Carbon kid tax

Just stop adding C02 wouldja? If carbon footprints bother yous so bad try eliminating one of the problems.

 

I'm not in the cult and have no problem with man's C02 produced from our modern lifestyle.

 

The trees don't either.

 

Any "Carbon Tax" is just BS that makes some politician try to look concerned. Truth be told it would be useless and simply anger deniers while hurting consumers needlessly. CO2 is not all that important anymore now that methane release has begun.....too late for these silly gestures.

Over 400 months in a row of above average temperatures and changed weather patterns should tell people something, but it wont.

 

You do enjoy a red herring. You haven't referred to the extent that agricultural problems reflect Western overconsumption (e.g. focus on beef production).

 

Nonsense. Here in North America 100 million bison have been replaced by 100 million beef cattle with the same carbon footprint. Both bison and cattle graze on hundreds of millions of acres of grasslands that require no tillage and no irrigation, the grasslands are carbon sinks sequestering co2 into the soil.

 

Yes...and properly management of grasslands can aid in slowing climate change and if all grasslands on earth were managed properly climate change could possibility be reversed.

 

Well, maybe not reversed, but grazing grasslands is more beneficial and efficient in providing human nutrition, in relation to CO2 emissons, than agriculture that requires the tilling of the soil.

 

When you start to figure no till ...and how many tons of grass roots per acre ...and how many acres of grasslands that can be improved... it adds up to a lot of carbon.

 

How about working on reducing birth rates in the developing world?

Isn't it a lot cheaper to pay someone earning $4 a day to have one less child than someone earning $80 a day?
Especially when that person earning $4 a day already has 3 children, most likely.

 

I love this "we've massacred loads of animals so we get to eat more beef" argument. It's of course drivel on two levels. First, this is about minimising emissions. Reducing meat consumption will do that (as predicted in overconsumption analysis). Second, there's the pesky input by scientists (e.g. see the summary here)

 

Even the whinge about fertility rates misses our part. Resource exploitation has harmed economic growth in the developing world (and fertility rates fall with economic development).

 

More mouths to feed more agriculture more agriculture more C02 in the atmosphere. Here's an article you might enjoy, or not, LOL.
Vegetarian diets are not going to save the planet from climate change
https://qz.com/894504/vegetarian-diets-are-not-going-to-save-the-planet-from-climate-change/

 

The problem with shifting blame to the third world is each person in America produces ten to twenty times times more C02 than a person in the third world so for every baby you have it's like a third world person having twenty babies. An American produces 20 metric tons of C02 a year while somebody in Indonesia produces one ton.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita

 

And with economic development comes increased per capita C02 output so it's a wash at best.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita

 

Another red herring! No one said vegetarianism would solve climate change. I did say, however, that problems associated with agricultural can be embedded within the overconsumption analysis.

 

Incremental and small steps (even big ones) will make no real difference going forward as they will be too little and Too late. Anyone with eyes can see what is already taking place around the world as far as extremes in weather and temperatures. Those that do not do so on purpose for political reasons but it is now irrelevant, time to buckle up for the ride.

 

So, in terms of ecological footprint, it sounds like immigration may not be such a good idea.

That's like the worst thing you can do. Continuously take people from a country that has high fertility rates and then multiply their CO2 footprint by twenty.

 

Good point.

 

Another straw man, nobody said it including me. You said it would help I said damn little and sourced facts on the subject.

 

Given the New Science article referenced, reducing cattle production would help. Of course the real point is that we cannot find solution to the climate change crisis without reference to overconsumption analysis.

 

If the so called crisis is real that would be a fine addition after you first minimized mouths to feed. Every little bit would help avert this "impending tragedy".

 

Malthusian analysis tends to be underplayed (e.g. "he didn't factor in technical progress; "its corrupted by a particular morality" etc). However, as I've already mentioned, overconsumption analysis has more mileage. Imagine, for example, if everyone had the same consumption levels as the US. I think they worked out we'd need about 5 Earths to ensure sufficient resource.

 

Now imagine if you vastly reduced mouths to feed in the first place

 

To reduce population growth you need economic development. That increases the need to reduce inequalities and Western overconsumption.