A Conservative Climate Change Proposal

[maddog42]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-republican-group-calls-for-carbon-tax.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&_r=1

Conservatives are slowly coming around.

[fast4522]

Establishment has bins, they lost in the last election.

[davew]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-republican-group-calls-for-carbon-tax.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&_r=1

Conservatives are slowly coming around.


globalization got voted out last election, and the swamp is getting drained

[ArlJim78]

They're not conservatives, it's a tax increase proposal that would have no effect on the climate. Nobody is buying the idea that the US tax code is some kind of global climate regulator.

[chadk66]

those aren't really conservatives

[JustRalph]

If Trump goes along with this.......he's dead!!

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about this climate change nonsense for at least 4 more years.

[davew]

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about this climate change nonsense for at least 4 more years.

maybe longer if some real scientists check the data and find massive fraud and crappy science

[Inner Dirt]

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about this climate change nonsense for at least 4 more years.

In my lifetime they have went from global cooling, to global warming, to climate change. The thing with "climate change" that is their greatest invention yet, they can never be wrong. Anything off the norm it is "climate change." What a freakin joke. If anyone misses about hearing about climate change pick up a copy of National Geographic they mention it a couple 100 times in each issue and blame everything on it.

[Tom]

those aren't really conservatives

And that is FAKE news reporting that they are.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

In 2008. a group og world renowned scientists descended on the UN to claim that man-made global warming was a crock.

That made news for about two days.

Famed geochemist, Claude Allegre, a card carrying Socialist and one of the original man-made global warming advocates did A 180 on the issue.

He eventually said that 'it is not about politics. it is not about religion. it is about science, and the fact is that there is no proof that man has been the cause of the recent global warming.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_All%C3%A8gre

"Allègre states that the causes of climate change are unknown. This represents a change of mind, since he wrote in 1987 that "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century"."

In an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l'Express, a French weekly, Allègre cited evidence that Antarctica's gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, can come from natural causes. He said that "[t]he cause of this climate change is unknown".

Allègre has accused those agreeing with the mainstream scientific view of global warming of being motivated by money, saying that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

The ensuing attacks on Allegre is similar to the defaming of the 31,000 American scientists who say man-made global warming is a crock.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[davew]

In my lifetime they have went from global cooling, to global warming, to climate change. The thing with "climate change" that is their greatest invention yet, they can never be wrong. Anything off the norm it is "climate change." What a freakin joke. If anyone misses about hearing about climate change pick up a copy of National Geographic they mention it a couple 100 times in each issue and blame everything on it.


Keep up, it is now "climate disruption". So now when ever there is a bad flood or storm, they can point and say 'see, climate disruption'....

[Greyfox]

Carbon taxes are a government tax grab designed to take more money out of your pockets.
They have little or no effect on climate and environment in North America.
Furthermore, they drive up the cost of virtually everything that is trucked in from another city or State.
Electricity bills, natural gas and coal costs also shoot up.
A Carbon tax is a terrible idea. :ThmbDown:

[Greyfox]

If Trump goes along with this.......he's dead!!

I agree. :ThmbUp:
Any Govt leader that goes along with that should be ousted.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Plus there are not guarantees that, if MMCC is actually real, that what where doing by controlling carbon burning/releasing will change things, or change them enough to make the difference in the various things they claim are affected. Or if you're a doomsayer, change things in time.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In my lifetime they have went from global cooling, to global warming, to climate change. The thing with "climate change" that is their greatest invention yet, they can never be wrong. Anything off the norm it is "climate change." What a freakin joke. If anyone misses about hearing about climate change pick up a copy of National Geographic they mention it a couple 100 times in each issue and blame everything on it.
In the 70's a guy named Peter Gwynne wrote a nine paragraph blurb in Newsweek (no, it wasn't a cover story). The story observed – accurately – that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols that offered a partial shield to the earth as well as the gradual retreat of an abnormally warm interlude. Some climatologists predicted the trend would continue, inching the earth toward the colder averages of the "Little Ice Age" from the 16th to 19th centuries. Ultimately, those climatologists gathered more an better data and reached an entirely different conclusion. However, since 1975 the right has been using that throw away story as proof scientists are making it up. Science is like that. You develop data, form a hypothesis, and then work to disprove the hypothesis. Science worked perfectly well in this case, to the point where almost no reputable scientist refutes the theory. As I've said, there is no doubt about the warming trend (unless you believe the thermometer is a hoax, and don't believe carbon dioxide behaves chemically as it does); however, there is certainly room for discussion about the predictive models and that is where the discussion would be productive.

Interestingly, I was in on some meetings where Republicans said that while they might not buy into global warming, there were climatological changes affecting their state, like drought, tornadoes, and flooding. The idea of climate change was to sound more inclusive of the problems that states were experiencing. Drought, for example, may or may not have had something to do with global warming, but by calling it climate change you could deal with the problem without necessary going over to the dark side. Climate change was meant to be a term that didn't imply cause or source. It described the problem without assigning blame. So what you see as a joke was a way of allowing Republicans to talk about climate and address climate problems (like drought) without sounding like it was the fault of their constituents.

[classhandicapper]

If the carbon tax is revenue neutral I don't think it's such a bad idea.

If I have to pay $1000 extra for my energy consumption but you give me a $1000 tax break on income taxes, it's neutral to me and maybe a net benefit for the environment.

You could argue that government should not be putting any incentives in place for any specific type of energy and simply allow the market to decide, but a flip side argument would be that pollution is a cost we all pay that is not being factored into prices properly.

The biggest problem may be political.

The democrats will attack it even if they think it's a good idea because it's not exactly what they want. Their lemmings will protest and riot over it because that's apparently what idiots do when told by fake news that something is bad.

Many republicans will also be against it because the goal is to lower carbon consumption. That will cost a few jobs in those industries even though jobs will be gained elsewhere if it's all neutral.

[classhandicapper]

Interestingly, I was in on some meetings where Republicans said that while they might not buy into global warming, there were climatological changes affecting their state, like drought, tornadoes, and flooding. The idea of climate change was to sound more inclusive of the problems that states were experiencing. Drought, for example, may or may not have had something to do with global warming, but by calling it climate change you could deal with the problem without necessary going over to the dark side. Climate change was meant to be a term that didn't imply cause or source. It described the problem without assigning blame. So what you see as a joke was a way of allowing Republicans to talk about climate and address climate problems (like drought) without sounding like it was the fault of their constituents.

Naturally occurring climate change would be something that no one could do anything about. People would just learn to live with it or migrate (which is what they will eventually do if man mad global warming becomes a serious factor decades from now).

The term was changed because some data suggested a pause in the warming and the left needed a term that would more inclusive of any kind of climate change they could blame on carbon. The "pause" was then refuted with "changed data".

[JustRalph]

Taxes once collected never go away.

The good people of Pennsylvania are still paying the Johnstown flood tax of 18% on alcohol. The flood was in the 1930's.

Never say yes to a new tax!!

[classhandicapper]

Taxes once collected never go away.

The good people of Pennsylvania are still paying the Johnstown flood tax of 18% on alcohol. The flood was in the 1930's.

Never say yes to a new tax!!


So you are saying that if there is an offsetting cut to another tax the liberals can't be trusted to keep that part of it?

On that I agree.