Climate Cliff

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lots of people are fools. But that doesn't automatically make everything they say wrong. Many fools pass on wisdom from others that is not necessarily foolish. If you are forced to attack the speaker (and his wife) it suggests you can't attack the argument, and worse, that you have a hidden motive for attacking the argument that you cannot disclose.
The ...[text shortened]... (if they were supported by well placed taxes), I believe it would ultimately help our economy.

Ok well you're assigning me too much importance. The "cannot disclose" - nothing I can or can't disclose is consequential. I happen to believe climate change is real, but there's an awful lot left to be determined, and by the way, world fossil fuel consumption is going to skyrocket by 2050. We're all in this together, just some of us are more screwed than others.

Originally posted by sh76
Why tax nuclear? If you're worried about safety, ban it. Otherwise, encourage it. I don't get what taxing it and thus depressing the economy by taxing every consistent reliable and cheap producer of energy will accomplish.

I am less worried about safety and more worried about long term costs. I suspect that nuclear is currently being subsidised.
I would not go for an all out ban partly because most countries (that currently have nuclear) cannot afford to do so and partly because I am not entirely against nuclear.
I am not suggesting taxing 'every reliable cheap producer of energy'. I am suggesting encouraging energy that is better for us in the long term. It is stupid to call carbon based energy 'cheap' when you are subsidizing it and ignoring the long term costs.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Ok well you're assigning me too much importance. The "cannot disclose" - nothing I can or can't disclose is consequential.

What do you mean by 'consequential'? Of course its consequential to why you take a certain stance - which is what I was interested in.

I happen to believe climate change is real, but there's an awful lot left to be determined, and by the way, world fossil fuel consumption is going to skyrocket by 2050. We're all in this together, just some of us are more screwed than others.
So your attitude is merely a defeatist attitude and since your dead already, you might as well enjoy yourself while you can and avoid carbon taxes? Even though the OP clearly states that unless you are in the energy business, carbon taxes will not actually affect you?
Or is this all about following the party line?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What do you mean by 'consequential'? Of course its consequential to why you take a certain stance - which is what I was interested in.

[b]I happen to believe climate change is real, but there's an awful lot left to be determined, and by the way, world fossil fuel consumption is going to skyrocket by 2050. We're all in this together, just some of us ar ...[text shortened]... , carbon taxes will not actually affect you?
Or is this all about following the party line?

When you can figure out a way to get China to agree to your scheme, come back and talk to me. Until then you are spitting in the ocean.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I happen to believe climate change is real, but there's an awful lot left to be determined, and by the way, world fossil fuel consumption is going to skyrocket by 2050.

That's probably correct, but not necessarily inevitable.

See http://bytesdaily.blogspot.ca/2011/07/great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894.html for an interesting example of how extrapolating a current trend doesn't always accurately predict the future.