Carbon Taxes and Global Warming

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Problem I have with conservatives:

Elitism-during Bobby Jindal's speech, I felt like I was being lectured by a first-grade teacher. Mr. Governor, I'm not an idiot. I can understand the big-kid words now.

Elitism-looking down on others, and lamely insulting liberals/people with different views, with no thoughtful argument to back up their position. Apart from a little story about the sheriff.
 
lol @ bosdev: it's more indicative of a mental disorder to interpret the function of a carbon tax to be a self-interested liberal's means of desire-fulfillment (a desire to punish people, no less!)

But I guess if one had a mental disorder, then one couldn't be blamed for this kind of self-indulgent myopia. And that would be unfortunate.

Anyway, burden of proof still on the side of the skeptics...
 
Why would you want to punish people with a 2 dollar fee? Why in the world would anyone want this?

Asking someone to pay their share isn't punishment. Since this money is going to improve the airport, no less, then I really don't see the issue. In NYC the Port Authority added a surcharge to airplane tickets to pay for the AirTrain that connects JFK with the subway system. This would be similar. In fact I think the argument about carbon emissions is really just a PR face. Either way I'm for it.
 
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.


A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.


"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
 
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real

(CNN)...[/url]

CNN? Really? You may as well quote the Daily Worker. Someone on the internet clearly stated that climatologists are split 50/50 so 97% just cannot be correct. I'll bet these people you call "scientists" also believe in evolution.
 
Asking someone to pay their share isn't punishment. Since this money is going to improve the airport, no less, then I really don't see the issue. In NYC the Port Authority added a surcharge to airplane tickets to pay for the AirTrain that connects JFK with the subway system. This would be similar. In fact I think the argument about carbon emissions is really just a PR face. Either way I'm for it.

I guess then we should ask everyone to pay a surcharge for the air they breathe. And then the Commonwealth can use that money to help clean the air. We would be so much healthier. We're just stupid animals aren't we. No wonder France hates us.
 
lol @ bosdev: it's more indicative of a mental disorder to interpret the function of a carbon tax to be a self-interested liberal's means of desire-fulfillment (a desire to punish people, no less!)

But I guess if one had a mental disorder, then one couldn't be blamed for this kind of self-indulgent myopia. And that would be unfortunate.

Anyway, burden of proof still on the side of the skeptics...

What?
 
I guess then we should ask everyone to pay a surcharge for the air they breathe. And then the Commonwealth can use that money to help clean the air. We would be so much healthier. We're just stupid animals aren't we. No wonder France hates us.

Since when in driving and parking a human right?
 
I am not going to debate whether "climate change" is human-made or just natural. It's not debatable. We used to be covered with a glacier right here in Boston, so obviously climates change. Welcome to earth.

I also think that asking people in the "global warming" business for their thoughts on global warming is silly. "97% of people who propogate global warming believe in global warming" - yawn.

It's another debate for another time, here is what you should think about:

Deval Patrick has just made this announcement:

"I am going to raise parking fees $2 at Logan"

but instead, he re-framed his tax hike and said it this way:

"We need a $2 carbon surcharge at the airport"

Now, after you stop laughing, realize that here we all are debating "global warming" instead of hiking taxes at Logan by $2/parking spot.

His PR mission has been accomplished. He knows what idiots the voters are, after all, they elected him.
 
I am not going to debate whether "climate change" is human-made or just natural. It's not debatable. We used to be covered with a glacier right here in Boston, so obviously climates change. Welcome to earth.

I also think that asking people in the "global warming" business for their thoughts on global warming is silly. "97% of people who propogate global warming believe in global warming" - yawn.

Are you aware that people can die of natural causes, but can also die from gunshot wounds? Just because something can and has happened naturally does not mean it cannot be accelerated by human hands.

You'd think one could avoid this kind of drivel on a forum focusing on Boston, one of the most educated and liberal populations in the United States. Apparently not.
 
You'd think one could avoid this kind of drivel on a forum focusing on Boston, one of the most educated and liberal populations in the United States. Apparently not.

So are you in favor of the $2 parking fee hike or not? To Deval's delight, you are still chewing on that global warming red herring.

And by the way, "educted and liberal" is stinky elitism. Everyone knows the worlds of government, policy and academia are where people hide who can't hack it in the world of business.

Again, $2 charge - good/bad?
 
Three points

Point 1
Educated doesn't automatically equal 'liberal'. The actual meaning of the 'Taliban' is actually a group of educated scholars. They just happen to be 7th Century reactionaries. Most of the fascist and imperial powers of the last century were quite educated, yet I wouldn't ever call any of them 'liberal'.

Point 2
Liberal can also mean anything from leftist to libertine. What it means in Europe vs. the US is in part to people misusing the label for three quarters of a century. The same is true of 'conservative'. Both labels are used too broadly in this country to the point they've lost most of their meaning.

Point 3
pelhamhall is right about Deval trying to distract everyone from the financial issues he won't fix with reform so he once again passing the cost of ineffective government on to the public.
 
Everyone knows the worlds of government, policy and academia are where people hide who can't hack it in the world of business.

Isn't that kind of an 'elitist' generalization? Would you call Robert Moses a pussy? Or Michael Bloomberg?

Point 3
pelhamhall is right about Deval trying to distract everyone from the financial issues he won't fix with reform so he once again passing the cost of ineffective government on to the public.

Just want to highlight this. Even good politicians are politicians.
 
My generalization was really pretty stupid, admittedly. And yes, also very elitist in and of itself. That's kinda the fun of Internet boards, isn't it? I apologize.

It pisses me off when people refer to themselves as "educated" just because their parents purchased them a bachelor degree at a Brand Name College and then purchased them a Masters Degree in Bla Bla Bla at some Boutique College.

"Edcucated" will never, ever mean "smart". Getting B's and C's at any number of random schools such as, for example, a Wheelock College certifies you as educated, but certainly not smart.

Again this hilarious (nationally mocked) "Carbon Surcharge Fee" opens the doors to lots of approaches such as this. Why not have a "Carbon surcharge fee" for people without solar panels on their homes? Or a "carbon surcharge fee" for people who buy produce that isn't locally grown?
 
All things being equal, I actually agree with your generalization to a point.

Also, as much as I agree with this charge I do think it is just a lame political move. I'm saddened that we still can't have a civilized and informed conversation about greenhouse emissions/global warming.
 
Deval calling it a carbon surcharge isn't BS. By charging extra to park, I betcha more people will be inclined to use Mass Transit (lower carbon emissions). And all the people who don't care and pay, well their money goes to improve the mass transit around the airport. It's similar to that program allowing hybrid taxicabs preferred parking.

I'd say it's pretty clever, putting in action what environmentalists have been saying all along-greener is cheaper, in the long run.

I'm for the hike, even though I'll probably only pay it once or twice in the next few years. Too bad they could never get something like that here in STL.
 
It's BS because it's using the flavor of the month to sell this, when it has 11 other possible justifications. That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate strategy.
 

Back
Top