Tying carbon taxes to actual temperature measur...

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Well you could argue that no system would be "premptive" enough, other than a complete ban on CO2 emissions and the consequent shut down of industry which would be absurd (of course the greenies would like it until they got too cold and wanted to put the heater on).

I think the point of tying carbon taxes to actual temperature measurements is to establi ...[text shortened]... over such a scheme because they'd worry the temperature measurements would prove them wrong.

Not at all, I think most environmentalists would be in favour of this scheme.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Not at all, I think most environmentalists would be in favour of this scheme.

You mean most environmentalists would be in favour of shutting down industry completely to 'save the planet'? The sad thing is you're probably right! If the greenies had their way, we'd all be back living in caves eating nothing but veges. That is until they themselves realised that such a 'eutopian' existence wasn't so pleasant after all.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
You mean most environmentalists would be in favour of shutting down industry completely to 'save the planet'? The sad thing is you're probably right! If the greenies had their way, we'd all be back living in caves eating nothing but veges. That is until they themselves realised that such a 'eutopian' existence wasn't so pleasant after all.

I think you are right... with the belief that if nothing is done the planet will die... I guess you would do anything to stop it. Whether or not the planet is doomed... the idea of reducing toxic/disease/polluting practices is a very good one and should be supported within reason. I am generally against taxes of any kind, so I would not be in favor of this proposed one.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
You mean most environmentalists would be in favour of shutting down industry completely to 'save the planet'? The sad thing is you're probably right! If the greenies had their way, we'd all be back living in caves eating nothing but veges. That is until they themselves realised that such a 'eutopian' existence wasn't so pleasant after all.

Not at all. Contrary to what you seem to think, most environmentally minded people don't want the end of industry or some other such ludicrous strawman, all they want is polluting industries to clean up after themselves and take responsibility for their actions.

Most environmentalists would get behind any scheme which forces industry to clean up its own mess.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Nope.

I appreciate the answer.

How, then, do you know that your stance on global warning isn't a desperate attempt to find any scrap of evidence, no matter how unreasonable, that will allow you not to HAVE to change your lifestyle? You know, a bit like smokers desperately want to show that cigarettes have no health risks.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
You mean most environmentalists would be in favour of shutting down industry completely to 'save the planet'? The sad thing is you're probably right! If the greenies had their way, we'd all be back living in caves eating nothing but veges. That is until they themselves realised that such a 'eutopian' existence wasn't so pleasant after all.

Yes, all environmentalists think like that without exception. Polarising an opposing argument makes your opinion much more valid.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Well you could argue that no system would be "premptive" enough, other than a complete ban on CO2 emissions and the consequent shut down of industry which would be absurd (of course the greenies would like it until they got too cold and wanted to put the heater on).

I think the point of tying carbon taxes to actual temperature measurements is to establi ...[text shortened]... over such a scheme because they'd worry the temperature measurements would prove them wrong.

How's about making it essential for a company to be energy efficient to be viable? Who loses out,?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered.

Skeptics might like it because it allows them to sit back and do relatively nothing for a little while longer.
Alarmists (if that is the right word) would not like it because:
1. it allows the skeptics to sit back and do relatively nothing for a little while longer. If we are to achieve anything then the sooner the better. Waiting for another few degrees of warming before we do anything may be too late.
2. it is an false admission that there is a debate when the general position is one of "there is no doubt".
3. the skeptics base their results on political need and not on actual science so they will simply reject any findings that would result in a higher carbon tax.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Skeptics might like it because it allows them to sit back and do relatively nothing for a little while longer.
Alarmists (if that is the right word) would not like it because:
1. it allows the skeptics to sit back and do relatively nothing for a little while longer. If we are to achieve anything then the sooner the better. Waiting for another few degree ...[text shortened]... tual science so they will simply reject any findings that would result in a higher carbon tax.

Here's the reason so many uninformed alarmists have been hoodwinked by the media:

The people digging up ice cores are geologists. So geologists are the most likely to know the climate truth (ie., that AGW is a myth). But geologists also dig for fossil fuels and therefore the media are able to laugh them down for having conflicting interests.

A sad irony.