No more carbon taxation bullshit? Can we finally drop the terribly forced meme that is manmade global warming?

>have your kids melt to death in 100 years time.
literally a made up doomsday scenario.

worst we get is some flooding.

pence is a young earth creationist and has lobbied for including creationist theory in textbooks used in public schools

>make the EPA too weak to do anything
>blame the EPA for not doing anything

A classic

...

People need to understand that for a given rate of hydrocarbon pollution, there's a distribution of levels of risk and severity of hazards.

If there's even a small chance that humans are triggering runaway global warming in the long-term, then it's worth significantly curbing our use now until we collect enough data to conclude otherwise.

It's a long-term threat, it's a bit abstract to understand, there's a lot of money riding on leaving emissions unregulated, and it requires public commitment to tackle. So naturally the stars are aligned to make it an extremely hard pill to swallow. But in a cruel twist of irony, it may be the one pill we need to swallow moreso than any other.

why are you posting schizo /x/ memes on Veeky Forums ?

just another moron who thinks that "muh carbon taxes" are some magic bullet that will fix all the problems automatically

>replace all coal plants with natural gas plants (already happening due to natural gas being cheaper)
>cuts US CO2 emissions by 20%

>replace all gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles
>electric vehicle sales will surpass gasoline vehicle sales in the 2020s
>CO2 emissions reduced by 30%

Both of these things are already happening, and with zero federal funding behind them.

What would the federal government do anyways? Submit a proposal to the IPCC that the US will reduce emissions by 20% over the next 30 years? Pass unfunded mandates that stipulate reducing co2 emissions per kwh (just a glorified way of shifting the costs to the taxpayer without taking a political penalty for it, and shifting the blame to business)?

Just look at how much the federal government has fucked up everything in the last half century. The last impactful pro-environmental thing the government did was in the 70s under Nixon

There is nothing magical about a tax creating a specific economic incentive.

The utility of taxing one service to encourage the use of another has a demonstrable upper limit in effectiveness. Businesses will just raise the prices of electricity bills rather than investing in alternative energy sources; and can you really blame them when a new power plant can take a decade to build?

>just another moron who thinks that "muh carbon taxes" are some magic bullet that will fix all the problems automatically
adding to the cost of carbon-based energy production is a logical mechanism by which to reduce demand for that.

I don't have specific figures but using government. hastening transition to cleaner energy-production technology should at least be a consideration.

>Just look at how much the federal government has fucked up everything in the last half century.
What about the internet

>The last impactful pro-environmental thing the government did was in the 70s under Nixon
we've improved vehicle emissions considerably.
France uses nuclear power for 70% of its supply.

>Businesses will just raise the prices of electricity bills
which reduces demand

Doesn't China do way more in regards to reducing emissions and environmental preservation than like, every Western country?

If prices are high enough to compensate the tax increase, it will create the incentive for cleaner energies since the lower costs without the tax will mean higher margins at the same or inferior price. On the other hand, the higher price will reduce demand.
Your position about the impotence of institutional engineering to have an impact is purely dogmatic.

This is bait, right??? Please tell me you are fucking with us and aren't that potato-tier naive.

>adding to the cost of carbon-based energy production is a logical mechanism by which to reduce demand for that.
That is not the purpose of a carbon tax. Those types of laws should be in ultimatum format: "invest this % of co2 induced profit into renewable development or r&d or we will take it from you as taxes and give it to someone who will"
Instead, the taxes in place in Europe are used simply as another way to funnel funds into social programs (this is what Democrats in the US also hope to use them for)

>What about the internet
You mean the internet that is currently being sold out to the UN?

>we've improved vehicle emissions considerably.
Yes, thanks to the clean air act, originally signed by Republican President Nixon

>France uses nuclear power for 70% of its supply.
Democrats in the US are single-handedly responsible for killing the US nuclear industry.

It's easier to do more when you start from rock-bottom, and China isn't afraid of nuclear like we are.

>If prices are high enough to compensate the tax increase, it will create the incentive for cleaner energies
Where will the money for investment in these clean energies come from? Oh, right, it's being taken away by carbon taxes.

>On the other hand, the higher price will reduce demand.
Yes; if we all went back to the stone age and just stopped using technology it would make this global warming thing so much easier to solve. In fact, why not just kill of 99% of all people while we're at it?

>Your position about the impotence of institutional engineering to have an impact is purely dogmatic.
Name some high profile examples of successful governmental "institutional engineering"
I'll wait

By your logic, the solution is to reduce demand to zero (no cars, no flying, no livestock, no breathing) rather than to find alternatives that don't produce CO2.

YAAAASSSS KING T SO HAPPY I VOTED FOR HIM :ok_hand:

>Doesnt china do more to curb pollution than the entire West?
>Its easier when you are at rock bottom

Bull shit. China is a horrendous polluter, STILL. They are investing a significant amount of money into solutions, FINALLY, but only because people are dropping dead on the streets of Beijing (pretty much the only place the Chinese ruling class cares about).

In all categories, air, land and water, China has an absolutely horrendous program going. It is one of the little talked about facts that will prove all the pollsters wrong again about China:

They won't be the new emergent superpower.
They are going to choke and die on their own poison and the people will literally go to war against the leaders, armed with their own feces.

Do you have a genuine mental illness?

>Its easier when you are at rock bottom
Obviously stating that China is the world's worst producer of greenhouse gases

cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

There is no room for debate. The denialists are done.

We are headed for a wall people, and instead of putting on the breaks or turning ourselves around we put an idiot into power who's going to put the gas pedal to the floor.

We are very soon going to live in a world we don't want to live in. We have a chance to make it so the world we're heading toward isn't as bad as it can be but no, we're going to be that stupid.

>Where will the money for investment in these clean energies come from? Oh, right, it's being taken away by carbon taxes.
>Name some high profile examples of successful governmental "institutional engineering"
It is pretty common for a dying industry to finance the birth of a new technology.
I'll give the case of cigarettes: the taxes are so high and restrictions so overwhelming that worldwide demand is quickly falling. At the same time, the high taxes have both risen prices and reduced margins, making alternatives such as electronic cigarettes attractive to both consumers and producers, despite higher manufacturing costs. The differential in taxes in new products has also given rise to huge investments in research, which have led to, for example, recent philip morris "reduced risk products", which are taking over the japanese market.
Although the investment for a new product doesn't necessarily require financing from the old product, if there is a big opportunity created by government policies, an innovative company will have no problem getting credit.
Again, you are pure dogmatism.

>Yes; if we all went back to the stone age and just stopped using technology it would make this global warming thing so much easier to solve. In fact, why not just kill of 99% of all people while we're at it?
Do you think this is an argument?

> source: your ass

Europoor finding this absolutely hilarious here

>We are very soon going to live in a world we don't want to live in.
Why do you think that is; or are you just spouting sensationalist bullshit?

>We have a chance to make it so the world we're heading toward isn't as bad as it can be but no, we're going to be that stupid.
There are much worse things to be worried about than gradual sea-level rise and increases in periodic drought; laser-induced isolation of U-235 and self-learning computers, just to name a couple.

Pence doesn't believe smoking is dangerous to health either.

careful you'll summon our resident Marlboro man

I'll pose the same thing I posted earlier again, since evidently you do not no how to read.
>Those types of laws should be in ultimatum format: "invest this % of co2 induced profit into renewable development or r&d or we will take it from you as taxes and give it to someone who will"
Explain why this system is not infinitely superior to carbon taxes, especially if the r&d is put towards new nuclear technology.

>Do you think this is an argument?
An argument for carbon taxes is always an argument for curbing economic growth.
Energy use per capita is strongly correlated with GDP per capita which in turn is strongly correlated with quality of life.

Is the reason for wanting to stop climate change not to prevent the lowering of quality of life of people worldwide?

>thinking cigarettes and energy are remotely comparable
literally retarded

>VP
>literally does fucking nothing 100% of the time

>the alternative was someone who thinks "muslim" is a race, or someone who thinks nuclear reactors are "WMDs", or someone who wants to make shipping goods by truck illegal
It's no wonder that Trump won desu

> someone who wants to make shipping goods by truck illegal

??????

>Explain why this system is not infinitely superior to carbon taxes, especially if the r&d is put towards new nuclear technology.
Irrelevant to the discussion. Let me remind you that your position is that the carbon tax is ineffective ("Businesses will just raise the prices of electricity bills rather than investing in alternative energy sources"), not that it is effective but inferior to another policy
Since you seem to be moving goalposts, i'll assume that you admit that the carbon tax is indeed effective.

>An argument for carbon taxes is always an argument for curbing economic growth.
Clean energy is efficient enough that it will not harm economic growth aside from the costs of restructuring, which are inevitable.

>thinking cigarettes and energy are remotely comparable
Are you retarded? You asked me to give you an example of institutional engineering. That is an example.

livetrucking.com/bernie-sander-says-hell-take-semis-off-the-road-if-elected/

or someone with degrees in physics and math

>creating a state of the art rail system which will

>Let me remind you that your position is that the carbon tax is ineffective ("Businesses will just raise the prices of electricity bills rather than investing in alternative energy sources")
You have yet to explain why this is wrong.
Carbon taxes will only lead to increased prices for consumers.

>Clean energy is efficient enough that it will not harm economic growth aside from the costs of restructuring, which are inevitable.
Wrong for two reasons:
-carbon taxes do not lead to new clean energy technologies
-clean energy is not cheaper than fossil fuel energy, so using it will have a negative economic impact

>You asked me to give you an example of institutional engineering. That is an example.
see pic
>14%
ahahahhahaha

It is already significantly cheaper to ship things by rail. When things are shipped on the road it is for time reasons only.
Bernie can't into logistics; not surprising for someone who's never held down a real job in his life.

>livetrucking.com/bernie-sander-says-hell-take-semis-off-the-road-if-elected/
Bernie Sanders says he'll '“create a state of the art rail system which takes trucks off the road.”

You apparently interpret this as saying Bernie Sanders "wants to make shipping goods by truck illegal".

Are you retarded?

See
Rail is already significantly cheaper, meaning that low cost rail will not drive trucks out of business. The only way Bernie could "take trucks off the road" is by banning them.

>You have yet to explain why this is wrong.
I'll repeat myself again: lower relative marginal revenue due to taxes is an incentive for companies to reconvert. You have given no economic counterargument. And there isn't, because it's basic economics.

>see pic
You do realize that sudden health awareness is a consequence of forced health warnings in packs, huge marketing restrictions, and government campaigns right? AKA institutional engineering.
That being said, a 14% drop in energy consumption would be huge. Not to mention that you are only looking at the impact in incentives to the consumer, not the producer.

>You have given no economic counterargument.
Those types of laws should be in ultimatum format: "invest this % of co2 induced profit into renewable development or r&d or we will take it from you as taxes and give it to someone who will"
Explain why this system is not infinitely superior to carbon taxes, especially if the r&d is put towards new nuclear technology.

Are you going to answer it this time, champ?

>AKA institutional engineering
"We need to force tobacco companies to put these labels on their products because they are blatantly lying to the public to make a profit" is not institutional engineering

Institutional engineering would be something like "if we pass this law requiring seat belt use, seat belt use will increase 35% and traffic fatalities will drop by 2000 each year" It requires quantitative data for decision making.

Either way, none of that makes carbon taxes a good thing.

>Are you going to answer it this time, champ?
Not until you admit the carbon tax is effective or give a counterargument.

There is literally nothing wrong with that tweet.

Effective at what?
Reducing demand for energy? because I've already explained that I agree that it would.

Both reducing demand and incentivizing restructuring / clean energies.

>Only chance is if science can invent a way to make people live 200 years

De Grey, Google, and other organizations are already working on expanding the human life expectancy and fighting ageing.

>incentivizing restructuring / clean energies
This will never happen with things that require large capital costs (nuclear), and is already happening in the few places where less intensive sources are available (wind) without the use of carbon taxes.

What new energy frontiers will be opening up in this reduced-capital environment? I'm genuinely curious as to what fantasies are fueling your delusions.

Mass migrations, large amounts of currently farmable land lost, water and food shortages, increased damage from flooding and fires.

This is not up for debate.
climate.nasa.gov/effects/

The only delusion is to think that a more profitable alternative (after taxes) will not be taken advantage of by the market due to a speculation about capital shortage in a specific sector. For someone who thinks the government can do no good, the market you envision is very irrational.

>really goddamn fast

It's a tweet from 2012 lmao

Read the article, retard.

>wind
there is no such thing as 'clean energy' such as wind power which requires the creation of tons of cement which produces tons of CO2

parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf

I didn't even see the link.

I guess I now truly am a retard™

>This is not up for debate.
Sure it is. I disagree with your moot.

Lets debate.

>Links a NASA website as "proof" of what will happen if massive globalist government isn't enacted
uh huh

>for time reasons only

And a faster state of the art rail system will reduce the need to resort to trucks.

>The attack on pseudo-science has started really goddamn fast.

ftfy

He doesn't say it's a lie though. All of his statements are like this. That's because he won't follow any of them, kek.

>Trump has called global warming “bullshit” and he has said he would “cancel” the Paris global warming accord and roll back President Obama’s executive actions on climate change (ClimateWire, May 27).
Uh, no, he does say it's a lie.

>China is the world's worst producer of greenhouse gases

Do you mean the best?

So you're saying they bought all meteorologists on Earth and made them make up their data. Nice reasoning.

No, in fact they are one of the best examples of what to avoid.

We've done this before, and thankfully we're still alive because of it.

You don't need a NEW WORLD ORDER to enact sensible policy changes that literally affect the entire planet, you merely need a mutually agreeable treaty or two that serves everyone's best interests.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#History

And the great brain drain begins

But it's easier to reduce demand to zero, by reducing population.

This

This is why we needed Hillary's global nuclear war.

This cure is worse than the disease. She would kill the right people (wether unknowingly or no is other question) and leave the wrong ones to fuck up the planet even more.

Also, radiation.

>AntiVax

This gonna be gud.

No, that's just ridiculous. Hillary is already a crazy old person who was involved in almost all 21st century conflicts and is covering dozens of war crimes. There's nothing you could gain from her except for our and your struggling. Trump could be no better, but at least he is not yet proven to be THAT bad.

t. Russian

Do you actually believe she's crazy enough to do that? To a superpower country? To receive a nuke too and remove the globe? What's the purpose then? No one would ever allow her to do that.

No, she just wouldn't have caved in front of a country that has the economic strength of Italy and the military strength of France. I know /pol swallows Putin's propaganda like honey, but as a matter of fact Russia is not very strong.

>tfw either people believe in climate change and blame the US for it or don't believe in it and want to make it worse
WHY WON'T SOMEBODY JUST BLAME CHINA, IT'S THEIR FAULT

Do you even know the definition of a superpower country? Are you 12yo or something?

> Russia's a superpower
not for 20+ years

They have their own nuclear weapon, user. Hillary nukes Russia => Russia nukes US. It's literally 2+2.

samefag

Yeah, and thats why nobody really thinks about using them. Except Donald of course, who first has to learn these things.

Russia will not destroy it's whole existence over Syria or Ukraine. Even if Putin wanted that, Russia is not only ruled by him. There are a lot of very powerful and rich men in Russia who are not exactly hot to lose everything in a nuclear disaster.

Btw, even Trump can't start a nuclear war on his own, he needs the approval of the department of defense. And even then i would question it very much if the military is actually going to follow orders.

>Btw, even Trump can't start a nuclear war on his own, he needs the approval of the department of defense. And even then i would question it very much if the military is actually going to follow orders.
I must admit I have no idea how those things work but I always found it hilarious how people assume the president has a little "nuke" button under his desk or something, allowing him to casually throw them around whenever he's in a bad mood.

This is what pushed me over with the attack ads in the last days of the election. They were always something like,
>We cannot trust Donald Trump with our country's nuclear arsenal!
As if someone on Twitter is going to call him a faggot, and he pushes the convenient "nuke the country where this person lives" button sitting on his desk.

>Science is about making predictions and conducting experiments to test those predictions.
>Climatologists model what would happen if lots of CO2 were released into the atmosphere. Trump will actually do that

Where were you when Trump made climatology science again?

...

>department of defense
Which he will selectively staff, you mongoloid.

Go and look at the projections for Trump's potential cabinet. The man is not a joke, he is a very real danger to us all.

he is going to be the most powerful vp of all time, he's absolutely the one calling the shots here

Well I mean, atomic bombs have actually killed people in history. So apart from phrasing it in the present tense, that's an accurate statement.

The actual equivalent for this would be "atoms don't exist, stop the 'building nuclear power plants' tax".

Yes, they have more hydro power than the rest of the world combined and are shutting down coal power plants faster than anyone else. Mainly to combat their lethal smogs, but it's still environmentally-minded.

Besides which, China is just where the rest of the world exported its emissions to. It's the world's factory on top of having the largest population, of course it appears to have a high rate of emission even though proportionally it doesn't.