The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Patar]

Why should carbon emissions be taxed?
Because if there wasn't any penalty/benefit/regulation, then people/organisations would pollute as much as they wanted.

Pretty much all sources of CO and CO2 also contain other airbourne pollutants, carbon just happens to be the easiest to measure.

So if you want a good reason to tax carbon emissions try the following scenario: factory creates air pollution (CO, CO2, SO2,etc.) factory gets taxed, reduces emissions. The cumulative effect could reduce the effects of acid rain meaning crops aren't destroyed by it, eliminating world hunger meaning kiddos in ethiopia don't die and grow up do be doctors.

Would you deny them the opportunity to grow up and be doctors? HMMM?

[Jantar]

Why should carbon emissions be taxed?
Because if there wasn't any penalty/benefit/regulation, then people/organisations would pollute as much as they wanted.

Pretty much all sources of CO and CO2 also contain other airbourne pollutants, carbon just happens to be the easiest to measure.

So if you want a good reason to tax carbon emissions try the following scenario: factory creates air pollution (CO, CO2, SO2,etc.) factory gets taxed, reduces emissions. The cumulative effect could reduce the effects of acid rain meaning crops aren't destroyed by it, eliminating world hunger meaning kiddos in ethiopia don't die and grow up do be doctors.

Would you deny them the opportunity to grow up and be doctors? HMMM?

And this has what relevence to Global warming?

[Quasievil]

And this has what relevence to Global warming?

It amazing me how little people are able to see through the BS and actually understand whats going on

[Quasievil]

The cumulative effect could reduce the effects of acid rain meaning crops aren't destroyed by it, eliminating world hunger meaning kiddos in ethiopia don't die and grow up do be doctors.

if the world had more Co2 there would be more crops to eat.

[Patar]

No relevance, but for the last ~7 pages quasi has been spouting the line of "LieS gLobaL WarmInG iS LieS, tHey STeaLing MaH MonIES!"

So if you're not going to actually debate AGW then I thought I'd throw an obscure scenario into the mix.

Whether you're taxing pollution because of "global warming" or any other reason, hitting people in the pocket is the best method for compliance if they refuse to self regulate and improve upon minimum regulatiory obligations (just because regulations set a minimum level of compliance doesn't mean you aren't allowed to exceed it).

[Patar]

if the world had more Co2 there would be more crops to eat.

That's a pretty silly thing to say, by that I assume you're implying there is currently a worldwide shortage of CO2 for plants to utilise?

[Quasievil]

No relevance, but for the last ~7 pages quasi has been spouting the line of "LieS gLobaL WarmInG iS LieS, tHey STeaLing MaH MonIES!"

No thats not the message at all, the message is Manmade Co2 is not casuing Global warming and its not and you cant prove it is, and if you want my money you need to prove, I dont have to do a damn thing other than pester the loony greenies

And No not my money exclusively, yours to

[Quasievil]

That's a pretty silly thing to say, by that I assume you're implying there is currently a worldwide shortage of CO2 for plants to utilise?

I didnt say their is a shortage, are you saying that more Co2 would Not increase crop production?

[ghost]

Why should carbon emissions be taxed?
Because if there wasn't any penalty/benefit/regulation, then people/organisations would pollute as much as they wanted.

Pretty much all sources of CO and CO2 also contain other airbourne pollutants, carbon just happens to be the easiest to measure.

So if you want a good reason to tax carbon emissions try the following scenario: factory creates air pollution (CO, CO2, SO2,etc.) factory gets taxed, reduces emissions. The cumulative effect could reduce the effects of acid rain meaning crops aren't destroyed by it, eliminating world hunger meaning kiddos in ethiopia don't die and grow up do be doctors.

Would you deny them the opportunity to grow up and be doctors? HMMM?

?? WTF.

If you want to reduce or eliminate pollution, how is tax the best way of doing this? A carbon credits trading scheme is a way of quantifying the amount of acceptable carbon emitted into the atmosphere and placing a value on it. The long story short is that it will burden every family in this country with an extra expenence with no effect on the actual amount emmitted. If your a bit strange in the head and think co2 is the biggest threat to this planet this should the last thing you would hope for. If you thing MMGW is a crock of shit, its also the last thing you would hope for.
There are many way of reducing polutants in our enviroment, quotas, and taxes isnt one of them.
Mmmmm Road deaths, lets set a quota for issuing tickets for speeding as this is a component of road deaths and fine (tax) people who use more that there fair share. that fix it....

Sound familiar?

[Quasievil]

A Quick note on taxes and effect

health system......fail
Police.................fail
Defence..............fail
education............fail
everything ..........fail


mmmmmm but for some magic reason

Co2 .............success , insert Tui moment here in capitals

thats on the assumption that Co2 is a causing man made global warming in the first place which it isnt and no one can prove it is

[Patar]

I didnt say their is a shortage, are you saying that more Co2 would Not increase crop production?

Sure, theoretically... it could.
If CO2 was the limiting factor, which unless there was a shortage it isn't.
So in summation, no, more CO2 would not increase crop production for the simple reason than it is not scarce. Things like nutrients, water and sunlight would increase crop production.


And onto your argument, what I don't understand about it is that you are of the opinion that we should reduce the amount of pollution we produce, but oppose carbon trading for the sheer reason that you can't see proof that global warming exists. The net effect of carbon trading will be to reduce net pollution levels... which you have nothing against (I would assume/hope).


That said I think carbon trading is the completely wrong approach, and that the onus should be on developed countries to set an example and assist developing countries from walking into the same mistakes that we have already made.

[Quasievil]

That said I think carbon trading is the completely wrong approach, and that the onus should be on developed countries to set an example and assist developing countries from walking into the same mistakes that we have already made.

Then we are settled, because I think Money will not provide a solution also, Im anti pollution (but I haven't made a religion out of it)
I also think the developed world is going in the right direction with legislation etc and yes now its time to challenge the third world countries to develop and improve there lot.

What we dont need taxes and the loonies throwing our world in the stone age.

[Patar]

Taxes are the easiest and fastest way to get some form of result.

And while many people here in NZ would have an opinion something along the lines of "we're so small nothing we do would have a noticeable effect", does that mean that 4million people from every country around the world should be exempt from environmental legislation?

The reason everything is so f'd up atm is because of countries acting in self intrest, carbon trading is the first step in making countries behave as if their actions have consequences outside their own borders.

[Quasievil]

That said I think carbon trading is the completely wrong approach, and that the onus should be on developed countries to set an example and assist developing countries from walking into the same mistakes that we have already made.

carbon trading is the first step in making countries behave as if their actions have consequences outside their own borders.

Okay youre making good sense now wtf

[Patar]

You have to start somewhere, and while I don't personally agree with how they started, they have atleast done something which is better than if the "global warming doesn't exist" crew had their way.

If you examine some scenarios of:
1) Do nothing, AGW false
2) Do something, AGW false
3) Do nothing, AGW true
4) Do something, AGW true

then you get these possible worst case results:
1) Nothing changes
2) Economic collapse, depression
3) End of world as we know it
4) Possibly mitigate effects

I would chose to do something as the worst case of doing nothing is worse than the worst case of doing something