively poor data (very sparse, unknown error rate, high variance, measurements taken with different mechanisms, etc) that can’t be validated. With correlations abounding in every which way. We also have a precision problem when we look at global temperatures in the past, we simply don’t know when we are taking a 1-5% change in temp. You cannot prove carbon does absolutely anything. We have a correlation not causation. It could be natural carbon increases with temperatures. It could be our measurement mechanism is just wrong. It could be plant growth will expand to meet a new homeostasis with the carbon (imo highly likely). From the same measurements we use to show the Earth is warming we can show carbon levels have been higher previously on Earth. > CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and will do far more harm to these plants/crops that 'love' excess CO2 than you seem to understand. North America was covered in a sheet of ice until a few thousand years ago. The largest desert in Africa was a full of life during the same time period. Both disappeared before the industrial revolution and we have been seeing carbon increase exponentially ever since; as visible in the linked website https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm Now once we cover that, the question is what too do? We know cheap energy directly correlates with quality of life. Easy thought exercise - is your life easier walking or driving a car? Is it easier with a wood burning stove or a gas oven? The argument we should reduce something that we know improves life and remove it requires a high level of proof. The threshold hasn’t been met. Even if it had, is China going to cut emissions? Do you really think wealthy will? No. They won’t. China will expand and continue to produce more overtaking the US in every category - they’ll use the cheap energy we aren’t using. The US will be destitute due to us cutting all energy production. Now what? Is the world better off? Germany is doing that right now, let’s check back in a couple years and see how that goes… My point is that (1) we don’t have solid enough evidence to reduce the quality of life in our civilization and (2) even if we had said evidence, we couldn’t meaningfully make an impact- tax or no tax. So you’ll have all the downside, with no gain.
- junofan 4y ago
  The upside is captured by dishonest actors consolidating power using lies that make people feel good. Obviously policies pursued locally won’t change outcomes.
- cwalv 4y ago
  I'm looking forward to reading thoughtful and direct answers to some of your points. This deserves more than just downvotes, calls to just shut up and "accept consensus", or pitchforks.
- freshpots 4y ago
  You should have a Nobel prize or at least be on the IPCC because you seem to know more than everyone else involved in the field. There's no point in arguing with someone who is as arrogant as you. This is probably where you get your information on CO2: https://twitter.com/CkDexter15/status/1569530162873516034 https://twitter.com/CkDexter15/status/1569530162873516034

tomp 4y ago

Not if the tax is revenue neutral. All taxes collected are redistributed back to citizens. Best of both words - progressive taxation and incentive to develop anti-carbon tevh.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ipaddr 4y ago
Money goes into pot. Large player lobby to not be included. Government programs take from pot for programs. Pot get's redistributed based on political groups offering votes remaining goes back to the tax payers. Average citizen pays a dollar more per/gallon and is worse off. Environment no effect. This has been enacted in Canada. If you care about the environment this isn't the way to go.

blooalien 4y ago

There will be no "reduced temperatures" for rather a long while, even if we stop all excess human-induced carbon emissions this very instant. We've made quite a mess of things on that front, and despite the planet's resiliency, it's gonna take it a bit to re-adjust itself back to what we've been used to up to this point.