Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#2,376
#2,376
BartW said:
Tthere's a fundamental flaw with economic objections to acting on climate change -- they're shortsighted. What will hurt the economy more: flooded coastal cities (meaning refugees), extensive drought, food and water shortages, more extreme weather, and foreign political instability, or raising the emissions standards for cars and industries? Many people and businesses are already feeling the negative effects of climate change. I already brought up the reinsurance industry. Here's some more examples:

Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change

“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years,” said Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president for environment and water resources, listing the problems that he said were also disrupting the company’s supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.” Coke reflects a growing view among American business leaders and mainstream economists who see global warming as a force that contributes to lower gross domestic products, higher food and commodity costs, broken supply chains and increased financial risk. Their position is at striking odds with the longstanding argument, advanced by the coal industry and others, that policies to curb carbon emissions are more economically harmful than the impact of climate change."

"Nike, which has more than 700 factories in 49 countries, many in Southeast Asia, is also speaking out because of extreme weather that is disrupting its supply chain. In 2008, floods temporarily shut down four Nike factories in Thailand, and the company remains concerned about rising droughts in regions that produce cotton, which the company uses in its athletic clothes. “That puts less cotton on the market, the price goes up, and you have market volatility,” said Hannah Jones, the company’s vice president for sustainability and innovation. Nike has already reported the impact of climate change on water supplies on its financial risk disclosure forms to the Securities and Exchange Commission."

"Although many Republicans oppose the idea of a price or tax on carbon pollution, some conservative economists endorse the idea. Among them are Arthur B. Laffer, senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan; the Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign; and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the head of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, and an economic adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican.

“There’s no question that if we get substantial changes in atmospheric temperatures, as all the evidence suggests, that it’s going to contribute to sea-level rise,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “There will be agriculture and economic effects — it’s inescapable.” He added, “I’d be shocked if people supported anything other than a carbon tax — that’s how economists think about it.”

Facing the Facts: Climate Change Is Bad For Business

"A recent study by the Carbon Disclosure Project shows that at least 70% of major businesses are concerned about the threats that climate change poses to their companies. 51% of the businesses contacted for the study said that climate change, specifically heavy rains and droughts, has already had a very large impact on operations, always in a negative way.

These aren’t mom and pop operations either. Massive corporations like Wal-Mart, Dell Computers, and L’Oreal are among those who have reported negative economic impacts from climate change related disasters. "

Climate Denial Industry Costs Us $500 Billion a Year

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has announced in its latest World Energy Outlook that every year of delayed action to address climate change will add $500 Billion to the price tag of saving the planet.
Click to expand...
BartW said:
I'd like to hear a response to this post. Also, I'd like to hear why you think big oil, including Exxon, BP, Shell, and others, both acknowledge the threat of global warming and support a carbon tax.
Click to expand...
BartW said:
Acting on climate change will be a significant burden on the entirety of the fossil fuel industry. Shell is the most carbon intensive big oil company and they support the carbon tax. Even the World Coal Association acknowledges the reality of AGW. There are tons of businesses that realize acting on climate change is necessary and inevitable, despite the short-term losses.

Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon
Click to expand...

Bump.

Apple CEO Tells Global Warming Deniers To Drop Apple Stock

I guess that makes it a consensus in the computer industry as well
 
#2,377
#2,377
So assuming the tech industry believes in global warming. The real question is what are they proposing is to be done about it? They still manufacture in nations with dirty energy sources. Are they ok with US data centers costing more money from green sources? Or do they propose a tax on other energy sources or preferred pricing schemes to subsidize those costs*? Until we have a green techonology that is cost efficient and is available 24/7, somebody is getting screwed. The question is, who does who plan on screwing? I'm guessing the tech giants want somebody else to pay through carbon credits.

*I'm not familiar with electricity pricing, but if intermittent green power sources have to be backed up with close to 100% with baseload power sources, and "green" sources are given some sort of preference, then the baseload source is getting screwed. Also, individual power generators (solar panels on the house that sell back to the grid) get paid market rates without providing any infrastructure.
 
#2,379
#2,379
BartW said:
I agree that nuclear is our best option
Click to expand...

And here is where your side looses all, every last bit of credibility. Most of the hard core AGWians who want to reduce/eliminate carbon based energy are the same ones that sue to block permits, making it impossible to build more nuclear or hydroelectric facilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,381
#2,381
hog88 said:
And here is where your side looses all, every last bit of credibility. Most of the hard core AGWians who want to reduce/eliminate carbon based energy are the same ones that sue to block permits, making it impossible to build more nuclear or hydroelectric facilities.
Click to expand...

Hardcore AGWians?

You mean carbon tax supporters like Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Shell, Statoil, Duke Energy, EDF Energy, Kodak, Fedex, Coca-Cola, Nike, L’Oreal, Wal-Mart, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, Google, General Electric, Walt Disney, ConAgra Foods, Wells Fargo, DuPont, Delta, Swiss Re, Munich Re, American Economic Association, World Coal Association, World Bank, IMF, Henry M. Paulson Jr. (a former Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration), Arthur B. Laffer (senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan), George Schultz (Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State), N Gregory Mankiw (Harvard economist who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign), Douglas Holtz-Eakin (chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and economic adviser to John McCain’s campaign), and of course 97%+ of climate scientists and 100% of the world’s national scientific organizations?

If anything the fact that I’m pro-nuclear should enhance my credibility since I’m obviously not some environmentalist whacko. Sure there are tree-hugging hippies that try to block dams because of an endangered nematode or wind turbines because of pigeon migration. I’m not worried about nematodes and pigeons. I’m worried for my countries and the human race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,384
#2,384
BartW said:
Hardcore AGWians?

You mean carbon tax supporters like Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Shell, Statoil, Duke Energy, EDF Energy, Kodak, Fedex, Coca-Cola, Nike, L’Oreal, Wal-Mart, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, Google, General Electric, Walt Disney, ConAgra Foods, Wells Fargo, DuPont, Delta, Swiss Re, Munich Re, American Economic Association, World Coal Association, World Bank, IMF, Henry M. Paulson Jr. (a former Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration), Arthur B. Laffer (senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan), George Schultz (Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State), N Gregory Mankiw (Harvard economist who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign), Douglas Holtz-Eakin (chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and economic adviser to John McCain’s campaign), and of course 97%+ of climate scientists and 100% of the world’s national scientific organizations?

If anything the fact that I’m pro-nuclear should enhance my credibility since I’m obviously not some environmentalist whacko. Sure there are tree-hugging hippies that try to block dams because of an endangered nematode or wind turbines because of pigeon migration. I’m not worried about nematodes and pigeons. I’m worried for my countries and the human race.
Click to expand...

Yes AGWians. You and your kind are becoming a religion.

You're not too worried about your country being that you support a Global carbon tax that in reality only the US and western Europe will enforce on it's citizens.
 
#2,385
#2,385
BartW said:
Haha did we? I thought we might have that's why I asked earlier. I'm bad at names and faces but I thought I remembered a reeves. Zach?
Click to expand...

yep. we had geophysics together and planetary and possibly structure, sed/strat and paleo as well. i graduated the year before you did though
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,386
#2,386
hog88 said:
Yes AGWians. You and your kind are becoming a religion.

You're not too worried about your country being that you support a Global carbon tax that in reality only the US and western Europe will enforce on it's citizens.
Click to expand...

All those companies are in on the conspiracy to destroy our economy (and themselves) eh? All those high-ranking conservative politicians are undercover democrats? Do you people realize how ridiculous this conspiracy theory is? 9/11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are more believable

Many countries around the world already have carbon taxes. And not just in Europe. Carbon taxes are a fiscally conservative market based solution to climate change. The only big players really dragging their feet are the US, China, and Russia. The uninformed far right screams OMG NO TAXES, but we can cut taxes elsewhere :)machgun: income tax). Why tax something good when you can tax something bad?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,388
#2,388
I'm struggling to see how taxing something you don't like is a fiscally conservative market based approach. As long as people have no choice where their electricity comes from, I'm not sure there is a market based approach to the green energy cost problems.
 
#2,389
#2,389
BartW said:
Many countries around the world already have carbon taxes. And not just in Europe. Carbon taxes are a fiscally conservative market based solution to climate change. The only big players really dragging their feet are the US, China, and Russia. The uninformed far right screams OMG NO TAXES, but we can cut taxes elsewhere :)machgun: income tax). Why tax something good when you can tax something bad?
Click to expand...

eventually all the taxes add up and citizens can't afford much of anything. All you're doing is placing a bigger burden on an already shrinking middle-class. What is the alternative if I want to avoid these carbon taxes?
 
#2,390
#2,390
utvolpj said:
eventually all the taxes add up and citizens can't afford much of anything. All you're doing is placing a bigger burden on an already shrinking middle-class. What is the alternative if I want to avoid these carbon taxes?
Click to expand...

A good alternative is a few billion people starve or freeze;, there will be less pollution, less demand for natural resources, and a decrease in CO2. It is better for mother Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,391
#2,391
So nobody here knows what a carbon tax is, how it works, and what the implications are? No real surprise considering yall deny the validity of basic scientific fields such as spectroscopy.

I thought maybe pointing out how many big businesses (including big oil), economists, and conservative politicians support carbon taxes would encourage the uninformed here to research it for themselves. Instead, as I should have expected, the die-hard republicans can’t get past the word “tax”.

The carbon tax is a fiscally conservative approach. Instead of the government regulating emissions and choosing winners and losers in alternative energy, it encourages businesses and individuals to reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and divest from fossil fuels. A carbon tax, as opposed to regulation, will save $$$ of wasteful government spending on the EPA. A carbon tax is revenue-neutral. It will eliminate existing taxes. Instead of taxing good things like labor, wages, and profits, we tax a bad thing – pollution.

Just up the road in BC there’s been a $30/ton carbon tax since 2007, which is on the high end of what’s being proposed here. BC’s GDP has outpaced the rest of Canada and polling of businesses and citizens shows overwhelming support.

If you have a better solution let’s hear it. Sticking our heads in the sand is not a solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,392
#2,392
It's simple logic really. In order to encourage green energy production, i.e. make expensive technologies more economically competitive, you are forcing carbon producers to purchase credits, or taxing them for carbon. It's not revenue neutral, or whatever you want to call it. There's no way to subsidize one technology without "taxing" somebody for it.

And that's always going to cost the economy something. How much depends on how noncompetitive does it make you, and how much is it costing to subsidize the other technologies. You can wrap it in whatever playbook you want, but as long as green technologies are expensive (and they are), it's going to cost someone. It can't be cost neutral to everyone.

And carbon credits might not be regulation, but it's still government interference, and there's always some kind overhead that's more than it should be when dealing with the government.

As a nuclear guy (also expensive), nobody is more pro carbon credit than I am. It really might be the best solution (carbon credits) IF...big IF, the long term is environmental catastrophe. But I know it's not free.

And as far as big oil, just a quick google search gives the impression they don't support it, just see it as a likely occurrence and are planning accordingly. Just smart business. And I know coal doesn't support it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca...factors-carbon-tax-into-business-planning.ece

Also your first sentence is highly prickish. Hopefully, one day, you get away from colleges or research labs and realize that stuff like this...
The carbon tax is a fiscally conservative approach. Instead of the government regulating emissions and choosing winners and losers in alternative energy, it encourages businesses and individuals to reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and divest from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

...and this...

It will eliminate existing taxes. Instead of taxing good things like labor, wages, and profits, we tax a bad thing – pollution.
Click to expand...

Are contradictory, and stupid. You are picking winners and losers. You are taxing, which will require regulation.

And it's not conservative. A conservative approach would be a smart grid, as well as some sort of trade-off of baseload and intermittent power sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,393
#2,393
BartW said:
Just up the road in BC there’s been a $30/ton carbon tax since 2007, which is on the high end of what’s being proposed here. BC’s GDP has outpaced the rest of Canada and polling of businesses and citizens shows overwhelming support.
Click to expand...

not everyone has access to hydro power like BC to offset the effects
 
#2,394
#2,394
BartW said:
So nobody here knows what a carbon tax is, how it works, and what the implications are? No real surprise considering yall deny the validity of basic scientific fields such as spectroscopy.

I thought maybe pointing out how many big businesses (including big oil), economists, and conservative politicians support carbon taxes would encourage the uninformed here to research it for themselves. Instead, as I should have expected, the die-hard republicans can’t get past the word “tax”.

The carbon tax is a fiscally conservative approach. Instead of the government regulating emissions and choosing winners and losers in alternative energy, it encourages businesses and individuals to reduce consumption, increase efficiency, and divest from fossil fuels. A carbon tax, as opposed to regulation, will save $$$ of wasteful government spending on the EPA. A carbon tax is revenue-neutral. It will eliminate existing taxes. Instead of taxing good things like labor, wages, and profits, we tax a bad thing – pollution.

Just up the road in BC there’s been a $30/ton carbon tax since 2007, which is on the high end of what’s being proposed here. BC’s GDP has outpaced the rest of Canada and polling of businesses and citizens shows overwhelming support.

If you have a better solution let’s hear it. Sticking our heads in the sand is not a solution.
Click to expand...

Now you're starting to sound like utgibbs. Next you're going to tell us that UT football is a socialist institution and kettle chips damage your gums and that you prefer Pringles.
 
#2,395
#2,395
Weezy said:
It's simple logic really. In order to encourage green energy production, i.e. make expensive technologies more economically competitive, you are forcing carbon producers to purchase credits, or taxing them for carbon. It's not revenue neutral, or whatever you want to call it. There's no way to subsidize one technology without "taxing" somebody for it.

And that's always going to cost the economy something. How much depends on how noncompetitive does it make you, and how much is it costing to subsidize the other technologies. You can wrap it in whatever playbook you want, but as long as green technologies are expensive (and they are), it's going to cost someone. It can't be cost neutral to everyone.

And carbon credits might not be regulation, but it's still government interference, and there's always some kind overhead that's more than it should be when dealing with the government.

As a nuclear guy (also expensive), nobody is more pro carbon credit than I am. It really might be the best solution (carbon credits) IF...big IF, the long term is environmental catastrophe. But I know it's not free.
Click to expand...

Carbon credits and carbon taxes aren't the same thing. Carbon taxes will be revenue neutral, meaning the government isn’t raising taxes to make money. It’s changing taxes to change our priorities. Instead of taxing you for how much money you make, they’ll tax you based on how much fossil fuels you buy, sell, or combust. The government takes the same amount of pie, but people and businesses are monetarily encouraged to reduce their carbon footprint.

Weezy said:
And as far as big oil, just a quick google search gives the impression they don't support it, just see it as a likely occurrence and are planning accordingly. Just smart business. And I know coal doesn't support it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca...factors-carbon-tax-into-business-planning.ece
Click to expand...

Big oil would not be incorporating carbon taxes into their future if they didn’t KNOW global warming is real and political action on climate change is inevitable. They simply believe, like all the high-ranking conservative politicians and economists I’ve mentioned, that carbon taxes are the most sensible and likely political action. Businesses prefer carbon taxes to every alternative. They’re already being implemented around the world and even locally here in America. It’s just a matter of time. The only question is how long will we drag our feet? How much long-term damage are we going to cause before we get serious?

Btw I linked the same article earlier. From that article:

Today, Exxon acknowledges that carbon pollution from fossil fuels contributes to climate change.

“Ultimately, we think the government will take action through a myriad of policies that will raise the prices and reduce demand” of carbon-polluting fossil fuels, said Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman.

Exxon now plans its financial future with the expectation that eventually carbon pollution will be priced at about $60 a ton, which Jeffers acknowledged was at odds with some of the company’s Republican friends.

“We’re going to say and do what’s in the best interest of our shareholders,” Jeffers said. “We won’t always be on the same page.”

It remains unlikely that any climate policy will move in today’s deadlocked Congress. But if Congress does take up climate change legislation in the future, Jeffers said, Exxon would support a carbon tax if it were paired with an equal cut elsewhere in the tax code — the same policy that former Vice President Al Gore has endorsed."

Weezy said:
Also your first sentence is highly prickish. Hopefully, one day, you get away from colleges or research labs and realize that stuff like this...

...and this...

Are contradictory, and stupid. You are picking winners and losers. You are taxing, which will require regulation.

And it's not conservative. A conservative approach would be a smart grid, as well as some sort of trade-off of baseload and intermittent power sources.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension… the government will not pick winners and losers in the alternative energy industries. Of course fossil fuels are the ultimate loser. That’s inevitable.

Please do expand on your conservative approach to curbing CO2 emissions.
 
Last edited:
#2,396
#2,396
utvolpj said:
not everyone has access to hydro power like BC to offset the effects
Click to expand...

Fair point. Like I've said I'm pro-hydro and pro-nuclear. There are still lots of countries successfully implementing carbon taxes that don't have the geography necessary for hydropower.
 
#2,397
#2,397
MG1968 said:
Now you're starting to sound like utgibbs. Next you're going to tell us that UT football is a socialist institution and kettle chips damage your gums and that you prefer Pringles.
Click to expand...

I thought y'all were accusing UT of being a socialist institution? It's a bunch of socialist scientists who are in on the global conspiracy right?

Kettle chips are my jam
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,400
#2,400
BartW said:
Carbon credits and carbon taxes aren't the same thing. Carbon taxes will be revenue neutral, meaning the government isn’t raising taxes to make money. It’s changing taxes to change our priorities. Instead of taxing you for how much money you make, they’ll tax you based on how much fossil fuels you buy, sell, or combust. The government takes the same amount of pie, but people and businesses are monetarily encouraged to reduce their carbon footprint.



Big oil would not be incorporating carbon taxes into their future if they didn’t KNOW global warming is real and political action on climate change is inevitable. They simply believe, like all the high-ranking conservative politicians and economists I’ve mentioned, that carbon taxes are the most sensible and likely political action. Businesses prefer carbon taxes to every alternative. They’re already being implemented around the world and even locally here in America. It’s just a matter of time. The only question is how long will we drag our feet? How much long-term damage are we going to cause before we get serious?

Btw I linked the same article earlier. From that article:

Today, Exxon acknowledges that carbon pollution from fossil fuels contributes to climate change.

“Ultimately, we think the government will take action through a myriad of policies that will raise the prices and reduce demand” of carbon-polluting fossil fuels, said Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman.

Exxon now plans its financial future with the expectation that eventually carbon pollution will be priced at about $60 a ton, which Jeffers acknowledged was at odds with some of the company’s Republican friends.

“We’re going to say and do what’s in the best interest of our shareholders,” Jeffers said. “We won’t always be on the same page.”

It remains unlikely that any climate policy will move in today’s deadlocked Congress. But if Congress does take up climate change legislation in the future, Jeffers said, Exxon would support a carbon tax if it were paired with an equal cut elsewhere in the tax code — the same policy that former Vice President Al Gore has endorsed."



Reading comprehension… the government will not pick winners and losers in the alternative energy industries. Of course fossil fuels are the ultimate loser. That’s inevitable.

Please do expand on your conservative approach to curbing CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...

Revenue neutral, huh? Allow me to educate you. Taxes are passed on to the consumer. There's no such as a corporate income tax, even though there is a corporate income tax. How? Those taxes are passed on to the consumer and shareholder. They actually pay the taxes. With a carbon "tax," we'll simply have much higher energy prices rather than an "incentive" (another government mandate) to lower our consumption of carbon-based energy. A carbon tax will do nothing more than raise the cost of living for the poor and the middle class. Coal gives us cheap, efficient energy. That's why the market demands it. Australia tried it and the Labor Party paid a heavy price for it. I hear those left-wing idiots are looking for new jobs.

Got it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top