Brandon716
Senior Member
Gee, I only intend on making the Toronto area my home in the longer term. Of course I find Canadian issues of interest.
You are missing the point. First off, what will taxing carbon (fuel) actually do? Will it suddenly make all cars, transportation and travel go away? How much of a percentage drop in consumption will be brought about by such a tax? Probably not much, as there is no alternative to these fuels.
- No, it wont make all those things go away, but it will make people rethink their current choices and in some cases, people will walk or bike to get around, some people will rely more on public transit, and some people will say it doesnt matter because they have money to burn.
What actual problem will this tax supposedly solve? If you mean carbon dioxide emissions, most of carbon dioxide emissions are natural. Human additions are a tiny fraction of the total carbon dioxide that cycles through ecosystem. And how do you know that this carbon dioxide is so dangerous? Look around you. Anything that is green lives because of carbon dioxide. You are alive because of carbon dioxide. Water vapour is the most prominent infrared absorber in the atmosphere - by far. Maybe we should all stop boiling water, too.
- This is simply absurd. I have had to reread this paragraph a couple of times because I cant believe the ignorance in it. 3000 + of the worlds leading scientists have peer reviewed much of the science that has been done for the IPCC. These scientists, whose only loyalties are to science (and who are not on the payroll of some oil and gas company). The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 150 years has grown from 280ppm in 1850 to 380 ppm now, and quickly approaching 400ppm, which is the 'tipping point' that many of the same scientists warn us about.
The point is that this tax solves no actual problems. It only makes things more expensive since this tax will be applied to energy usage. That energy use is necessary to things such as the production of goods, the transport of food, getting people to work, and so on. You are neglecting this point. Your life is made good by cheap energy.
- And our world is being ruined by cheap energy. We need to bring fuels in line with their true costs. Each litre of gas burned is contributing to climate change. Charge people for it and all of a sudden there will be many many people and companies trying to find ways to reduce co2 emissions in all types of day-to-day type activities and processes. This tax, coupled with some other good measures (interest free green renovation loans, incentives and grants and such) and policy mechanisms can be very effective..
Based on historical study, there is clear evidence that previous variations in globally averaged temperature have been far more significant than what has been (supposedly) observed over the last century. This is true not only over thousands or years, but hundreds of years as well. We can call that earlier variation "natural" if you wish. Because this is so, there is no way to distinguish whether the averaged 0.6C increase in globally averaged temperature is any different from natural changes. That being said, this noted temperature shift falls well within the variability in global temperature over the last four thousand years. It was warmer before that.
For instance, when the planet was first formed, born, whatever, the atmosphere was almost 100% carbon dioxide.
The point is that our atmosphere is in a delicate balance and we do not know what will happen if we continue to add to this imbalance...
It's estimated that 1,000 years ago the average global temperature was as warm if not warmer than it is today, during the Medieval Warm Period. Wine grapes were grown in England, grain crops flourished across Europe and the population of that continent doubled. There is no record of massive extinctions, extreme weather or starvation. Even the Polar Bears managed to ride it out.
- And what were the average temperature at the time? 1 or 2 degrees may not make a big difference, but in most cases, when the average temperature was +/- 5 degrees from where it is now, conditions on the planet were quite different.
Is it not possible for you to think that what you are hearing about is a natural cycle? There is considerable evidence to support this idea. And a 0.6C temperature rise over 100 years (with plenty of variability within that time period) falls well with the +2.5C to -2.5C variation in the mean temperature over the last 6,000 years. Over the longer term, there is nothing unusual happening.
- It is a fact that our cars emit carbon dioxide, and that our industries are spewing out carbon dioxide, methane, etc, at an alarming rate. How can you possibly say that this has no consequence on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Sure there have been natural variations over the last 100,000 or even million years, but never, ever before in our worlds history have we had mankind artificially increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as we are now. You openly state that there have been natural variations in the average global temperature, so how can you not agree that us increasing the concentration in the air will have an effect.
Every action has a reaction, and manmade climate change is a result of our thirst for fossil fuels and inefficiency.
And now the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is 385 parts per million - one of the lowest measured levels of the last 500 million years.
- Again, show me a timeline from a reputed source that charts that last 500,000,000 years, and shows co2 concentrations (ppm) against the activity and level of life on the earth. Sure it may be low from a 500 million year perspective, but life hasn't flourished on earth during that entire period. When levels increased to a certain point and beyond, (450 - 500 ppm) life would become increasingly difficult. This is of course, not to mention that these natural variations you speak of took thousands of years in most cases, allowing species to adapt towards changes, whereas we have begun to make these changes take place in less than 150 years.
Nevertheless, if you feel a need or desire to change your habits and lifestyle, go right ahead. Just don't do it on the basis of a presumption that there is anything radically different or wrong with the global climate today.
- Even then, why not get off oil and move to cleaner technologies? I don't particularly like polluted air, nor do I like the stranglehold that oil companies have on us. I would also like to think that we, as highly intellectual beings, would at least have the brains to use our resources efficiently and not as wasteful as we are today, at least, and especially, here in North America.
How can you possibly say that this has no consequence on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Even then, why not get off oil and move to cleaner technologies?
Sorry brother, I have enough respect for you as I usually enjoy your posts and feedback, but on this issue I don' think we will see eye-to-eye.
I cannot be swayed from my belief that climate change is real and that we are the culprits. Let our kids duke it one day![]()
He uses psuedo-science to try and prove his claims, especially when he claims that there is more CO2 in earth's past than today when you look at the overall picture.
Its that simple, and its a proven greenhouse gas. Everything he's presented on here is psuedo science
from his claim that there is massively more frozen ice (not true) than in decades past
You don't cherry pick the evidence and present what you want to make a pre-determined conclusion, that's called hack science and its really all that hydrogen offers.
Most of us admit that we don't know everything about climate change and global warming, but we do know several facts he's trying to dispute and he uses the fact that we don't know everything to create some fake doubt that global warming even exists.
I think that's the most honest thing I've heard any of the GW/ClimChange folks say. If other people here would be as honest to just say that no matter what anyone says or shows me, my belief can not be changed, then we'd avoid a lot of pointless debate.I cannot be swayed from my belief that climate change is real and that we are the culprits.