Hi 27° | Lo 4°

Letter: Nation needs carbon tax

Capital Beat’s discussion of “An energy tax fight” (Monitor, June 15) emphasized that New Hampshire Republicans hammered Sen. Jeanne Shaheen for voting to require future carbon taxes be revenue neutral. How bizarre!

Perhaps the Republicans didn’t notice that four Republican, former EPA directors wrote an article last year explaining why they support a carbon tax to deal with climate change. These are the most qualified Republicans to comment on climate change policy, and they support carbon taxation.

Why would New Hampshire Republicans dis the counsel of the best Republican authorities by opposing carbon taxes, and why wouldn’t they want to ensure future carbon taxes are revenue neutral? Eventually, Congress will have to respond to climate change.

Does New Hampshire want senators who don’t understand basic economics and therefore don’t understand why carbon taxes are the best solution to climate change? Or do they want senators who understand climate change, carbon taxation and the benefits of revenue neutrality?

Furthermore, Regional Economic Models Inc. just released a study of a revenue-neutral carbon tax that rebates all tax proceeds to households. REMI found a rebated carbon tax would cut emissions, increase jobs by 2.1 million within 10 years, shield consumers from price increases and grow the economy.

Please encourage senate candidates to review REMI’s study. True leaders will explain to constituents why America needs a carbon tax to be paid by fossil fuel companies and rebated to the public. Those who deny climate change, dis carbon taxes or fail to understand revenue neutrality’s economic benefits are not cut out to be leaders.


Brookline, Mass.

Legacy Comments31

Global warming, aka climate change is a huge hoax created by Maurice Strong, the Rockefellers and other wealthy oil families to impose global redistribution of the wealth upon those who are too prosperous. There is currently more ice on the polar continents that ever before. Just look at who funds these fringe groups like It's the Rockfellers. They want to keep the price of oil high and their profits rolling in, and use the taxation scheme to create a centralized, top down form of government. Bruce and others who have fallen for this outright hoax, if you want this, move to the EU. Strong admits it and is now living in China, the world's biggest polluters to escape the UN scandal with which he was involved.

Dear Walter when you lose a liberal rag like the Washington Post - you are wrong - READ THIS: "The Washington Post verifies ‘the pause’ in global warming"

You need to read Scientific AMerican (not known for anything other than presenting factual material). Read the WHOLE article, not just the first paragraph. Here is the link

So papers you don't agree with are "rags". Then what are papers you agree with like WSJ or Union Leader? Great, outstanding, unbiased pillars of freedom?" You really do want a country where only one point of view is allowed, yours, don't you?. Sounds like No. Korea to me.

So what will the carbon tax be used for? Will it be held in a lock box? I think that the letter writer might need a lesson economics, not NH Senate candidates. People in Brookline, Mass now trying to influence NH elections. Hey, isn't that the same as Scott Brown running in NH? I think so. By the way, there is NOTHING we can do to slow down climate change. India and China have already make it clear that they will not be joining in. No matter what we do we will only be harming ourselves if we go down this Draconian road of unilateral economic destruction.

The lefts MASSIVE HOAX. The left always obfuscate their real meaning. AsK a leftist what "carbon" means and they will tell you CO2 - here is a fact to consider. Lets say that CO2 in the atmosphere over the industrial revolution has increased from 300 to 400 PPM - (PPM means parts per million) so that = 1/10,000. So the alarmists left has scared the world over a little itsy bitsy 1/10,000. To still believe in this HOAX after FACTS prove it has not warmed in 17 years 9 months takes a suspension of disbelief or maybe believers are just LIDV's

BPR...what you wrote is absolutely WRONG (but, of course, you knew that). And to prove it, here is a statement from National Climate Data Center: " The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. " Now, BPR, please note these are REAL facts, not your hoax facts.

No Walter, it is a fact that there has been NO warming in the last 17 years and 9 months. ( – "Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). Christy's findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nation’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR). Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf)"

Oh, you ever do any fact-checking?? Of course NOT. Just your same old bull. Obviously, WRONG.

OK, is an article you can read about recent model results:

You won't even consider other research as your mind is made up, no reason to discuss anything with you so long as your beliefs are absolute.

You wrote that about yourself, right??

No Wally, I wrote it about you.

Conservative News Service (CNS) is NOT a scientific journal, it is an ultra-right RAG which, like Fox, Glenn, and Rush sling misinformation around like hash and hope it sticks. Grow up-it isn't 'beliefs', I'm quoting, it is scientifically established fact. (So, now you can quote some other garbage or give another misstatement to divert into another discussion).

If a study released flies in the face of your trumped up beliefs, you dismiss it because of where it appears. I read where there was a study that found that spray deodorant actually has helped the environment. I am thinking that we could spray Pam on our grills and come out with some good Bergers and still help the environment.

Alleged "news" sources like CNS and "American Thinker" are "go-to" sources for the Carp Per Diems because their highly selective take on reality (climate change being exhibit A) assures that whatever cognitive dissonance they experience here will be minimized and papered over with "all the news that fits" their preconceptions and prejudices, permitting them to go forth once more into the breach.

I guess that means Think Progress, MSNBC, etc are "go to" sources for the Harp Per Minutus brigade who are highly selective on choosing information (97% of scientists agree, the science is settled, the debate is over) assures that whatever propaganda they want to spread in the name of ideology and agenda is fair game.

The 97% figure is derived from academic studies--half a dozen different ones, using different methodologies. They have nothing to do with Think Progress or MSNBC. The Kochs helped fund the BEST study--which confirmed ALL the major findings of climate science. If the far right could debunk the fact the more than 9 out of 10 climate scientists accept AGW, they would. But ALL reviews of the literature confirm that figure. Imagine you went to your doctor, and received news you were at great risk of developing a potentially life-threatening condition. But you disagreed with the doctor's diagnosis and treatment recommendation. You shop for 10 more opinions; the next 9 doctors all give the same diagnosis and recommended course of treatment. Finally, you find one doctor who tells you that you have nothing to worry about. 10 of 11 doctors told you the same thing, but you're listening to the one who told you what you wanted to hear. That's the epitome of denial.

you severely diminish yourself and your debate when you use the bogus 97% - It has been so debunked one should be ashamed to use it.

“Debunked”? In your dreams only. We know what your standards of proof are on any given subject. In effect, what it means here is that if you went to 30 doctors, and 29 of them all gave you the same diagnosis, you’d reject each and every one, in favor of that 30th opinion. “In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).  A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).  The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.”

remember when the National Enquirer broke the story about John Edwards..and all the "real" news outlets ignored it??

so the definition of a rag is...whatever does not support your

any of this making it to the moderator????? problems????

Your post is disingenuous nonsense. There is NO "other research"--only cherry-picked factoids from the the science research that the deniosphere then twists out of context, as for example Sail/BPR and your phony "headlines" about a pause in the warming. The deniosphere funds NO research--it knows there is no point--they can't disprove global warming, so they LIE about it. That alleged 'pause' is an artifact of cherry-picked data from only ONE of the four main sources of surface temp data. If you choose 1997-- a record-setting El Nino year--and use the Hadley-CRU data set, the claim can be made that land surface temps have not reached that high since. But that doesn't mean temps haven't continued to go up--each new month is consistently higher than the 20th century average. Choose a longer OR shorter time frame, and that "pause" disappears. And the other temp records--NASA-GISS for example, have later years--2005 for example, as warmer than 1997--98. Claims of a real pause in the warming are fraudulent nonsense--like ALL the claims coming from the deniers, which you so gleefully and ignorantly parrot back to this site. Wanna cracker?

See here for the NASA-GISStemperature record--no 'pause'.

Proves not, hing, it started increasing in the late 1800's and has been increasing every since. In 1900 the world population was tiny compared to today. There were more trees and not that much industrialization. If the temperature is increasing it could be many things, most likely cyclical. Again you pine to throw the baby out with the bath water, make a hysterical reaction and hamstring our country while others do not follow suit and the reaction will have no significant impact on the temperature. I know, I know, we Americans need to be taken down a notch because we are viewed by you and your ilk as imperialistic and a world power that has taken from others for ourselves, etc. Yes the Ingalls/Marx strategy in action. You and Obama, two peas in a pod or maybe just pea in a pod.

Here's how scientists know that CO2 is a principal cause of the warming: It's called science.

Here's a graph of the Hadley-CRU temp data post WW2. This site, "WoodforTrees", enables anyone to play with the data from all the data sets. Try it, and see why the denier/SAIL/BPR/Itsa claim is false.

Here's the same data set, with 4 different start/stop points:

Well, you know what they say.....figures don't lie but liars sure do figure. I do not believe in the hysteria and the "we must take measures now" silliness. We are not "deniers" we are just not "hysterical ninnies".

HEADLINES FOR BRUCE "NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record" - they got caught cheating the records again !!!!!!!!!

Post a Comment

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