Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intuitive Carbon Fee for Global Warming

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

The problem with the traditional market mechanism in this regard is that when it becomes apparent, and I mean blatantly apparent, that there are significant negative ramifications of the continual and exponential production of fossil fuels, no amount of market "turn around" will be able to fix the environmental process.

Again, I do not wish this to be a discussion based on rather self-evident truths, that global warming exists, but instead on the feasibility and possible implications of the aforementioned plan.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:12:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

The problem with the traditional market mechanism in this regard is that when it becomes apparent, and I mean blatantly apparent, that there are significant negative ramifications of the continual and exponential production of fossil fuels, no amount of market "turn around" will be able to fix the environmental process.

Again, I do not wish this to be a discussion based on rather self-evident truths, that global warming exists, but instead on the feasibility and possible implications of the aforementioned plan.

How does this reduce it? Seriously? Because honestly from what I'm seeing, it's just the re-allocation of resources and offers no incentive for others to continue to battle global emissions.
Thank you for voting!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:15:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
have you heard of using climate engineering solutions to end global warming? That's a much more efficient system then taxing carbon.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:16:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:12:41 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

The problem with the traditional market mechanism in this regard is that when it becomes apparent, and I mean blatantly apparent, that there are significant negative ramifications of the continual and exponential production of fossil fuels, no amount of market "turn around" will be able to fix the environmental process.

Again, I do not wish this to be a discussion based on rather self-evident truths, that global warming exists, but instead on the feasibility and possible implications of the aforementioned plan.

How does this reduce it? Seriously? Because honestly from what I'm seeing, it's just the re-allocation of resources and offers no incentive for others to continue to battle global emissions.

If you increase the costs of a specific good to manufacture it, then the market will shift towards manufacturing other more cost-effective goods. The added bonus is that this plan is progressive, in the sense that it increases every year, which means that even if results are not seen immediately (which they will be- this is just a pure hypothetical), then there will eventually come a tipping point.

Furthermore, by implementing a tax on the carbon emissions, you are incentivizing the firms to reduce emissions, even if they don't switch to other energy sources.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:15:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
have you heard of using climate engineering solutions to end global warming? That's a much more efficient system then taxing carbon.

Heard of it. Doesn't seem very effective, cost-efficient, or able to keep up with exponentially increasing amounts of CO2 emissions.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:21:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:16:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:12:41 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

The problem with the traditional market mechanism in this regard is that when it becomes apparent, and I mean blatantly apparent, that there are significant negative ramifications of the continual and exponential production of fossil fuels, no amount of market "turn around" will be able to fix the environmental process.

Again, I do not wish this to be a discussion based on rather self-evident truths, that global warming exists, but instead on the feasibility and possible implications of the aforementioned plan.

How does this reduce it? Seriously? Because honestly from what I'm seeing, it's just the re-allocation of resources and offers no incentive for others to continue to battle global emissions.

If you increase the costs of a specific good to manufacture it, then the market will shift towards manufacturing other more cost-effective goods. The added bonus is that this plan is progressive, in the sense that it increases every year, which means that even if results are not seen immediately (which they will be- this is just a pure hypothetical), then there will eventually come a tipping point.

Furthermore, by implementing a tax on the carbon emissions, you are incentivizing the firms to reduce emissions, even if they don't switch to other energy sources.

You sir must be a damn fine salesmen, because I bought every word of that.
Seems legit.

What about green roofs?
Thank you for voting!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:24:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:21:45 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:16:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:12:41 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

The problem with the traditional market mechanism in this regard is that when it becomes apparent, and I mean blatantly apparent, that there are significant negative ramifications of the continual and exponential production of fossil fuels, no amount of market "turn around" will be able to fix the environmental process.

Again, I do not wish this to be a discussion based on rather self-evident truths, that global warming exists, but instead on the feasibility and possible implications of the aforementioned plan.

How does this reduce it? Seriously? Because honestly from what I'm seeing, it's just the re-allocation of resources and offers no incentive for others to continue to battle global emissions.

If you increase the costs of a specific good to manufacture it, then the market will shift towards manufacturing other more cost-effective goods. The added bonus is that this plan is progressive, in the sense that it increases every year, which means that even if results are not seen immediately (which they will be- this is just a pure hypothetical), then there will eventually come a tipping point.

Furthermore, by implementing a tax on the carbon emissions, you are incentivizing the firms to reduce emissions, even if they don't switch to other energy sources.

You sir must be a damn fine salesmen, because I bought every word of that.
Seems legit.

What about green roofs?

Is this supposed to be poorly veiled sarcasm?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:24:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it is an okay plan. It does incentivize business firms to invest in clean renewable energy which will improve public health, and lower climate change. Or at the least, reduce energy consumption, but I'd prefer the former as it is not harmful towards economic growth.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:25:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:24:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:21:45 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:16:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:12:41 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

The problem with the traditional market mechanism in this regard is that when it becomes apparent, and I mean blatantly apparent, that there are significant negative ramifications of the continual and exponential production of fossil fuels, no amount of market "turn around" will be able to fix the environmental process.

Again, I do not wish this to be a discussion based on rather self-evident truths, that global warming exists, but instead on the feasibility and possible implications of the aforementioned plan.

How does this reduce it? Seriously? Because honestly from what I'm seeing, it's just the re-allocation of resources and offers no incentive for others to continue to battle global emissions.

If you increase the costs of a specific good to manufacture it, then the market will shift towards manufacturing other more cost-effective goods. The added bonus is that this plan is progressive, in the sense that it increases every year, which means that even if results are not seen immediately (which they will be- this is just a pure hypothetical), then there will eventually come a tipping point.

Furthermore, by implementing a tax on the carbon emissions, you are incentivizing the firms to reduce emissions, even if they don't switch to other energy sources.

You sir must be a damn fine salesmen, because I bought every word of that.
Seems legit.

What about green roofs?

Is this supposed to be poorly veiled sarcasm?

No it was sincere

I know toronto started it as of 2009 in law. (Green roofs)
Thank you for voting!
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:25:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A green retrofit initiative, in which employers retrofit their buildings, and use the savings to help employees retrofit their homes, is another idea that wouldn't use coercion and a violation of liberty to achieve good ends.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:27:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:17:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:15:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
have you heard of using climate engineering solutions to end global warming? That's a much more efficient system then taxing carbon.

Heard of it. Doesn't seem very effective, cost-efficient, or able to keep up with exponentially increasing amounts of CO2 emissions.

Not even close. There's no way the economy can survive without co2 emissions due to almost all forms of energy producing co2 emissions, and the alternatives are much more expensive then climate engineering solutions. I remember freakonomics book by two economist stated that the solution would only require hundreds of millions in costs, while regulating co2 emissions would cost us in trillions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:28:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What changed your mind on this issue? I've never been sure which side is right.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:29:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:25:51 PM, Contra wrote:
A green retrofit initiative, in which employers retrofit their buildings, and use the savings to help employees retrofit their homes, is another idea that wouldn't use coercion and a violation of liberty to achieve good ends.

We're from Canada .. a heavily liberal country. The argument here is this:

Say your a starving student and are moving into a house. Rent is 1,500 bucks a month. You can't afford it, so you offer some roomates to move in with you. Each paying 500 a month you live happily ever after.

The point? We re-allocate resources because Canada generally believes that by rearranging monetary values we liberalize both socially and financially the people under the state. Now -in the hypothetical above- you may lose a room or two, but you have all your money free'd up and you can still do what you want. (Gay marriage for example.)
Thank you for voting!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 9:18:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:27:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:17:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:15:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
have you heard of using climate engineering solutions to end global warming? That's a much more efficient system then taxing carbon.

Heard of it. Doesn't seem very effective, cost-efficient, or able to keep up with exponentially increasing amounts of CO2 emissions.

Not even close. There's no way the economy can survive without co2 emissions due to almost all forms of energy producing co2 emissions, and the alternatives are much more expensive then climate engineering solutions. I remember freakonomics book by two economist stated that the solution would only require hundreds of millions in costs, while regulating co2 emissions would cost us in trillions.

I never once stated that I wanted to eliminate ALL CO2 emissions; that is a completely ludicrous task that is both impossible and useless. There is a set threshold, I think it was somewhere around 250 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere which does not cause any anthropogenic effects. I am merely advocating for the reduction of pollution, which everybody should be. I don't see how the aforementioned plan would really set so many costs up, since the consumers would get reimbursed for the higher costs that they pay in energy prices. The only people on the hook are the big oil companies, which I am fine with.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 9:22:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:29:51 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:25:51 PM, Contra wrote:
A green retrofit initiative, in which employers retrofit their buildings, and use the savings to help employees retrofit their homes, is another idea that wouldn't use coercion and a violation of liberty to achieve good ends.

We're from Canada .. a heavily liberal country. The argument here is this:

Say your a starving student and are moving into a house. Rent is 1,500 bucks a month. You can't afford it, so you offer some roomates to move in with you. Each paying 500 a month you live happily ever after.

First of all, your math is off. Second of all, this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative values. This is just smart economic decision making.

The point? We re-allocate resources because Canada generally believes that by rearranging monetary values we liberalize both socially and financially the people under the state. Now -in the hypothetical above- you may lose a room or two, but you have all your money free'd up and you can still do what you want. (Gay marriage for example.)

Err.....What?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 9:26:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nobody here is denying that Global Warming is real; a lot of us just think that it is a natural occurence in the weather cycle. We had a warming cycle throughout the Middle Ages and Renassiance Era, which was followed by a period of cooling. Most recently we had a cooling cycle in the 70's, and now we're just having another period of warming.

At any rate, even if Global Warming were caused by humans we couldn't do anything about it, so why put strain on our economy? Lift the restraints and eventually someone will invent a cleaner, cheaper source of energy, or make cleaner versions of current energy. You'll see solar power and wind power becoming cheaper over time, and you might even see an entirerly new form of energy appear.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 9:27:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 9:22:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:29:51 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:25:51 PM, Contra wrote:
A green retrofit initiative, in which employers retrofit their buildings, and use the savings to help employees retrofit their homes, is another idea that wouldn't use coercion and a violation of liberty to achieve good ends.

We're from Canada .. a heavily liberal country. The argument here is this:

Say your a starving student and are moving into a house. Rent is 1,500 bucks a month. You can't afford it, so you offer some roomates to move in with you. Each paying 500 a month you live happily ever after.

: First of all, your math is off. Second of all, this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative values. This is just smart economic decision making.

The point? We re-allocate resources because Canada generally believes that by rearranging monetary values we liberalize both socially and financially the people under the state. Now -in the hypothetical above- you may lose a room or two, but you have all your money free'd up and you can still do what you want. (Gay marriage for example.)

Err.....What?

Nvm about the bolded. I though you said roommate, not roommates.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 9:28:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 9:26:51 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At any rate, even if Global Warming were caused by humans we couldn't do anything about it, so why put strain on our economy? Lift the restraints and eventually someone will invent a cleaner, cheaper source of energy, or make cleaner versions of current energy. You'll see solar power and wind power becoming cheaper over time, and you might even see an entirerly new form of energy appear.

Why? Some carbon emissions are perfectly fine in the environment and as long as we can keep it at that level, there will be no serious reprehensible effects in the near future. We can easily do something about global warming by limiting carbon emissions.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:14:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why? Some carbon emissions are perfectly fine in the environment and as long as we can keep it at that level, there will be no serious reprehensible effects in the near future. We can easily do something about global warming by limiting carbon emissions.

That's the thing, if you want to control carbon emissions you have to curtail freedoms in this country. Even if you managed to somehow put an environmentally sound cap on our emissions, you'd still have other countries to worry about; especially developing countries, and China and India.

Furthermore, if you put more regulations on our industry and other countries don't, you'll see the jobs and emissions simply move overseas.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:17:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:14:54 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Why? Some carbon emissions are perfectly fine in the environment and as long as we can keep it at that level, there will be no serious reprehensible effects in the near future. We can easily do something about global warming by limiting carbon emissions.

That's the thing, if you want to control carbon emissions you have to curtail freedoms in this country.

The survival of the entire human race places on a higher priority list than some non-basic freedoms, most prominently that of big oil companies to pump as much carbon in the atmosphere as now.

Even if you managed to somehow put an environmentally sound cap on our emissions, you'd still have other countries to worry about; especially developing countries, and China and India.

Irrelevant. So we shouldn't help regulate emissions because other people might not? Bad reason is bad.

Furthermore, if you put more regulations on our industry and other countries don't, you'll see the jobs and emissions simply move overseas.

Energy companies don't move overseas; the costs of transporting the energy across continents and oceans is just too much.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:29:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The survival of the entire human race places on a higher priority list than some non-basic freedoms, most prominently that of big oil companies to pump as much carbon in the atmosphere as now.

Global Warming isn't going to destroy the human race, even if it is caused my people. Sea levels may rise and some places may get flooded, but it certainly isn't going to kill us all. Furthermore, why should we trust the government to lead this effort? Centralized authority has proved itself to be incompetant in nearly everything it does, except for total war scenarios.

Irrelevant. So we shouldn't help regulate emissions because other people might not? Bad reason is bad.

Not irrelevant. For this to be successful you have to have ALL countries on board with capping emissions, especially China and India.

Energy companies don't move overseas; the costs of transporting the energy across continents and oceans is just too much.

Manufacturing can always move overseas.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:50:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Again, I do not wish this to be a discussion based on rather self-evident truths, that global warming exists, but instead on the feasibility and possible implications of the aforementioned plan.

1. There is widespread agreement that global warming exists. The disagreement is about how much of it is produced by human-caused CO2. So yu have ruled out discussing the real issue.

2. Supposing that CO2 causes global warming, There is no one to pay for it other than consumers. Suppose poor people would rather be warmer than have to give up the money they would otherwise spend on food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education? What are the grounds for forcing the choice?

3. Climate engineering is cheaper and works whether warming is natural or man-caused.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:54:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:15:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
have you heard of using climate engineering solutions to end global warming? That's a much more efficient system then taxing carbon.


^ this
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:29:27 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
The survival of the entire human race places on a higher priority list than some non-basic freedoms, most prominently that of big oil companies to pump as much carbon in the atmosphere as now.

Global Warming isn't going to destroy the human race, even if it is caused my people. Sea levels may rise and some places may get flooded, but it certainly isn't going to kill us all.

Regular climate cycles- which this is not- have been enough to wipe out most of Earth's species. Keep in mind that this was due to the natural greenhouse effect, not the accelerated on. Entire States, Florida most prominently, will be flooded.

Furthermore, why should we trust the government to lead this effort? Centralized authority has proved itself to be incompetant in nearly everything it does, except for total war scenarios.

The private sector has no incentive to change until the damage is irreversible and every last bit of fossil fuels are sucked out of the Earth. I agree that the private sector would eventually accommodate this problem, but unfortunately, the private sector would not factor in global warming to its economic calculations.

Irrelevant. So we shouldn't help regulate emissions because other people might not? Bad reason is bad.

Not irrelevant. For this to be successful you have to have ALL countries on board with capping emissions, especially China and India.

No, it can still be successful at limiting global warming growth if implemented by one country, it just won't be as effective. By that logic, we should have never eliminated slavery because otherwise, other countries would have surprised us in labor power.

Energy companies don't move overseas; the costs of transporting the energy across continents and oceans is just too much.

Manufacturing can always move overseas.

Most of the emissions come from energy, by a tremendous margin. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:28:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:50:34 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Again, I do not wish this to be a discussion based on rather self-evident truths, that global warming exists, but instead on the feasibility and possible implications of the aforementioned plan.

1. There is widespread agreement that global warming exists. The disagreement is about how much of it is produced by human-caused CO2. So yu have ruled out discussing the real issue.

It corresponds directly with the increase in CO2 usage. Unless you think the lines just matched up by a coincidence, the notion that this is anthropogenic is pretty clearly evident.

Furthermore, natural GW doesn't proceed so fast.

2. Supposing that CO2 causes global warming, There is no one to pay for it other than consumers. Suppose poor people would rather be warmer than have to give up the money they would otherwise spend on food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education? What are the grounds for forcing the choice?

Lol wut? The plan that I proposed would mean no real increase in energy costs to the consumers.

3. Climate engineering is cheaper and works whether warming is natural or man-caused.

Not sure about this, but extremely skeptical.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:35:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 9:26:51 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Nobody here is denying that Global Warming is real; a lot of us just think that it is a natural occurence in the weather cycle. We had a warming cycle throughout the Middle Ages and Renassiance Era, which was followed by a period of cooling. Most recently we had a cooling cycle in the 70's, and now we're just having another period of warming.

It has been 15,000,000 years since carbon levels were this high. Increased carbon levels are correlated to higher temperatures in the past. Given this very sudden spike in carbon over such a small amount of time, one would naturally expect some aspect of nature to change. You're focusing on temperature, which does not spike as fast as the carbon, for obvious reasons. By focusing on the slowly-occurring effects, you're not noticing the cause.

At any rate, even if Global Warming were caused by humans we couldn't do anything about it, so why put strain on our economy? Lift the restraints and eventually someone will invent a cleaner, cheaper source of energy, or make cleaner versions of current energy. You'll see solar power and wind power becoming cheaper over time, and you might even see an entirerly new form of energy appear.

So we should throw our hands up and let clean technology save us, while we sink further into the problems we are creating. Sounds fantastic. And of course the private sector will come through for us because people's greed will somehow save the world. I don't buy it that clean technology will ever save us. Many conservatives make their living off of making fun of clean tech, because it is frankly ridiculous. Electric vehicles have been developing side-by-side with gas autos the entire history of the automobile, and have never established themselves because there is no miracle battery or energy source that's going to save us. Even if we found a great battery that saved lots of charge safely and effectively, we're still making that electricity with C02, and mining the materials for the batteries are an issue. Just because we can make an automatic vehicle which can fly and swim doesn't mean that's going to translate to a great cheap auto that's sustainable.

Light bulbs are another interesting one to me... the energy "efficient" ones contain mercury. They are also more expensive than incandescent, even if they do save you the money over the long run with lower usage. Seems more sustainable to me to be smarter with our light usage and keep using incandescent bulbs. Task lighting, for instance.

Clean technology isn't our savior, it is a fraud. Things that are "cleaner" are often more complex and require special materials that make them more expensive to produce. We can't afford to wait for a scientific revolution that may or may not ever even happen. It is clearly rampant consumption that needs to be changed, not the sophistication of our machines.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:37:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

4. The companies raise the prices of their goods equal to the fee. People who utilize the good see 0 net effect after paying more and receiving back the fee.

fixd
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:38:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:37:29 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

4. The companies raise the prices of their goods equal to the fee. People who utilize the good see 0 net effect after paying more and receiving back the fee.

fixd

Exactly, which is precisely why it is economically sound, unlike other carbon taxes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:40:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:38:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/20/2012 11:37:29 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

4. The companies raise the prices of their goods equal to the fee. People who utilize the good see 0 net effect after paying more and receiving back the fee.

fixd

Exactly, which is precisely why it is economically sound, unlike other carbon taxes.

?

Economically sound?

It wouldn't serve the intended purpose. Production would only go down by the decrease in demand due to higher prices.

Even if demand didn't go down, because consumers realized that the increase would be returned to them, the effect would be 0.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:43:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:37:29 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/20/2012 7:10:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
After some research, I realized that the evidence for global warming is undeniable, and is akin to creationists denying that evolution is true, despite virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on the issue (which deniers incidentally attempt to refute as "consensus doesn't make truth").

Regardless, I came across a rather interesting, at first glance, plan that would significantly reduce emissions, stimulate innovation, and perhaps best of all for those concerned about higher energy costs, give the money back to the consumers.

The plan is called Fee and Dividend. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It goes like this:

1. A fee is charged at the point of origin or point of import on greenhouse gas emitting energy (oil, natural gas and coal).

2. The fee is progressively increased.

3. The fee is returned to households equitably and in full.

4. The companies raise the prices of their goods equal to the fee. People who utilize the good see 0 net effect after paying more and receiving back the fee.
5. People stop buying the goods until the prices are lowered.
fixd
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush