I have long indicated that there is a consensus within the scientific community regarding climate change and the rather sober implications thereof. In response, I get a bunch of anecdotes written from a climate change skeptic's perspective. You all claim there is no consensus, but I never get any numbers from you. Everything I have read suggests that the scientific community is 90% +/- aboard with the balance being (rather vocal) skeptics. Please cut and paste the link below.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
So - where are the skeptics numbers? I don't need a cut and past about the last ice age, yada, yada, yada, just tell us what percentage of the scientific community does not buy into Climate Change. A link or a referenced report would be wonderful.
I have another point that is not made often enough. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? We can all agree that there is a large number of highly educated scientists that believe that climate change is real and the consequences are dire. If even they only represented a large minority, shouldn't we take heed? What happens if they are right? What would it say about us if we cavalierly ignored the warnings and ended up suffering the devastating consequences? What should we do to ensure that doesn't happen?
Climate change is not an indictment of capitalism. It is an unwelcome by-product of capitalism's great success. The problem will best be solved through the price mechanism - a capitalist tool if ever there was one.
As I have often mentioned, policies that will reduce carbon emissions are also policies that will greatly reduce our reliance on foreign (and unreliable) energy. We can make the USA the center of alternative energy innovation through simply incorporating a stiff carbon tax (not cap & trade) and letting the free market find answers for the more expensive fossil fuels. Solar and wind power are no longer pie in the sky. In fact, with carbon taxes, solar will be competitive right away with it's relative advantage increasing every year. How many economies have been damaged because they were too damned energy efficient?
Wouldn't it be great to reduce the relative political muscle of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and jump start green American industry? Wouldn't it be reminiscent of the '80's tech boom related to our defense build up? All this, and reducing carbon emissions is merely icing on the cake.
Happy Holidays!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Baxter,
I am not saying Climate Change is or is not happening, but I am long way from just signing on. Still somewhat sceptical. Especially with what we have found out lately about the manipulation of tests and data. Go ahead and wave that away - I know it means nothing! Nothing to see here, just keep moving.
We should all be good stewards of our environment. And yes we should listen to these scientists. But to take Copenhagen seriously is stupid, it just another way for poorer countries to extract more cash from us. We give so much aid each year, actually their behavior was that of a child who can't get their way.
Absolutly we should look at other forms of energy. Nuclear, wind, CNG, solar are all good if it is cheap.
Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax are not the answer. No more taxes, or if you want to go that route - what tax can Carbon Tax take the place of, and let's lower or get rid of a tax somewhere else. We're tired of your taxes, you have an insatiable appetite for taxes.
Merry Christmas
Mark:
You don't need to "sign on" - you simply need to acknowledge that the scientists have. I am all for continued research, including, of course, that of the skeptics. Meanwhile, we need to proceed using the best scientific information available. No more "dithering" to use a favorite word of the GOP.
Why dwell on Copenhagen? I think it was a failure. Don't curse the darkness, light a candle! The right wing has offered no path forward in addressing climate change. Pony up!
The free market will determine the best energy alternatives. I don't think nuclear will work, from a purely free market standpoint. Never mind the problems with storage or potential accidents and terrorist strikes. People forget, uranium is very expensive and we do not have an infinite supply.
I have said for years that we should add carbon taxes on a REVENUE NEUTRAL basis, preferably cutting FICA/Medicare taxes by half or more (obviously, directing the carbon taxes to FICA/Medicare accounts). I don't want to muddy the issue with the question of optimum income levels for the federal government. This is a modified version of what John Anderson first proposed some 30 years ago.
Post a Comment