I hate caving to them by using words like "clean" or coming up with ways to assist like a carbon tax. The best question that they wont answer is "After we spend trillions of dollars, either by collecting money as a carbon tax or transitioning to unreliable types of energy...HOW MUCH WILL IT LOWER THE EARTHS TEMP?" The whole thing is an idiotic scam.
Don’t forget geothermal. They’re using fracking industry technology for new purposes.
And while I agree carbon tax isn’t great, one area where users should pay more and more directly is for road usage. Gas taxes for ICE cars. Mileage taxes for electric vehicles. Congestion pricing for places like Manhattan.
A carbon tax will not work for the main reason that carbon based fuels are vastly superior to all others. Even if you want to make the argument that a superior fuel exists, taxing carbon fails because carbon based fuels are still good. The tax creates an inherent inefficiency and there is no way to get around this fact.
Appreciate that I am differentiating between a tax on the commerce of carbon fuels and a tax on the chemical state of carbon fuels. May we vigorously debate the merits of taxes on the production and consumption of carbon fuels. But to tax "carbon" elevates an ideology that invites economic destruction.
The western world has created a bizarre religion where "carbon" is the devil. And by religion, I am identifying a belief system that is based solely on imagined preferences of good and bad, right and wrong. In the name of this religion, horribly inefficient policies are being implemented with the result of less prosperity and eventually poverty. I wish the Western world realize this sooner than later.
IDK, a guy who recently passed away did pretty well for himself by listening to Johnny Cochran. Nvm, wrong Cochran.😄
There's got to be an arbitrage trade in there somewhere between the tax and carbon futures, so let's reincarnate Doc Sandor.
I think as long as we're open-minded about small percentage improvements from alternative energy sources, instead of absolutes, the exponential impact on the world's population could be significant. If we get(and I have no idea what the current numbers are in real time) 1% of our energy from wind and two percent from hydropower, and 3% from geothermal, etc., that can all make an impact in different areas of the world where different applications are more feasible. Different regions of the planet will find it more beneficial to use certain alternative energy sources than other areas. However, until China and India buy into this, the whole idea of a carbon tax is ridiculous. An argument can be made, even though it's a silly argument, and unlikely to work, that getting a group of Nations together to try to implement some type of policy like that (which has been tried before and resulted in more pontification and postulating and theorizing than bringing about positive results) to try to put pressure on China and India could eventually bring about a change in the way they do things over a decade's time, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Eventually China and India will do something, because it's to their benefit, not ours.
There is another really high reason to increase efficient supply of energy as a critical driver. Saving lives has been so much higher if you look at climate deaths. WIth Electricity, less people die whether its due to air conditioning from heat exhaustion, or heat that reduces impact of cold weather.
While we focus on energy creation alternatives, nothing is more efficient, with greater geographic reach than our current infrastructure of nuclear, fossil, or hybrid co-gen. And options like batteries, wind, and solar with limited lifecycles, add to the negative sides of climate challenges and increased toxic trash in our earth and water. doesn't make sense.
I hate caving to them by using words like "clean" or coming up with ways to assist like a carbon tax. The best question that they wont answer is "After we spend trillions of dollars, either by collecting money as a carbon tax or transitioning to unreliable types of energy...HOW MUCH WILL IT LOWER THE EARTHS TEMP?" The whole thing is an idiotic scam.
Don’t forget geothermal. They’re using fracking industry technology for new purposes.
And while I agree carbon tax isn’t great, one area where users should pay more and more directly is for road usage. Gas taxes for ICE cars. Mileage taxes for electric vehicles. Congestion pricing for places like Manhattan.
A carbon tax will not work for the main reason that carbon based fuels are vastly superior to all others. Even if you want to make the argument that a superior fuel exists, taxing carbon fails because carbon based fuels are still good. The tax creates an inherent inefficiency and there is no way to get around this fact.
Appreciate that I am differentiating between a tax on the commerce of carbon fuels and a tax on the chemical state of carbon fuels. May we vigorously debate the merits of taxes on the production and consumption of carbon fuels. But to tax "carbon" elevates an ideology that invites economic destruction.
The western world has created a bizarre religion where "carbon" is the devil. And by religion, I am identifying a belief system that is based solely on imagined preferences of good and bad, right and wrong. In the name of this religion, horribly inefficient policies are being implemented with the result of less prosperity and eventually poverty. I wish the Western world realize this sooner than later.
WE ARE the carbon that the global warmening freaks want to eliminate. Every forest fire and every volcano emit more carbon dioxide that industry does.
And THE SUN controls the Earth's temperature; CO2 has a very tiny influence.
I appreciate challenge, you present, to re-learn concepts that are present - though often overlooked - in our daily life.
IDK, a guy who recently passed away did pretty well for himself by listening to Johnny Cochran. Nvm, wrong Cochran.😄
There's got to be an arbitrage trade in there somewhere between the tax and carbon futures, so let's reincarnate Doc Sandor.
I think as long as we're open-minded about small percentage improvements from alternative energy sources, instead of absolutes, the exponential impact on the world's population could be significant. If we get(and I have no idea what the current numbers are in real time) 1% of our energy from wind and two percent from hydropower, and 3% from geothermal, etc., that can all make an impact in different areas of the world where different applications are more feasible. Different regions of the planet will find it more beneficial to use certain alternative energy sources than other areas. However, until China and India buy into this, the whole idea of a carbon tax is ridiculous. An argument can be made, even though it's a silly argument, and unlikely to work, that getting a group of Nations together to try to implement some type of policy like that (which has been tried before and resulted in more pontification and postulating and theorizing than bringing about positive results) to try to put pressure on China and India could eventually bring about a change in the way they do things over a decade's time, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Eventually China and India will do something, because it's to their benefit, not ours.
@jeffreycarter you really make sense.
There is another really high reason to increase efficient supply of energy as a critical driver. Saving lives has been so much higher if you look at climate deaths. WIth Electricity, less people die whether its due to air conditioning from heat exhaustion, or heat that reduces impact of cold weather.
While we focus on energy creation alternatives, nothing is more efficient, with greater geographic reach than our current infrastructure of nuclear, fossil, or hybrid co-gen. And options like batteries, wind, and solar with limited lifecycles, add to the negative sides of climate challenges and increased toxic trash in our earth and water. doesn't make sense.
Taxes are theft. Communists are thieves. Therefore taxes are communist. It’s simple logic!