P/cloudy
52°
P/cloudy
Hi 63° | Lo 42°

Letter: Carbon tax is necessary

Thank you, Katy Burns, for your incisive refutation of climate change “skeptics” (Sunday Monitor, May 18).

As you point out, their conspiracy theories about climate scientists don’t make sense.

Indeed, it is obvious that scientists are being factual when they say that the climate is changing, the earth is warming, and it is largely our fault because of greenhouse gas emissions. They have no motivation to be anything else.

The real issue, of course, is what can we as a nation do about this immense problem?

It is equally obvious that economists are being factual when they say that the best way to lower greenhouse gas emissions is to charge for them.

Furthermore, the best way to charge is to institute a carbon tax, rebated in full to all households so that nobody is too badly hurt by rising energy costs.

I hope that your clear analysis will galvanize your readers to action.

Everyone should be clamoring to their senators and congressional representative for a carbon tax, fully rebated, to help fight climate change. Let’s act while there is still time to avoid the worst effects of a changing climate.

ALAN WEISS

Brookline

Gee . . . I can't wait 'til I get my "carbon tax refund" check deposited in my bank account!!!

Katy wanted a reason for the "conspiracy"....well there you go, money is one, fear mongering is another. FYI, the earth can take care of herself...has been for how many years? She will shake us off like fleas if she wants to so let's just get over it already.

Your post is 'whistling past the graveyard' with paranoid nonsense. Money? Most climate scientists could take their skills elsewhere and make a lot more money than they do even as tenured faculty at major institutions. Research grants pay for the research--they don't line anyone's pockets. As for fear-mongering, that's being done by the deep-pocketed deniers, who claim that whatever is done now and in the future to reduce carbon emissions will wreak havoc on the economy. They conveniently overlook the fact that doing nothing will result in far greater future costs to the economies and social structures of the world's nations. Doing nothing is the ultimate in nihilism and despair, which you seem to be embracing with your dismissive "get over it already." What about the next generation, from whom we've (in a sense) borrowed this time and place, to make it better for the next. We presume you have no children or grandchildren.

We are putting over 37 cubic tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere annually. Too much to be absorbed naturally. it doesn't dissipate for millennia. This isn't about Mother Nature, it's about chemistry, physics and math. no scientific body of national or international standing disputes that global warming s manmade. Do some research. Go to the. National. Academy of Sciences website or the American Association for the Advancement of Science's " What We Know" website.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax means the fossil fuel corporations give the money to us, the consumers. A lot of people have trouble getting their head around that, but the idea is genius! Fossil fuels get phased out because they become more expensive than solar and wind, We have the tax money to buy solar and wind energy and as clean energy scales ou, it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels are now.

The amount of energy that is delivered by cube of natural gas or gallon of gas is staggering compared to wind and solar. Hydrocarbon energy can be amplified try that with wind or solar. Heck try storing wind or solar power. Readers should really stay away from these alarmists - they no not what they preach

Once, they scoffed at the idea that men could fly. Sail/BPR's ancestors likely were among the scoffers. The amount of energy that shines on the planet from the Sun dwarfs all other forms. We are clever enough to learn to catch and convert it. We lack only the will to make the necessary investment. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/visualizing-how-much-energy-the-sun-shines-onto-earth-a-thought-experiment/261436/

Once they scoffed that people could govern themselves in a free society and we proved that they could but progressives can't have any of that, they want control to tell everyone how to live, what is fair to earn, how to eat, drive, heat your home, etc. You can't invest in solar without maximizing fossil fuel to fill in energy needs in the meantime. Your proposal would be that we live like paupers to save the planet while government experts spend money or solar and enrich themselves. Not happening.

I hesitate to respond to this post, since it gives it more attention than it deserves, but it's one more off-topic, paranoid rant that has no factual support. The "control" theme is right out of the Bircher/Grok/ TP/Agenda 21 playbook, and has NO factual basis. To the degree there is government over-reach and surveillance of citizens, it didn't start with climate science or the green energy movement. The government ramped up surveillance after 9/11--under a Republican president, you may recall. There have been small moves since to scale back the "security state". Moreover, the decentralized nature of solar energy--widespread adoption of rooftop solar electricity, will reverse the trend of centralized power generation. A carbon-tax is a market-driven solution and can be revenue neutral--since when did the Carp Per Diems become enemies of the marketplace? Finally, the post once more illustrates the head in the sand, denialist mentality that ignores the science and the economics. It would have us follow a far-right ideology that most likely leads to climate catastrophe and economic calamity for the rest of the century and beyond.

alarmists have again confused politics with science

proof again that the alarmists are clueless when it comes to their understanding of "amplification"

A revenue-neutral carbon tax means the fossil fuel corporations give the money to us, the consumers. A lot of people have trouble getting their head around that, but the idea is genius! Fossil fuels get phased out because they become more expensive than solar and wind, We have the tax money to buy solar and wind energy and as clean energy scales ou, it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels are now.

To those convinced that mankind alone is the cause of all wrong and change on our globe: have you considered humans as a factor? In the times of the ancient Greeks, there so few people on the planet that only single names were needed like Archimedes or Aristotle. The population has exploded to 7 billion humans - each consuming food (1000-2000 cals/day) and producing heat and each generating a temperature near 98 degrees. How much heat to humans generate in a day? How would that compare to a time when humans numbered around a billion total? Are we a big part of global warming by our mere existence?

Short answer: No. Each of us generates about the same amount of heat as a single lightbulb. Even the heat output of 7 billion of us is dwarfed by the energy we use (about 90% of which is lost/wasted in inefficiency.http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/node/118

it has been well documented that there has been no globull warming for over 17 years - 9 months the writers point is now moot.

It is equally "well documented" that when the moon is in Pisces in the third house....

It is also "well documented" that when the moon if full that progressives are over the top.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.