UN Report Suggests USD $240 Per Gallon Gasoline Tax to Fight Global Warming

On 10/9/2018 at 10:37 AM, WaytoPeace said:

This is no joke. The sooner we begin taking serious actions, such as adopting a carbon tax, the cheaper it will be.  If we are foolish enough to wait until 2030, the cost will be very high. 

You are right, WaytoPeace!  We need to get serious.  Like, Now!  So, the article says that the carbon tax should be $27,000 per CO2 ton released into the atmosphere.  Well, since we are now serious, and since a single cow releases 4 tons worth of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases (in their methane-filled farts) per year, and considering it takes two years to raise a cow for slaughter, that means the farmer should be paying $27k x8 = $216,000 in taxes per head of cattle.  Since the average cow produces around 440 lbs of meat, that means you can theoretically get about 1,760 quarterpounders out of one cow...which means a McDonald's hamburger ought to cost around $122.22 more in carbon taxes alone!    

However, it is not just cows that produce methane.  All livestock do!  So, since we are now serious about climate change, the most efficient (and therefore most logical) way to save the planet is to have the government outlaw farming.  

Now, I know what you are thinking: if we outlaw farming, wouldn't a lot of people starve to death???  But I've already thought about this!  You see, livestock aren't the only thing that farts out methane.  People do too!  If we outlaw farming, then we also can starve-off a lot of those evil methane-producing people!  At $27,000 per carbon credit, human beings collectively produce over $25.5 billion dollars worth of pollution just by farting and exhaling EACH YEAR! 

Imagine how far a little bit of starvation could go toward saving the planet!

Seriously.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epic said:

 Imagine how far a little bit of starvation could go toward saving the planet!

and imagine how much better everyone will look in a bikini. 

$240/gallon is nonsensical. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rodent said:

and imagine how much better everyone will look in a bikini. 

$240/gallon is nonsensical. 

It is not nonsensical if my electric bill is kept to a maximum $6,672/month in my bunker.  In fact, if I'm in my bunker (I don't have one) send all the climate controlled bills you want.  We will need to have a steady supply of toilet paper and we won't be going out much.  Hey, what was that?  In the sky, over there!  Did you see it?  Dive, dive, dive!  Katy, bar the door and LAGNAF one last time!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, the high tax on fuel could replace income tax or be used to pay off government debt, also the taxes are discussed on page 2-79 of Chapter 2

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter2.pdf

The tax in 2100 depends on the scenario and has a range of 690 to 27000 per tonne of CO2 ($112/gallon at $14000/tonne).

In 2030 the price is 45 to 960 per tonne of CO2 ($8/gallon at $500/tonne).

Also keep in mind that the sooner we start lowering emissions the closer we are to the low price ($45/ton in 2030 and $690/tonne in 2100 or $0.36/gallon in 2030 and $5.52/gallon in 2100).

In addition the higher prices on fossil fuels simply mean we will replace coal, oil, and natural gas more quickly and reduce risks of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and other severe weather.

Also keep in mind taxes can be revenue neutral, so increased carbon taxes can be used to reduce income tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dennis Coyne said:

In addition the higher prices on fossil fuels simply mean we will replace coal, oil, and natural gas more quickly and reduce risks of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and other severe weather.

< sigh >

United Nations: A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax Is Needed To Fight Climate Change

The IPCC’s report is meant to solidify political support for the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the stretch goal of the Paris accord.

But, according to their own report, there is very little evidence that global warming has caused many types of extreme weather events to increase.  “The IPCC once again reports that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes have increased, much less increased due to” greenhouse gases, University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. tweeted Sunday night pointing out this “inconvenient truth.”  For example, the IPCC’s report noted that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corrupt politicians, governments with debt that will never be paid or are simply broke/bankrupt and whose citizens can't pay for college let alone pay HUGE(!) taxes for the next (blank) they can't see or understand, Scientists who need grants, world bodies whose continued relevancy are under question, etc. etc. etc.

Those are the people we are asked to simply believe as much as the Pope!  At least the Pope leaves us alone and doesn't ask for a HUGE tax to pay for the coming of the Lord!  Which, by the way (didn't I tell you?), won't happen until long after you're dead and gone!  Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition! 

Do you know why people like it when they hear such terms as "drain the swamp" and "America First"?  It's because they are saying enough of this shit.  Bring me facts, prove it to me, prove it to me again, prove to me that you actually have a plan that make sense to deal with these issues.  NO Guesses!  No "we could be wrong, but what if we're right?!?!!!!  Reality.  Otherwise, stick it up your ass and get off my lawn!  NOW!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

< sigh >

United Nations: A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax Is Needed To Fight Climate Change

The IPCC’s report is meant to solidify political support for the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the stretch goal of the Paris accord.

But, according to their own report, there is very little evidence that global warming has caused many types of extreme weather events to increase.  “The IPCC once again reports that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes have increased, much less increased due to” greenhouse gases, University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. tweeted Sunday night pointing out this “inconvenient truth.”  For example, the IPCC’s report noted that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”

Hi Tom,

Try reading the report, and judge for yourself.  There are a variety of opinions, about 7.5 billion of them (at least one per person).

For the impact of 1.5 C or 2 C of warming try page 10 at link below.

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_faq.pdf

Also I said nothing about the number of hurricanes, it is the severity of the effects from droughts, floods, and other severe weather events.  The science shows that the risk of increased flooding, droughts, storm surges during hurricanes due to sea level rise will all be exacerbated by higher Global average temperatures.

Pielke has given us a red herring, which is standard practice.  I said nothing about the number of tropical cyclones, it is the devastating effect of more powerful cyclones due to higher sea surface temperatures and higher sea level that result from higher Global average temperature that is the problem.  Also note that Professor Pielke is not a climate scientist he is a political scientist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.

Edited by Dennis Coyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"97% of scientists" claim is nonsense.

If you unthinkingly parrot the absurd claim that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans, and you refuse to even take a look at the questions presented by climate skeptics, then perhaps you might be a climate change cultist... ?  

More in the link, here is a taste:

Independent Audit Exposes The Fraud In Global Warming Data

An independent audit of the key temperature dataset that is being used by climate models has exposed more than 70 problems with the data which render it “unfit for global studies.”  Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship-based recordings taken 100km inland.  The audit has concluded that the studies are deliberately exaggerating temperatures to support a theory of global warming utilizing global averages that are far less certain than what is being forecast.

The audit has revealed that “that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.”  Furthermore, the Paris Climate Agreement adopted 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is “fatally flawed.”  The entire Paris Climate Agreement has an agenda to eliminate effectively the advancement of society and attempt to reset the clock to the pre-Industrial Revolution.  This entire theory that before the Industrial Revolution, our planet’s atmosphere was somehow pristine and uncontaminated by human-made pollutants has been also proven to be completely bogus.

Bubbles trapped in Greenland’s ice has revealed that we began emitting greenhouse gases at least 2,000 years ago.  The Romans even constructed the first aqueduct was built in 312 BC because there was a serious problem with water pollution.  Seneca (c 4BC-65AD), the adviser to Nero, wrote in 61AD: “No sooner had I left behind the oppressive atmosphere of the city [Rome] and that reek of smoking cookers which pour out, along with clouds of ashes, all the poisonous fumes they’ve accumulated in their interiors whenever they’re started up, then I noticed the change in my condition.”

... The audit has exposed the dishonesty in this entire scheme and it appears to be directed at the goal of reducing the population.  Anomalies it has identified include at St Kitts in the Caribbean, the average temperature for December 1981 was zero degrees, normally it’s 26C.  For three months in 1978, one place in Colombia reported an 82 degrees Celsius average – hotter than the hottest day on Earth.  Then in Romania, one September the average temperature was reported as minus 46°C, which has never happened.  The data showed that supposedly ships would report ocean temperatures from places up to 100km inland.  The paper also points out that the most serious flaws identified was the shortage of data.  For the first two years, from 1850 onwards, the only land-based reporting station in the Southern Hemisphere was in Indonesia.  Then there were ship observations at the time but Australian records had not started until 1855 in Melbourne, behind Auckland which started in 1853.  This data appears to have been just made up.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Darth would say:   "The Force is strong in this one." 

Watch out for people who absolutely insist that only they know how to run the world. Give that crowd "emergency powers" by a vote of the Senate and it won't be long before you have the First Galactic Empire.  And you know the punishment for the Resistance. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me have a good 😆 laugh...Please read your Holy Books... It has been foretold... Our world will be DESTROYED.... THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire thing is a sham and a shakedown. The people pushing it would make billions. The looney left has no interest in real scientific research and evidence, just emotional irrational outrage. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui said:

Makes me have a good 😆 laugh...Please read your Holy Books... It has been foretold... Our world will be DESTROYED.... THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT... 

Please read your refrigerator manual...It has been foretold... The refrigerator will NOT WORK if unplugged... So sayeth the MANUFACTURER...  THE DAY OF SPOILED MEATS...

And both were written by men...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2018 at 4:03 AM, Dennis Coyne said:

Also keep in mind taxes can be revenue neutral, so increased carbon taxes can be used to reduce income tax.

Wow, now that is truly one of the most nieve things ever written. 

 

The entire thing is a sham. Selective data to bolster a false narrative created by the people who want funding and people who will make money from ridiculous amounts of taxes and regulations. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

Wow, now that is truly one of the most nieve things ever written. 

 

The entire thing is a sham. Selective data to bolster a false narrative created by the people who want funding and people who will make money from ridiculous amounts of taxes and regulations. 

Perhaps you mean naïve?

Those climate scientists are so wealthy :)

The science is sound, see 

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Decadal-Variations-Paper-JGR.pdf

The paper linked above has Judith Curry who publishes the Climate Etc blog as one of the co-authors.

see also

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf

See figure 5 from paper linked above below.

rhodes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:26 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

"97% of scientists" claim is nonsense.

If you unthinkingly parrot the absurd claim that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans, and you refuse to even take a look at the questions presented by climate skeptics, then perhaps you might be a climate change cultist... ?  

More in the link, here is a taste:

Independent Audit Exposes The Fraud In Global Warming Data

An independent audit of the key temperature dataset that is being used by climate models has exposed more than 70 problems with the data which render it “unfit for global studies.”  Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship-based recordings taken 100km inland.  The audit has concluded that the studies are deliberately exaggerating temperatures to support a theory of global warming utilizing global averages that are far less certain than what is being forecast.

The audit has revealed that “that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.”  Furthermore, the Paris Climate Agreement adopted 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is “fatally flawed.”  The entire Paris Climate Agreement has an agenda to eliminate effectively the advancement of society and attempt to reset the clock to the pre-Industrial Revolution.  This entire theory that before the Industrial Revolution, our planet’s atmosphere was somehow pristine and uncontaminated by human-made pollutants has been also proven to be completely bogus.

Bubbles trapped in Greenland’s ice has revealed that we began emitting greenhouse gases at least 2,000 years ago.  The Romans even constructed the first aqueduct was built in 312 BC because there was a serious problem with water pollution.  Seneca (c 4BC-65AD), the adviser to Nero, wrote in 61AD: “No sooner had I left behind the oppressive atmosphere of the city [Rome] and that reek of smoking cookers which pour out, along with clouds of ashes, all the poisonous fumes they’ve accumulated in their interiors whenever they’re started up, then I noticed the change in my condition.”

... The audit has exposed the dishonesty in this entire scheme and it appears to be directed at the goal of reducing the population.  Anomalies it has identified include at St Kitts in the Caribbean, the average temperature for December 1981 was zero degrees, normally it’s 26C.  For three months in 1978, one place in Colombia reported an 82 degrees Celsius average – hotter than the hottest day on Earth.  Then in Romania, one September the average temperature was reported as minus 46°C, which has never happened.  The data showed that supposedly ships would report ocean temperatures from places up to 100km inland.  The paper also points out that the most serious flaws identified was the shortage of data.  For the first two years, from 1850 onwards, the only land-based reporting station in the Southern Hemisphere was in Indonesia.  Then there were ship observations at the time but Australian records had not started until 1855 in Melbourne, behind Auckland which started in 1853.  This data appears to have been just made up.

 

Hi Tom,

What is the source of that "independent audit"?  There are several different analyses of the raw data set and they correct anomalies in the underlying data.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/noaa-global-surface-temperature-noaaglobaltemp

http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Can you point us to peer reviewed research on the matter?

Such as

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Station-Quality.pdf

or

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

or

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf 

and the appendix for the paper above

http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Methods-Appendix-GIGS-13-103a.pdf

Perhaps a "Skeptic" such as yourself should be a bit skeptical of what they find on the web?

Edited by Dennis Coyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about using this interesing thing called nuclear power, or planting more trees that will absorb co2 release oxygen and lower the mean soil temperature which could create better rainfall patterns

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2018 at 11:49 PM, Dennis Coyne said:

Perhaps a "Skeptic" such as yourself should be a bit skeptical of what they find on the web?

says the man quoting the sources from the web as facts to support an agenda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear with me here, I'll get around to the point eventually...

Over on LinkedIn this morning, someone was asking about the root cause of why the Iranian offshore jacket sank in South Pars gas field a number of years ago.

Gone in 30 seconds: Dozens of workers scramble to safety when 1,300-ton, £25million gas rig collapses in the Gulf

article-0-1782C481000005DC-60_308x185.jpg.2dbb75ba575dcd9661fe9b84de9f078d.jpg

There was a so-called "analysis" done and the root cause was identified as economic sanctions against Iran.

Unsuccessful Projects Analysis

Abstract

In 17 June 2012 Iran nation oil and gas company has tried to install offshore jacket on “South Pars field” which located in Persian Gulf. Project had to performed by international well experienced offshore companies but because of International sanctions they left the project. In other hand the oilfield is extended between Iran and Qatar that Qatar has been started to extract many years ago. Iran decided to perform the project by domestics professional but project failed. This survey focused on strength, weakness and reasons of failure and lessons learned. 

...
2.3 Failure factors

After investigation of the project failure two different types of failure fields have been detected which are listed below (SADRA CO 2009).

1- Technical failure

2- Economical reasons

According to political sanction of Iran atomic activities European partner left the project which they have designed operation. Iran has no feasible opportunity there were 2 major problems first and most important one was the shared oilfield with Qatar which made losses of project delay not tolerable for Iranian side and second one was complicated technology edge project based on submarine facilities and innovative robots and high capability offshore crane.

Economical reasons were the high cost of operation in case of operated by third party European companies. The sharing problems here played also key role Iran loses 500 million cubic meter Gas per day! Which made an incredible driving force to finish project in any condition. 

Also it was an Engineering independency for domestics engineering community to use this opportunity to show it capabilities but the complexity of project had so much force and weight to handle with young and unexperienced engineering group.

========================

So... my point is, it is way too easy to come up with an incorrect root cause analysis due to political bias.

In this case, Iran blamed "economic sanctions" and also blamed the high cost of third party European companies.

Meanwhile, time for the Global Warming God to smite me...

dbcdced37b4f8a23fd6c21774b38673628b3d74f20b492157d31b19bff4d16a3.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful I really want to learn and no more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 8:12 PM, mcambl61 said:

says the man quoting the sources from the web as facts to support an agenda

My sources are peer reviewed scientific papers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 8:12 PM, mcambl61 said:

says the man quoting the sources from the web as facts to support an agenda

You did notice that Tom did not answer any of my questions.  

Also the initial goal of Berkeley Earth was to show that the existing temperature data was biased.

What it found was that the existing data was, if anything, conservative.

Also note that Judith Curry is a co-author for some of the papers I referenced, she is a well known skeptic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:26 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

"97% of scientists" claim is nonsense.

If you unthinkingly parrot the absurd claim that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans, and you refuse to even take a look at the questions presented by climate skeptics, then perhaps you might be a climate change cultist... ?  

More in the link, here is a taste:

Independent Audit Exposes The Fraud In Global Warming Data

An independent audit of the key temperature dataset that is being used by climate models has exposed more than 70 problems with the data which render it “unfit for global studies.”  Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship-based recordings taken 100km inland.  The audit has concluded that the studies are deliberately exaggerating temperatures to support a theory of global warming utilizing global averages that are far less certain than what is being forecast.

The audit has revealed that “that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.”  Furthermore, the Paris Climate Agreement adopted 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is “fatally flawed.”  The entire Paris Climate Agreement has an agenda to eliminate effectively the advancement of society and attempt to reset the clock to the pre-Industrial Revolution.  This entire theory that before the Industrial Revolution, our planet’s atmosphere was somehow pristine and uncontaminated by human-made pollutants has been also proven to be completely bogus.

Bubbles trapped in Greenland’s ice has revealed that we began emitting greenhouse gases at least 2,000 years ago.  The Romans even constructed the first aqueduct was built in 312 BC because there was a serious problem with water pollution.  Seneca (c 4BC-65AD), the adviser to Nero, wrote in 61AD: “No sooner had I left behind the oppressive atmosphere of the city [Rome] and that reek of smoking cookers which pour out, along with clouds of ashes, all the poisonous fumes they’ve accumulated in their interiors whenever they’re started up, then I noticed the change in my condition.”

... The audit has exposed the dishonesty in this entire scheme and it appears to be directed at the goal of reducing the population.  Anomalies it has identified include at St Kitts in the Caribbean, the average temperature for December 1981 was zero degrees, normally it’s 26C.  For three months in 1978, one place in Colombia reported an 82 degrees Celsius average – hotter than the hottest day on Earth.  Then in Romania, one September the average temperature was reported as minus 46°C, which has never happened.  The data showed that supposedly ships would report ocean temperatures from places up to 100km inland.  The paper also points out that the most serious flaws identified was the shortage of data.  For the first two years, from 1850 onwards, the only land-based reporting station in the Southern Hemisphere was in Indonesia.  Then there were ship observations at the time but Australian records had not started until 1855 in Melbourne, behind Auckland which started in 1853.  This data appears to have been just made up.

 

The Independent audit was a PhD thesis

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

It focused on a single data set for Global temperature, there are several different data sets, besides the HADCRUT4 dataset analyzed.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/noaa-global-surface-temperature-noaaglobaltemp

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Note that one can compare the global average temperature using say 100 points on the globe where we have long term data and compare with the Global average.

The paper linked below is of interest (Judith Curry is one of the co-authors)

http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/Station-Quality.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

Paper above covers the heat island effect (Curry also a co-author)

These are peer reviewed research, rather than blog posts.

My agenda is finding the truth, peer reviewed scientific papers are where it is found.

 

Edited by Dennis Coyne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say "TAX" everything that is bad for the earth..  And first and foremost the UN needs to take action and implement a "Tax on All Liberals" !

On 10/9/2018 at 11:36 AM, Cobra67 said:

Time for Al Gore to make an appearance again as he flies in on his private jet and 10 limousine fleet. 

Maybe if China and India stopped burning coal for everything, things would improve.  Europe and North America will not like it when NatGas prices start to climb as all this LNG (and by implication, glut of stranded gas) moves to Asia over the next decade.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites