carbon tax

digme

Scientists drill through 2 kilometers of Greenland ice, find butterflies & lush forests

I hope to god our newly elected government will get rid of this idiotic carbon tax introduced by the Greens .

RobbieTheRobber

What is this?

Max Power1

While an interesting topic, I fail to see the relevance in a politics forum.

Besides, everyone knows that the "carbon tax" is in reality just another pseudo-green initiative which is in reality another money grabbing tax. If they got rid of the carbon tax it would be replaced with something else anyway.

RichardAnd

Carbon tax has nothing to do with saving planet earth. It's just another way to get more tax out of people.

Scofflaw

Get used to it, people. The science is at the 'refining the picture' stage, no matter how many anti-science blogs engage in wishful thinking. These little clutches at straws don't mean anything.

And yes, that means that a lot of the next half-century will be coloured by the ongoing effects of the effort to mitigate and adapt to climate change. If nay-sayers are lucky enough to be unsuccessful in their efforts to derail the processes involved, they may not be called upon to do anything bar put their hands in their pockets. Believe it or not, that will represent a happy outcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Is that your answer to everything Scofflaw?

NAMA == suck it up, and pay up
more debt == suck it up, and pay up
increase corpo tax == suck it up, and pay up
carbon tax == suck it up, and pay up


This a politics forum, thankfully we in Ireland still have some sort of freedom to discuss political matters and more importantly question political decisions including taxation and vote on them when time comes.

If we didn't, then this country would be no different than China or Libya.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Is that your answer to everything Scofflaw?

NAMA == suck it up, and pay up
more debt == suck it up, and pay up
increase corpo tax == suck it up, and pay up
carbon tax == suck it up, and pay up


This a politics forum, thankfully we in Ireland still have some sort of freedom to discuss political matters and more importantly question political decisions including taxation and vote on them when time comes.

If we didn't, then this country would be no different than China or Libya.

I'll thank you not to grossly misrepresent my viewpoint - I have not supported NAMA, debt increases, or CT raises. I have only opposed certain stupid or evidence-free arguments against them - which admittedly has led me into opposing your position from time to time.

You cannot avoid paying for climate change mitigation/adaptation, because it will have costs. Those costs have to be met somehow - you can no more avoid them than you can avoid increased oil costs as a result of peak oil.

regards,
Scofflaw

RichardAnd

Scofflaw wrote: »

Get used to it, people. The science is at the 'refining the picture' stage, no matter how many anti-science blogs engage in wishful thinking. These little clutches at straws don't mean anything.

And yes, that means that a lot of the next half-century will be coloured by the ongoing effects of the effort to mitigate and adapt to climate change. If nay-sayers are lucky enough to be unsuccessful in their efforts to derail the processes involved, they may not be called upon to do anything bar put their hands in their pockets. Believe it or not, that will represent a happy outcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have no doubt that climate change is real what I have issue with is the popular mantra that humans are causing it. The earth's climate changed on its own long before we were here and does so in cycles lasting a few hundred years.

Ever heard of the medieval warm peroid or the little ice age? Google both and you'll find considerable information on each.

Regardless of what Green Nazis and greedy politicians say, putting wild amounts of tax on fuel will not reverse what the earth has done for billions of years.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

You cannot avoid paying for climate change mitigation/adaptation, because it will have costs. Those costs have to be met somehow

It is very debatable that these costs have to be met now at a time when the country is on brink of default and needs the economy to recover in order to payback the debts incurred.

Scofflaw wrote: »

you can no more avoid them than you can avoid increased oil costs as a result of peak oil.

Your assumption of ever rising oil prices is no different than the fallacy that this country faced during the bubble, that of "house prices ever go up, they are not making anymore land you know".

The current rises in oil are based on speculation like 2008 and political upheaval, not the end of oil, even when oil ends you are assuming that economies wont switch to alternates of all sorts such as gas, electric from any sources and coal. Stone age didnt end because they ran out of stones. Other energy sources exist and can be used if oil ever gets to expensive due to supply constraints.

Scofflaw

RichardAnd wrote: »

I have no doubt that climate change is real what I have issue with is the popular mantra that humans are causing it. The earth's climate changed on its own long before we were here and does so in cycles lasting a few hundred years.

Ever heard of the medieval warm peroid or the little ice age? Google both and you'll find considerable information on each.

Regardless of what Green Nazis and greedy politicians say, putting wild amounts of tax on fuel will not reverse what the earth has done for billions of years.

Yes, I'm aware that people think like that, and I would expect most objectors to a carbon tax to do so - but having spent the last 20+ years following the science, and having degrees in relevant fields, I don't really need to use Google to be aware of the misinformation and inaccurate rubbish available on the topic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It is very debatable that these costs have to be met now at a time when the country is on brink of default and needs the economy to recover in order to payback the debts incurred.

I'm sure the 4c/litre that's notionally 'carbon tax' rather than excise will make all the difference!

Sadly, the costs do have to be met now, because they have, very stupidly, not been met during the preceding extended period of prosperity - largely because of well-orchestrated campaigns of anti-science by vested interests - while the situation has continued to deteriorate.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Your assumption of ever rising oil prices is no different than the fallacy that this country faced during the bubble, that of "house prices ever go up, they are not making anymore land you know".

The current rises in oil are based on speculation like 2008 and political upheaval, not the end of oil

Yes, I know. I've pointed out elsewhere that oil prices are not directly coupled to remaining reserves, but to supply - so in the short term respond primarily to supply shocks. In the longer term, baseline prices will rise, as more cheaply exploitable sources are exhausted - something I'm sure you're aware of.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

, even when oil ends you are assuming that economies wont switch to alternates of all sorts such as gas, electric from any sources and coal. Stone age didnt end because they ran out of stones. Other energy sources exist and can be used if oil ever gets to expensive due to supply constraints.

Sigh. You're contradicting yourself. The market will only provide alternatives because the rising price of oil makes them worth exploring and developing.

I think you're reading from a script inside your head, not my post - I'm not putting forward some scenario in which civilisation collapses, just pointing out that there are costly challenges ahead. I don't think they're insurmountable, but I don't think they're either cost-free or illusory either.

regards,
Scofflaw

RichardAnd

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that people think like that, and I would expect most objectors to a carbon tax to do so - but having spent the last 20+ years following the science, and having degrees in relevant fields, I don't really need to use Google to be aware of the misinformation and inaccurate rubbish available on the topic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You sound like a real academic allright.

The medieval warm peroid and the little ice age a not misinformation nor are the inaccurate, they are historically documented as being real. The unusual warmth in the early 14th century led to dry summers which in turn led to poor harvests which, it is believed, may have contributed in some manner to the greatest natural disaster in human history; the Black Death.

Perhaps, in your 20+ years of sience, you took the time to read a history book? If you did you'd know that so called learned men have been talking crap for centuries and that the powers that be pulling the wool over the eyes of the plebs is nothing new. To reitterate my earlier point, people like you claiming to be a well of knowlege are the modern version of the men who during the black death told frightened bucollics that Jews were poisoning their wells.

I suppose you think global warming caused the last ice age too yea?

ei.sdraob

Ah now @Scofflaw

You seem to fall under the impression that I am debating the science of climate change or inevitability of resource exhaustion. Nono I am concentrating on current economic policy (with carbon tax being a badly implemented Green policy) and the state of Irish economy. Let me tell a tale which everyone could understand:

"Once upon a time on island in the ocean there was a rock called Easter Island the citizens grew food and chopped forests and build big stone monuments.

Chief Scofflaw of the Green clan realising that the trees might be gone one day proceeded to tax his subjects a portion of each used tree, and spend the taxation income in order to build ever grander statues called NAMA Moai and Debt Moai.
On the other side of the island Chied Ei. of the the Sensibl clan encouraged his tribe to chop the trees faster and use the tree taxation to fund research into ocean going boats.

Once all the trees where gone things went downhill, the Sensibl clan sailed away in their boats while the Green clan where left starving on the island wondering why they wasted time building stone statues

The end :P"

edit: the clans have also carved out statues of their Chiefs

Scofflaw

RichardAnd wrote: »

You sound like a real academic allright.

The medieval warm peroid and the little ice age a not misinformation nor are the inaccurate, they are historically documented as being real. The unusual warmth in the early 14th century led to dry summers which in turn led to poor harvests which, it is believed, may have contributed in some manner to the greatest natural disaster in human history; the Black Death.

Perhaps, in your 20+ years of sience, you took the time to read a history book? If you did you'd know that so called learned men have been talking crap for centuries and that the powers that be pulling the wool over the eyes of the plebs is nothing new. To reitterate my earlier point, people like you claiming to be a well of knowlege are the modern version of the men who during the black death told frightened bucollics that Jews were poisoning their wells.

I suppose you think global warming caused the last ice age too yea?

Funnily enough, one of my personal interests is history, sparked by things like the Frost Fairs in London and the Viking settlement of Greenland, so, yes, I'm entirely aware of the historical evidence for the MWP and the Little Ice Age.

However, I'm also aware that they're not global phenomena - and so, like last winter's cold spell, and indeed last summer's heatwaves, they're only a small part constructing a picture of global temperature, however large they loom in our parochial or personal impressions of global climate.

From a political perspective, you have to face the fact that with the exception of the US (a big exception, certainly, but a partial one) the political world has largely accepted the science, albeit reluctantly. That means that if you're looking to discuss climate change in a political context, you really need to face the fact that it will be an enduring part of the political landscape, with all that that implies in terms of opportunities for posturing, ill-conceived strategies, and so on.

cordially,
Scofflaw