KyussB wrote: » The vast majority of those economists are responsible for the defining problem that is preventing dealing with carbon emissions: They are responsible for creating and upholding an economic orthodoxy that prevents the necessary scale of government action, to arrest climate emissions. It even says it right in the link! They view debates over the level of government involvement as a controversial and bad thing...They view that position as 'neutral' - when it's actually leaning way towards right-wing economics. A Carbon Tax on its own is useless. It needs to be paired with massive, massive war-time government spending on R&D and infrastructural redevelopment, among much more. There are no 'market solutions' routes to solving climate change. What we should have instead of a carbon tax, is a straight up prohibition on carbon emissons past hard-set limits. Exxon Mobil is in favour of the carbon dividends... We're all pretty much fucked until people stop giving those economists legitimacy - we're still going on like many of them weren't both responsible for encouraging as well as failing to see (when it was easy to see if they didn't hold on to outdated theory...) the crisis coming a decade ago.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Good that you agree with the science. Wrt taxation and climate change, here is a statement signed by: 3554 U.S. Economists 4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve (All) 27 Nobel Laureate Economists 15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers 2 Former Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Treasury From the statement:A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. And:A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. Let us assume you agree with these economists. If we, as a country, intend to convince fellow human beings in India and China that carbon tax is a necessary way of tackling climate change, then we should do so by example. Otherwise we are hypocritical and will not be taken seriously.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Straw man, misrepresentation and now ad hominem. So, anything of nuance? Anything about climate change? Anything about how it might be addressed?
high_king wrote: » That's your arguments not mine. You remind me of a Turkey enthusiastically telling other Turkeys what a good time they are going to have at the "green" Christmas party.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » It would seem not, nothing of nuance. Just misrepresentation and repetitive straw man arguments ad nauseam.
high_king wrote: » This is from the poster that keeps claiming taxing ordinary people and voting for the proven corrupt greens is going to save the environment.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » You have a rather circular and one-dimensional argument. Anything of nuance to offer?
high_king wrote: » The exact same corrupt party that tax incentivsed new diesel cars, and their motor tax . . . and got most of the country to switched over to them ? lol By telling them ordinary people need to pay more carbon taxes. . lol . .turkey's voting for Christmas.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I like their policies insofar as they tackle climate change. Lot of personnel change since then too. I'd give them a vote in the absence of a viable alternative.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » But the best way is for citizens to agitate for change so that all political parties take notice.
high_king wrote: » The Greens ? God God, the Irish people have short memories . . from 2007-2011 these were the corrupt scumbags that collaborated with FF to saddle generations of ordinary Irish taxpayers with billions of debts belonging to corporations, bankers, and developers, while they continue to live the high life. The Green Party defended, propped up, and clung in with FF right to the bitter end, and destroyed us for a generation. Hundreds of thousands of young people had to leave Ireland, many of them for good.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » The Greens have some good policies but won't get into power in time.
Dr. Bre wrote: » I agree. That’s a lot of humans to ask tho
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Up to each and every human being to do their bit.
Dr. Bre wrote: » The same parties get voted in around the world so unlikely
high_king wrote: » lol, and those would be ???
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Well let's vote in parties who won't allow that to happen.
high_king wrote: » and that ends in : the wealthy and the corporations won't be, but they will be lecturing you on the environment, while you pay theirs for them.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Um. About three posts up I said this: "I would suggest that everyone, including corporations, pay carbon tax."
high_king wrote: » Why do you believe that the only thing that can be done is ordinary people paying more taxes, while corporations and the wealthy get off Scott free as usual ?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Right. So we just sit on our hands?
high_king wrote: » You can suggest all you like, the wealthy and the corporations won't be, but they will be lecturing you on the environment, while you pay theirs for them.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I would suggest that everyone, including corporations, pay carbon tax.
high_king wrote: » I work with both Indians and Chinese, and they are not as gullible as the Irish. They are not going to pay wealthy corporations taxes for them.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » If we, as a country, intend to convince fellow human beings in India and China that carbon tax is a necessary way of tackling climate change, then we should do so by example. Otherwise we are hypocritical and will not be taken seriously.
paleoperson wrote: » Professor Moriarty could you please learn to use quotes properly, it looks like you've just taken apart the arguments of Professor Moriarty
windy shepard henderson wrote: » wrote: i am at a loss to this post , are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me all these tings above that you are pointing out we agree are taking place , just because one faction says its taking place because of climate change and not some other reason like a natural occurrence dose'nt mean to say it cant be challenged everything in life is there to be challenged , nasa for example put a man on the moon , many people challenge this theory also i am not denying anything , like most people on here are not denying, we are challenging the commentary on climate change alot of it makes no sense the main question everyone has here is why are we not targeting the biggest emitters first , like china , india , usa ect if you dont target them first the whole thing is a waste of time at the moment its too hit and miss , i still dont get how taxing an irish car is going to save the planet in my opinion its an excuse for governments to rake in more money Good that you agree with the science. Wrt taxation and climate change, here is a statement signed by: 3554 U.S. Economists 4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve (All) 27 Nobel Laureate Economists 15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers 2 Former Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Treasury From the statement:A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. And:A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. Let us assume you agree with these economists. If we, as a country, intend to convince fellow human beings in India and China that carbon tax is a necessary way of tackling climate change, then we should do so by example. Otherwise we are hypocritical and will not be taken seriously.
wrote: i am at a loss to this post , are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me all these tings above that you are pointing out we agree are taking place , just because one faction says its taking place because of climate change and not some other reason like a natural occurrence dose'nt mean to say it cant be challenged everything in life is there to be challenged , nasa for example put a man on the moon , many people challenge this theory also i am not denying anything , like most people on here are not denying, we are challenging the commentary on climate change alot of it makes no sense the main question everyone has here is why are we not targeting the biggest emitters first , like china , india , usa ect if you dont target them first the whole thing is a waste of time at the moment its too hit and miss , i still dont get how taxing an irish car is going to save the planet in my opinion its an excuse for governments to rake in more money
windy shepard henderson wrote: » everything in life is there to be challenged , nasa for example put a man on the moon , many people challenge this theory also
i am not denying anything , like most people on here are not denying, we are challenging the commentary on climate change alot of it makes no sense
the main question everyone has here is why are we not targeting the biggest emitters first , like china , india , usa ect if you dont target them first the whole thing is a waste of time
at the moment its too hit and miss , i still dont get how taxing an irish car is going to save the planet in my opinion its an excuse for governments to rake in more money
Professor Moriarty wrote: » windy shepard henderson wrote: » Research: To assess the ice mass balance of Antarctica to date. Methodology: Meta-analysis of 24 independently derived estimates of ice-sheet mass balance Conclusion: Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone. Source: NASA, European Space Agency, IMBIE.Research: To determine how waves might change in the future. Methodology: Meta-analysis of 10 global wave models from different institutions. Conclusion: Where warming continues in line with current trends, the models agreed the planet is likely to see significant changes in wave conditions along 50% of the world's coasts leading to changes in erosion. Sources: UK National Oceanography Centre et al.Research: What are the causal factors that could explain a past rise in sea levels? Methodology: Meta-analysis of various global research papers. Conclusion: The rate of rise in sea levels implied by the Business-as-Usual best-estimate is 3-6 times faster than that experienced over the last 100 years. Most of the contribution is estimated to derive from thermal expansion of the oceans and the increased melting of mountain glaciers. Source: IPCC Indeed. Indeed. Bad planning causes flooding due to building on river flood plainsResearch: To determine if rising sea levels contributed to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Methodology: Observed climate and sea level trends over the last century used to create surge simulations and models. Conclusion: Surge simulations suggest that flood elevations would have been 15 to 60 % lower c. 1900 than the conditions observed in 2005. This drastic change suggests that significantly more flood damage occurred in 2005 than would have occurred if sea level and climate conditions had been like those c. 1900. Sources: Various researchers in US Army, Princeton and Virginia Tech.Research: To determine the impact of global vulnerability to seal level rises and coastal flooding. Methodology: Meta-analysis of various research papers and modelling. Conclusion: Sea levels projected by 2050 are high enough to threaten land currently home to a total of 150 million people to a future permanently below the high tide line. Sources: Climate Central, Princeton. Feel free to challenge any of my "scare mongering" with facts. i am at a loss to this post , are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me all these tings above that you are pointing out we agree are taking place , just because one faction says its taking place because of climate change and not some other reason like a natural occurrence dose'nt mean to say it cant be challenged everything in life is there to be challenged , nasa for example put a man on the moon , many people challenge this theory also i am not denying anything , like most people on here are not denying, we are challenging the commentary on climate change alot of it makes no sense the main question everyone has here is why are we not targeting the biggest emitters first , like china , india , usa ect if you dont target them first the whole thing is a waste of time at the moment its too hit and miss , i still dont get how taxing an irish car is going to save the planet in my opinion its an excuse for governments to rake in more money
windy shepard henderson wrote: » Research: To assess the ice mass balance of Antarctica to date. Methodology: Meta-analysis of 24 independently derived estimates of ice-sheet mass balance Conclusion: Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone. Source: NASA, European Space Agency, IMBIE.Research: To determine how waves might change in the future. Methodology: Meta-analysis of 10 global wave models from different institutions. Conclusion: Where warming continues in line with current trends, the models agreed the planet is likely to see significant changes in wave conditions along 50% of the world's coasts leading to changes in erosion. Sources: UK National Oceanography Centre et al.Research: What are the causal factors that could explain a past rise in sea levels? Methodology: Meta-analysis of various global research papers. Conclusion: The rate of rise in sea levels implied by the Business-as-Usual best-estimate is 3-6 times faster than that experienced over the last 100 years. Most of the contribution is estimated to derive from thermal expansion of the oceans and the increased melting of mountain glaciers. Source: IPCC Indeed. Indeed. Bad planning causes flooding due to building on river flood plainsResearch: To determine if rising sea levels contributed to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Methodology: Observed climate and sea level trends over the last century used to create surge simulations and models. Conclusion: Surge simulations suggest that flood elevations would have been 15 to 60 % lower c. 1900 than the conditions observed in 2005. This drastic change suggests that significantly more flood damage occurred in 2005 than would have occurred if sea level and climate conditions had been like those c. 1900. Sources: Various researchers in US Army, Princeton and Virginia Tech.Research: To determine the impact of global vulnerability to seal level rises and coastal flooding. Methodology: Meta-analysis of various research papers and modelling. Conclusion: Sea levels projected by 2050 are high enough to threaten land currently home to a total of 150 million people to a future permanently below the high tide line. Sources: Climate Central, Princeton. Feel free to challenge any of my "scare mongering" with facts.
