:shrug: The data. I see the cyclical nature of it. You don't? Let's say we stopped all CO2 emissions, mmmkay? According to the historical data, the temperature and CO2 will still climb. Thus, I conclude our activities are irrelevant.
Non CO2 producing energy already provides 16% of our energy today. So this very expensive subsidy plan would ~double that percent, and take 40 years to do it, but that wouldn't even make a small dent in our CO2 production. Why? Because our population will be nearly 50% larger than it is today in 2050. So even doubling the amount of energy that is produced by CO2 less methods won't actually do much to decrease our overall CO2 production. And this slight reduction in the US means nothing if China and India and the rest of the ~9 billion people on the planet by 2050 keep increasing their energy use and CO2 production. The idea that America and the EU can unilaterallly do that much about the total global CO2 production doesn't hold water. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...arbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data Arthur
Sorry you didn't understand it. If you like I can use simpler words: People like to buy cheap stuff. If clean stuff is cheaper, then more people will buy cleaner stuff.
Yes but you just arbitrarily made the Hyundai so much more expensive than the LEAF. The fact is the reverse is true, the Hyundai is far cheaper than the LEAF (about half) even with a HUGE govt subsidy.
Ah we are talking about the next 100 years or so. That chart has cycles that are about 100,000+ years long. Using that chart to discuss implications to the climate of the current century is stupid. Arthur
Yes, that's the point. A carbon tax artificially inflates the price of engines that emit CO2. You can do it via a tax on the engine, or on the vehicle, or on the fuel, or on actual gas emitted, or a combination of all four.
And we get the Chinese to not buy more cars and generate more electricity from coal, how exactly? And we get the world to not add 2 billion people more, how exactly?
Nah, that's not anyone's idea of a carbon tax, because I could buy a Hyundai and drive it 5,000 miles a year or 25,000 miles a year. Not to mention you would simply make everyone keep rebuilding their existing car engines if you added such a huge tax to a new car.
Simple math huh? Show me. I'm not so sure. That is the conventional wisdom. I see we have proved correlation, but not conclusively causation. However, we do know that there is definately a causation with water vapor, I will give you that. Oh we have have we? It's increased? So it has necessarily been due to us? Or you have some evidence that we caused it? Or just that there has been a definite measurable increase since we've been involved in industry? Guess that all that increase must all be due to our activities, right? Learn the difference between causation and correlation. It seems scientists the world over have forgotten the difference.
Right. You can do that in any case. But if there were a purchase tax and a fuel tax, you would have an incentive to buy something else - or to drive it less. That's the good thing about economic incentives. You can still do whatever you like, you just pay more for certain activities. A fuel tax would encourage them to not do so, although they could still do that if they chose to.
Actually yes, it has been proved. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Again, that's not anyone's idea of a Carbon tax but yours. A carbon tax is an environmental tax levied on the carbon content of fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
No it's not. To say not to worry about the next 100 years because of a natural 100,000+ year cycle though is just dumb. Arthur
