Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Global Warming: Cap and Trade
To me this seems like a bad idea. It either rewards past bad polluters or punishes industries that depend on coal. Why should the relatively poor pay higher electricity rates because someone believes C02 is bad? So here is your chance to propose a fair system for cap and trade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
All your premises are wrong, first of all the poor won't pay higher electricity rates, they already use very little electricity and the higher rates they might incur could be tax deductible or subsidized or free depending on how poor they are since they use so little electricity anyway. Second the only way we are going to go off coal and oil is too make it more expensive than alternatives short term, long term, 10 years or so, alternatives are cheaper than oil and coal even without a tax.... we only have a 10 year window to act otherwise it will be too late to stop global warming so common sense says we have to act now, third that "someone" who thinks CO2 is pollution is the entire scientific community, either you accept science or you reject science. If you reject science than by my standards you are not a rational person and not worth debating with.
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the physical systems or living organisms they are in.
C02 is produced by all animals, is needed by plants to grow.
Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere. It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs.
Scientist against Kyoto.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
"31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs"
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Petition.pdf
What I want to know is when you became concerned about the poor, Joe?
Always have been. But my philosophy is more of "teach a man to fish".
The science of the environment is all about equilibrium, balance, cooperation...sure CO2 is naturally occurring and even necessary to life but TOO MUCH of it destroys life that is the whole idea, its a question of quantity not quality. We are coming very close to the no return mark read
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/09
I don't think the nations of the world would waste their time on Kyoto if it were not a real problem confirmed by science... even your beloved Bush admits its real and man made.
Your "petition" signed by
31,072 American scientists states:
"Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States."
If you take all the oil engineers and all the people who work for oil companies in the US you will find millions who qualify to sign this petition including tens of thousands of PhDs, so obviously you will be able to find 40,000 "scientists" who have chemical engineering degrees, yet who know little about global warming, to sign a petition for fear of being fired if they don't!!! This is so obvious I'm surprised you didn't see it??? All the experts with the proper "environmental" science degrees , agree at 99% that global warming is serious, man made, and urgent to re mediate...you have been brainwashed again by big oil propaganda (this petition was financed by big oil) you are smarter than that don't let yourself be so easily fooled.
By the way if you believe teaching a man to fish is the best way to help the poor than I guess you you believe in free education including higher education worldwide for all, which would obviously have to be paid by taxes, you must also believe in free health care for all paid by taxes, because a person can't learn if he or she is suffering from hunger or illness...I am correct to assume you believe in free health care and higher education paid for by taxes by the rich for the poor?
First, he is not my "beloved" Bush. Just because I think he would have been better then Gore or Kerry, does not mean I agree with him. Unlike the follows of Obama, I don't think he walks on water.
Second Kyoto was soundly (99-0) rejected by the Senate.
The world waste time on Kyoto for many different reasons. It wastes it times on Ali, Jordan, Soccer, Madonna and Brittany Spears. What the world wastes it time on doesn't change the facts.
There is no such thing as free health care, someone has to pay for it. And not everyone needs a college education. The poor need the ability to earn. They need an incentive to make the right choices in life. Not to use drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. An incentive to save for the future instead of living for today.
You say, "An incentive to save for the future instead of living for today."
I say what future? You can't SAVE what you don't have to begin with.
Most poor (in the U.S) are not so poor that have to spend every penny. But they have incentives to do just that. The government will not help you if you have savings. That also discourages them from working extra jobs. It also prevents them from working for less than minimum wage. There are occupancy laws that prevent multiple families sharing a home.
A person starting a business often works 80 to 120 hours a week. That often would be less than the minimum wage, but they do it in expectation of future gains. The poor often don't have the expectation of future gains, so there is less reason to sacrifice today.
Consider how many poor people smoke. If the saved just $10 a week, that would be $520 a year. They spend it alcohol, lottery tickets, movie tickets, $100 sneakers.
Native American's have a saying " Do not judge a man until walked a mile in his moccasins." So until you have worked two jobs just to barely eat, keep a roof over your child's head, and shoes (NOT $100 sneakers but corrective shoes for a birth defect) on their feet then don't tell me about what the poor should do.
Post a Comment