Economists want uncarbonated...

Maybe we ought to give it a test run and start out with a carbon tariff. I would be curious at the reaction to that.

 

It's a package deal.

Without the Carbon Tax that would be just another move in Trumps trade war.

 

Hmm.... so socialist autocracy is your idea of good? Unpack all of the detail here. "transform to "undo" injustices"... That isn't economic, that's emotional. This is what Malthus called for. His vision was myopic and cruel. And this is what you'er advocating here.

 

The Carbon Tax was developed by conservative economists to find a market based solution to the gravest threat mankind has ever faced.

If someone wants to throw some Progressive ideas into the mix, I don't have a problem with that.

Btw, that's not autocracy, what Trump wants is to be a dictator, he might settle for autocrat, but his preference is plain.

Every developed country needs social programs. Your blanket dismissal is straight out of the early 1800s. You know, before the Civil War.

Also btw, myopic and cruel is absolutely perfect projection. I couldn't have said it better myself, well done.

 

Hmm.. I bet Al Gore truly believes himself a conservative and all... Folks like you throw around terms and attributes that frankly you don't actually know the first thing about. If we're being honest, the carbon tax wasn't crafted by conservatives, it was crafted at Goldman Sachs. They have no ideology other than attempting to figure out a method to create a permanent annuity for themselves and folks like Al Gore is one of the folks who created the carbon market to begin with. I fear you also don't understand the intent, at all. Carbon taxes create the capital to fund development in the underdeveloped nations of the world. That's why the UN is so for this. It has virtually NOTHING to do with being environmentally concerned. It has everything to do with being able to fund economic improvement, which leads inexorably to more carbon emissions btw... but you don't care. You call your belief the "gravest threat" and yet you fundamentally don't understand the reality of your advocacy. The fact that you cannot craft a cogent argument here, that you squirrel your way to a slap at trump seems opportunistic at best, and lazy.

And instead of being informed, you settle for being obedient, and when you suggest that you're "ok with that", it just means that you're too uninformed to understand the horror you're willing to accept. Which is fine for you. But don't expect anyone else to following you off that cliff.

When economists suggest they want to "transform to address inequity", what they really mean is artificially taking things. Nationalizing things. Enforcing their stupid on the rest of the folks because it makes their "value" to society something that is then monitored. They get to be the dictators of things like 5 year economic plans, just like China, and the old soviet. And the folks that suffer under those "plans" endure the vicious race to the bottom that always happens when you let folks, like the undersigned economists start implementing their brand of stupid.

 

If you were either knowledgeable or honest, you wouldn't have gone with that dumb Al Gore comment.

Carbon taxes have been around for a while. That's just Wall St looking to make a buck off them.

Now that's an interesting lie. Actually, where they have been used, they work. This isn't complicated, "if you want to change behavior, change the price". That's basic, basic, basic...

Love the paranoid fantasies, but it's fiction, not to be taken seriously.

Next time, seriously, put some effort into it, that was pathetic.

 

No thanks then.

 

As soon as anyone makes such false and absurd claims, you know they can't be taken seriously. Over 70,000 years ago, mankind faced an incomparably graver threat: global COOLING caused by the Lake Toba supervolcano eruption. It is estimated that the resulting climatic disruption and drought wiped out ~99% of the human species, leaving just a few thousand adults. The time is rapidly approaching when the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria will be proved to be the massive hoax it has always been, and those who have promulgated it will be deeply embarrassed -- but not deeply enough.

 

Not bad, but you're assuming it won't be the equal of that, when there is a good chance it will be worse.

 

There is zero (0) chance that increased atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use will even be a net negative. It is beneficial to plant growth, especially in water-limited climates, and to the modest extent that it warms the earth, that is a net benefit, which is why periods of warm global climate used to be called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

 

Arable zones are moving North. Most plants have limits on what they can tolerate. There's hundreds of negative effects already.

You don't get to rewrite a science, or just make sh*t up.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

 

Because the world has returned naturally to more normal Holocene temperatures.

Which fact, Captain Obvious, is not evidence for any of your claims.

But thousands of positive ones...

Wrong. I get to rewrite any "science" that is proved wrong by empirical fact, as anti-fossil-fuel hysteria claims have been. It is the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria crowd that has been makin' $#!+ up in carload lots:

See? And I will thank you to remember it.

 

There's nothing natural about fossil fuel extraction and burning and the increase in greenhouse gases it produces.

 

All that's missing is how that affects global average surface temperature. I.e., on what basis, exactly, are we to conclude that temperature cycles that have been natural up to now have somehow become unnatural?

 

Science.

 

False. There is no credible empirical scientific evidence whatever -- none -- that the natural forces that caused all previous century-scale warming episodes have somehow become inoperative.

 

We aren't saying they are inoperative, far from it.

This a grade school kid can understand, more energy in, more energy out.

Which is why we have superfires right now alongside a record breaking hurricane season...

And it's going to get a lot worse.

 

Now that's silly, you should be a joke writer for that idiot Bill Maher

 

That is a fact.

"Greg Mankiw, head of the Council of Economic Advisers under the George W. Bush administration, economic adviser to Mitt Romney for his 2012 presidential campaign and economics professor at Harvard University since 1985, has been advocating for increased carbon/oil taxation since at least 1999.[218] In 2006, he founded the Pigou Club of economists advocating for Pigovian taxes, a carbon tax chiefly among them. In the club's manifesto, he writes that "[h]igher gasoline taxes, perhaps as part of a broader carbon tax, would be the most direct and least invasive policy to address environmental concerns."[219]

In 1979, economist Milton Friedman expressed support for the idea of a carbon tax in an interview on The Phil Donahue Show, saying "...the best way to [deal with pollution] is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution."[220]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

Read the wiki, you might learn something.

 

Then why do you claim they could not have caused the recent century-scale cyclical warming that one would expect based on the timing of previous century-scale cyclical warmings?

The fact that you think that could be relevant shows how far you are from being scientifically qualified to have an opinion on the subject:

See?

No it isn't.

 

Nope.

Would that be the same Greg Mankiw whose introductory economics text gives a baldly false account of how private commercial banks create money? That Greg Mankiw?

The missing premise: that carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels impose a cost on the public.

But you might not learn that CO2 is not a pollutant, as it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

 

Irrelevant.

The cost of weather disasters goes up every year.

You don't get to rewrite science.

You said nope and then didn't have a word to say that supports your contention, just the usual BS. Do you know how to form an on topic response?

 

Could it be because of more illegals that the left let's in?

Ya know supply and demand

 

"It was during an interview with Roger Revelle for a San Diego magazine profile in 1982 that he acquainted me with the greenhouse effect caused by the burning of fossil fuels. A giant in the history of U.S. oceanography, Revelle had first written about industrial carbon dioxide emissions measurably changing atmospheric chemistry in a 1957 article co-authored with the chemist and physicist Hans Suess (the basic principle of the greenhouse effect had been recognized a century earlier)

During my career, new records have been broken on a regular basis in terms of both hottest years and decades and hottest sea surface temperatures, as emerging climate impacts such as ocean acidification, marine heat waves and loss of sea ice became new angles on the same story.

Instead of writing that story, on a day when the skies over my home in the San Francisco Bay Area were a dark and ominous jack-o’-lantern orange, I drove off to cover one of California’s deadly wildfires with the realization that you no longer have to travel far to report on a climate disaster, as one will soon come to a neighborhood near you."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-plan-global-warming_n_5f96f128c5b64c171eef006f

 

The problem of economists is that you would find an economist to prove any claim and its opposite.

Considering making the economy green, I would say yes, but with which energy ?