4 key questions before taxing Carbon Emissions…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html
1) Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but “there has been no net global warming since 1998.” Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling.
2) But supposing that the answer to the first question is “yes,” is mankind responsible for a significant and noticeable portion of an increase in temperatures? Mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun)….
3) If the answer to both preceding questions is “yes,” is an increase temperature changes “bad”? That answer is hardly obvious….
4) Finally, let’s assume that the answer to all three previous questions is “yes.” Does that mean we need more regulations and taxes? No, that is still not clear…
Filed by niekamp10 at March 4th, 2008 under The Earth
Good questions to ask… but I think it can be simplified a bit further:
1) is the climate changing?
if yes, continue to question #2; if no, then there is no need to do anything
2) is mankind the cause?
If yes, continue to question #3; if no, then we’re not doing anything to cause it, it’s just nature and we’ll have to adapt since there’s likely nothing we can do to stop it.
3) if we are the cause, or even a major contributor, what, if anything, can be done to stop/slow it? And this includes a cost/benefit analysis.
#3 is where if you buy into the global warming and man being the cause, the whole environmental movement breaks down. The necessary changes to the whole world (not just the US, since China, India and other nations will likely make up for any reduction the US makes to its carbon footprint) will cost trillions of dollars and have little impact. One report I saw said the impact of the most restrictive actions will delay global warming by 5 years over a 100 year period (meaning if we do nothing we’ll reach some temperature point in 100 years, if we do everything, we’ll reach that same temperature point in 105 years) … well who the hell cares about 5 years if we’re all going to cook/drown anyway?
Not much real benefit for the cost. On the other hand, spending a fraction of that amount could radically reduce the amount of deaths from malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases that still run rampant in some parts of the world.
But try to convince a liberal of that.
Comment by JOHN — March 4, 2008 @ 8:22 pm