We all have a moral ethical responsibility to elect candidates who are most likely to use government in a positive way to reduce emissions. "If an ox is known to gore in the past....." and we are required to build a parapet, are examples from the Torah that we may not harm our neighbor.
I would bet if there was a hefty fee on carbon, with revenues returned to citizens, we who care about the planet and its people would be happy to get our energy from renewable sources,
President Obama is right on. Any politician not paying attention to what the environment is doing or what the experts are
saying is playing a risky game.’
$100s of millions of dollars were spent by the Kochs and friends
on the anti-climate science doubt machine. What do they get for their $$$? They get a hundred thousand comments by a flying monkey army of paid suicidal morons - in attack mode.
Polls show there are very few true deniers in the general public. Most Americans want solutions to an obvious and fatal global warming: such as a carbon tax with all fees returned to citizens, renewable energy, greater efficiency.... They are not that dumb...
These Americans will vote smart and get out the vote. It's a matter of life and death.
super390: In this case, small minds match small government fans. We see how much they value freedom, when they use intimidation tactics that would give Rush an embolism if the government used them.
Sounds like a death spiral. Why is FOX in so many public places? I understand the anti-tax petro $$$ that FOX pursues, but what makes them the go-to station? What is their secret sauce?
In the time it took me to skim this article about 200 Hiroshima bombs' energy were added (in excess of equilibrium) to our planet by the sun, due to the increases in CO2
Kerry is correct about the real costs of fossil fuels. Most of us don't realize that coal industries "charge" Americans a huge hidden tax as they pollute for free.
Harvard School of Medicine studies determined a social cost of coal (70 impacts, mainly on health) of $300-$500 billion/year. That's over $1000/year for every man, woman and child in this country. It doesn't come out of coal's profit either.
Along with nixing Keystone, we need a national carbon fee, or tax, on every ton of coal (and all other carbon emitters) would create incentives in the free market to move away from fossil energy, and coal's hidden taxes would simply go away.
Those fees would be returned to citizens, as lowered income taxes, for example. This has worked well in BC, which has lowered emissions by almost 20% and kept pace with all other parts of Canada in economic growth.
Even conservative economists are in favor of the carbon tax as it replaces command and control via the EPA.. The T Party? Not so much.
In fact, the American Association of Meteorologists have "officially" endorsed the basic conclusions of the IPCC (that climate change is real and caused by our emissions) and state. They state,
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities....... Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."
I agree that many conservatives and deniers simply don't understand basic physics. Meteorologists would certainly have this background, however, and have other reasons for ignoring or dismissing the science.
What is so very tragic is we at present have the technology to stop our goose stepping march towards the climate abyss.
It would require of us a "moon shot" effort: The Pentagon, declaring AGW our greatest national security threat, could pivot purchases from fancy jets (to fight terrorists?) to thousands of 2 MW wind turbines and solar farms. This stuff isn't lost to war, either.
The energy sold at less than parity with coal energy, could be a revenue stream that could lower our taxes or be used for much needed infrastructure and education, for example..
A pollution fee on Carbon also could be collected to lower other taxes and bend the free market towards low carbon energy. Say, $20/ton Carbon, increasing annually.
Such bills are in Congress, but then, sadly, you have the Tea Party and what I call the Southern Revenge. These characters would sacrifice the next 20 generations to "get even" or win an ideological argument.
OR, are we to follow the "bravest" generation that fought WWII, with the "dumbest"?
I agree and perhaps regret my earlier comments. It's easy to overlook progress he has made when so much more needs to be done. And, no one could deny that Congress is not in his corner, and he has to fight not only the inertia of a dirty energy culture but almost half the bloody country, which is, in a word,"nuts".
I think it's a tragedy squared. One, we are heading for 4 deg C future (5 times current increases), which is quite likely runaway climate change, a permanent desert in the Midwest, 100 year storms every few years, ocean level rise beyond 100 feet, etc. And squared, because Obama had the political winds at his back to turn it around with the power he has.
Citizens Climate Lobby seeks to stabilize the climate through legislation, such as the Carbon Fee and Dividend, which puts a price on Carbon, then remits fees to citizens.
This would create major incentives to low carbon choices and would reimburse citizens for any increased costs.
Our foremost climate scientist Dr. James Hansen of NASA fully supports CCL
We all have a moral ethical responsibility to elect candidates who are most likely to use government in a positive way to reduce emissions. "If an ox is known to gore in the past....." and we are required to build a parapet, are examples from the Torah that we may not harm our neighbor.
I would bet if there was a hefty fee on carbon, with revenues returned to citizens, we who care about the planet and its people would be happy to get our energy from renewable sources,
President Obama is right on. Any politician not paying attention to what the environment is doing or what the experts are
saying is playing a risky game.’
$100s of millions of dollars were spent by the Kochs and friends
on the anti-climate science doubt machine. What do they get for their $$$? They get a hundred thousand comments by a flying monkey army of paid suicidal morons - in attack mode.
Polls show there are very few true deniers in the general public. Most Americans want solutions to an obvious and fatal global warming: such as a carbon tax with all fees returned to citizens, renewable energy, greater efficiency.... They are not that dumb...
These Americans will vote smart and get out the vote. It's a matter of life and death.
super390: In this case, small minds match small government fans. We see how much they value freedom, when they use intimidation tactics that would give Rush an embolism if the government used them.
Sounds like a death spiral. Why is FOX in so many public places? I understand the anti-tax petro $$$ that FOX pursues, but what makes them the go-to station? What is their secret sauce?
In the time it took me to skim this article about 200 Hiroshima bombs' energy were added (in excess of equilibrium) to our planet by the sun, due to the increases in CO2
Kerry is correct about the real costs of fossil fuels. Most of us don't realize that coal industries "charge" Americans a huge hidden tax as they pollute for free.
Harvard School of Medicine studies determined a social cost of coal (70 impacts, mainly on health) of $300-$500 billion/year. That's over $1000/year for every man, woman and child in this country. It doesn't come out of coal's profit either.
Along with nixing Keystone, we need a national carbon fee, or tax, on every ton of coal (and all other carbon emitters) would create incentives in the free market to move away from fossil energy, and coal's hidden taxes would simply go away.
Those fees would be returned to citizens, as lowered income taxes, for example. This has worked well in BC, which has lowered emissions by almost 20% and kept pace with all other parts of Canada in economic growth.
Even conservative economists are in favor of the carbon tax as it replaces command and control via the EPA.. The T Party? Not so much.
In fact, the American Association of Meteorologists have "officially" endorsed the basic conclusions of the IPCC (that climate change is real and caused by our emissions) and state. They state,
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities....... Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."
I agree that many conservatives and deniers simply don't understand basic physics. Meteorologists would certainly have this background, however, and have other reasons for ignoring or dismissing the science.
Yes and that is the mirror image of 97% of climate scientists who are convinced CC is real, man made, and dangerous to the point of unraveling..
The newscasters are complicit in 400,000 CC deaths/year (20 nation DARA study). But, then, most of us are, burning oil, etc...
So, we all have to do our part. The stakes are as high as can be.
Yo, journalists! I won't call you chicken. Just, what, "balanced"?
What is so very tragic is we at present have the technology to stop our goose stepping march towards the climate abyss.
It would require of us a "moon shot" effort: The Pentagon, declaring AGW our greatest national security threat, could pivot purchases from fancy jets (to fight terrorists?) to thousands of 2 MW wind turbines and solar farms. This stuff isn't lost to war, either.
The energy sold at less than parity with coal energy, could be a revenue stream that could lower our taxes or be used for much needed infrastructure and education, for example..
A pollution fee on Carbon also could be collected to lower other taxes and bend the free market towards low carbon energy. Say, $20/ton Carbon, increasing annually.
Such bills are in Congress, but then, sadly, you have the Tea Party and what I call the Southern Revenge. These characters would sacrifice the next 20 generations to "get even" or win an ideological argument.
OR, are we to follow the "bravest" generation that fought WWII, with the "dumbest"?
I agree and perhaps regret my earlier comments. It's easy to overlook progress he has made when so much more needs to be done. And, no one could deny that Congress is not in his corner, and he has to fight not only the inertia of a dirty energy culture but almost half the bloody country, which is, in a word,"nuts".
I think it's a tragedy squared. One, we are heading for 4 deg C future (5 times current increases), which is quite likely runaway climate change, a permanent desert in the Midwest, 100 year storms every few years, ocean level rise beyond 100 feet, etc. And squared, because Obama had the political winds at his back to turn it around with the power he has.
Citizens Climate Lobby seeks to stabilize the climate through legislation, such as the Carbon Fee and Dividend, which puts a price on Carbon, then remits fees to citizens.
This would create major incentives to low carbon choices and would reimburse citizens for any increased costs.
Our foremost climate scientist Dr. James Hansen of NASA fully supports CCL
Citizensclimatelobby.org