National Academy of Science Urges Carbon Tax 875
eldavojohn writes "Moving for the first time from a cautious message to a message of urgency, the National Academy of Science has advised the United States government to either adopt a carbon tax or cap and trade legislation. This follows a comprehensive study in three parts released today from the National Academies that, for the first time, urges required action from the government to curb climate change."
externality (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes a lot more sense to tax a negative externality than it does to tax something we want more of like income.
Re:externality (Score:5, Informative)
A tax on carbon is a tax on everything. Food prices will rise. The price of everything ordered on Amazon will rise. The price of everyhtng transported by road or rail will rise. The price of running your heater or AC will rise, a lot. And it's a regressive tax, like all consumption taxes.
The last time America had a serious economic crisis, it was pretty directly caused by energy prices rising. Why are we so determined as a nation to magnify and extend the current economic crisis to match the Carter years?
Re:externality (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of us prize health over a new tv?
Re:externality (Score:4, Informative)
No, it doesn't. Plants are NOT limited by CO2 concentration, they are limited by the efficiency of light-gathering biological systems.
However, increased CO2 concentration allows plants to expend less water during photosynthesis. It doesn't make them grow faster, but increases their drought-resistance.
Here is a nice article: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf [columbia.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[..] directly caused by energy prices rising.
But look at who got the extra money, in large parts it was exported overseas and is still being exported there. I wonder how much of the negative trade deficit comes from just that.
Money raised from this tax would stay within the country and when used wisely can foster new technology. Much better than giving billions each year into the hands of, well... you need a tagline to sell it: terrorist sympathizers! (Not the Saudi gov't itself, but quite a few of it's citizen). Oil prices will go up inevitably, bett
Re:externality (Score:5, Insightful)
A tax on carbon is a tax on everything. Food prices will rise. The price of everything ordered on Amazon will rise. The price of everyhtng transported by road or rail will rise. The price of running your heater or AC will rise, a lot. And it's a regressive tax, like all consumption taxes.
If half the harms of global climate change come true, that's going to happen anyway. I'd hate to pay more for my amazon order, but I'd hate even more to catch malaria because it was warm enough now for it to thrive in my latitude.
(note that I have no idea how likely that effect of climate change is. I'd probably invest in some bug spray and gin and tonic... maybe that's not a bad thing...)
Re:externality (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the costs of things will rise. That's unavoidable. If we do nothing, the costs will probably be even larger.
Reminds me of when we had rolling blackouts in California a few years back. Despite the warnings to reduce electricity usage, and brown outs the day before, I showed up at work to sit in a frigid cubicle because all the air conditioners were going full blast. It's really weird to be wearing a coat in the middle of a heat wave because someone can't figure out that we don't need it to be that cold inside. But try raising prices to encourage people to reduce usage and people start shouting and screaming.
Re:externality (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of when we had rolling blackouts in California a few years back.
You mean the ones caused by collusion and market manipulation of private power companies like Enron and PNG determined to drive profits regardless of the collateral damage to the rest of us?
I remember them too.
Re:externality (Score:4, Informative)
(1) A carbon tax will lower use of fossil fuels. More independence from the Middle East.
(2) Better bite the bullet now than have our grandkids suffer.
(3) Costs will be spread out more evenly than a consumption tax on end products.
Re:externality (Score:4, Insightful)
Double my electric bill from $400 to $800 each month? Okay.
Well I guess I could tear down my house and rebuild a new one based on the PassivHaus model, and thereby hope to burn less electricity. I certainly can't afford to be socked with ~$10,000 a year in electricity + carbon taxes.
Re:externality (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you believe that you have an inherent right to not have to pay for damage that your actions cause? If burning Coal to power your home causes property damage due to acid rain and erodion etc. from global warming, you are most definitely liable to pay for that damage. Society has no obligation to shield you from the consequences of environmental damage caused by your actions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should be an easy cost to calculate, just set it at the cost to remove said CO2 from the atmosphere, then pay folks to do that.
Re:externality (Score:5, Informative)
>because you haven't sufficently proven that CO2 is the cause, thats why. the current 10 year trend is actually cooling.
Oh, Really? [nature.com]
"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.
The combined surface temperatures on land and at sea averaged 14.5 C, some 0.76 C above the 20th century average. Average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for April and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record for the month.
NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."
Re:externality (Score:4, Insightful)
Jobs are lost in the fossil fuel industry. What makes you think there won't be new jobs in whatever we do to replace them? The world economy is going to change significantly in the next decade whether we like it or not. Why not embrace the change and be a leading nation into the future? China is investing more in clean/renewable energy than the US. Can we afford to be behind the curve?
Re:externality (Score:5, Insightful)
Only by completely refuting all known science behind climate change research could someone say with as much certainty as you that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will do human civilization no harm. There is plenty of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, you would just seemingly rather believe it's all an elaborate hoax to destroy the economy and businesses, as if that's in the best interest of the global scientific community and the world as a whole.
And it isn't a straw-man, I was responding to your idiotic assertions that the left should embrace corporatism in the name of securing paychecks for the workers. If you meant in this particular situation only you didn't specify that, so maybe you should speak clearer next time? wizardforce also did not specify, and I am well-aware that Carbon Taxes are the beginning of the thread but the discussion took the turns that it did. Even speaking more broadly though and not about Carbon Taxes, your supposition is ridiculous and not worth serious consideration.
I want your crystal ball. I am merely advocating something I am not making the assumption as you are that the end-result is already determined. Speculate all you want on how things will play out, I don't care one whit. As for the China and India remark, one can only hope that in time they can be persuaded to understand the severity of the situation. In the meantime, that doesn't excuse us doing nothing about the problem. Being greener does not have to equate to increased poverty and less of a role in global economics, but for some reason you seem to think that the two are absolutely inseparable. Science is continuously developing more efficient strategies for alternative energy and if we could get some more funding going on for things then progress would be even greater. The status quo should not and cannot be maintained.
Lastly, why do climate change deniers always act like Al Gore is the only person or even the biggest/most visible person in the climate change debate? I and most others are curious about your obsession with the guy over the silly claim that he allegedly said he invented the internet (he didn't) or his contributions to the climate change debate (he is a minor player and is not a climate change scientist nor does he pretend to be). We are interested in debating facts, not persons. You guys win over the misinformed far easier by attacking persons though instead of using reason.
Re:externality (Score:5, Insightful)
"Carbon Credits" may be presented to fulfill a fantasy of tree hugging hippies (I mean that in the nicest sense possible), but in all reality it is the greatest and most destructive grab for power in human history. Despite all of the negative press associated with modern living (pollution, crime, inequality, etc.), people are living longer, better lives, everywhere (except for the few places that are still practicing early 20th century communism such as North Korea and Cuba, and even Cubans are living longer). Advancements in science and technology are moving a long at break neck speeds (relative to any other time frames outside the 20th century), and all of these advancements are built on proceeding advances.
Carbon Credits attacks the basic blocks that made the progress of the 20th century possible; access to cheap electricity and cheap petroleum. While its true both of these sources of fuel have negative qualities (pollution, danger of extraction, storage, etc.), they have gone a LONG towards connecting the world, and improving the quality of life; everywhere. Once "carbon credits" begin to dramatically increase the scarcity for these two life blood components of modern life, things are going to change, and not for the better.
Betting on "breakthroughs" in "green xyz" is a bad strategy. How are people going to come up with great new inventions when they can no longer afford electricty? Or when Universities have to increase the cost of admissions because the price of utilities has "necessarily skyrocketed", who is going to be able to attain a degree? There will be those who can afford to, but history has shown repeatedly that those who have money and power really have no reason to try to change the world... because the world is already working in there favor. From Edison to Bell, many of the great innovators and inventors have come from humble origins to change the world. While their inventions may have change the way the world lives, the businesses that they created have grown large, and stagnant, but provided mediums which helped lift other inventors to prominence years down the line.
This carbon credit scheme is not going to favor the Bells and the Edisons before they were rich. Carbon Credits are going to favor the AT&T's, the Goldman Sachs, and the Enrons of the world, while creating a barrier to entry so high that no new businesses will come into being, and the ones that exist will be "too big to fail".
GLOBAL WARMING VIA CO2 IS A FRAUD (Score:4, Funny)
The whole Global Warming scheme was thought up by Ken Lay and discussed with both the Bush Jr and Clinton Administrations. Now Al Gore is a parter in a firm that trades CARBON CREDITS and is set to make billions off this scam. I think you all better wake up and research the NWO and GLOBAL GOVERNMENT and see what all are leaders are up to. Its time for the world to change and not in the way the Illuminatti want as they are about to have the light shined right on them and I doubt they will survive.
First warning. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Too Controversial (Score:4, Interesting)
In today's political climate, there's far far too much controversy surrounding the individual issues of taxes and energy, alone (much less combined), to permit any real legislation to succeed.
A sane society would tax things like gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, etc., highly enough to discourage its profligate consumption and apply the funds to develop practical implementations of an array of alternative renewable energy sources (fusion, solar, biofuels, etc.).
But in the USA, if you proposed adding another $2/gallon tax on gasoline, it would be political suicide. (Hell, just suggesting it on /. risks karma suicide.) In the meantime, many of us still drive gas guzzling hummers and SUVs, and pride ourselves on it.
We need to break the loop somewhere. As long as that behavior is affordable, it will continue to be popular; as long as that behavior is popular it will continue to be affordable.
And eventually, when scarcity will inevitably drive up the cost of this fuel, it will be the energy corporations who will make the profits on the higher prices, not the governments... perpetuating another problem of too much corporate money influencing government policy. The smart thing to do is drive the price up now, via taxes, and use the revenue to do something more useful than line the pockets of corporate executives and stockholders.
Re:Too Controversial (Score:4, Insightful)
People will be more willing to accept high taxes on energy related to transportation if they had alternatives. If you reinvest the tax money, or some of it, into a robust public transportation system it would make it easier to live without a car; something which is difficult to impossible in many places in the US. There is still a huge car culture in America, and it'll take a culture shift for that to change but it has to start somewhere. It no longer makes sense that we're reliant on each person owning and operating there own 2000 pound machine to move them to where they need to go. It is rapidly becoming economically and environmentally unsustainable and it's a change that has to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, in the US we generate a lot of our electricity by dirty coal (and there isn't any other type, "clean coal" is a fraud) and so if you switch to electric transportation you're going to use more coal which is worse than gasoline. Stupidly, the environmental lobby is the biggest opponent of nuclear power, the only real alternative we have for clean base load power generation. I normally vote Green Party, but I am a fervent supporter of nuclear power. I think they will come around on the issue though, t
Re:Too Controversial (Score:4, Insightful)
The first thing is to shut down the coal-fired power plants. This will immediately decrease the CO2 emissions.
In 10 years or so we can have some nuclear plants built, but by then there will be far less need. Anyone that needs electricity to survive will have died off and the entire US food distribution system will have been reshaped - no refrigeration, no frozen food.
Besides, unless we can convince Mexico to get on board, just exactly where would we build a nuclear plant? Nobody in the environmental movement is going to allow one to be built within the continental US today. The procedures for preventing this from happening are well defined and have been used for the last 40 years or so. Any attempt to inject reality (like TMI where 0 people died and Chernobyl where 46 firefighters died) into the discussion will simply have result in being branded as an uncaring, environment-destroying fool.
I do not even believe that in the face of some pending shutdown of coal plants that a single nuclear plant would be built. It isn't going to happen, ever.
Likely within the next 20 years we are going to see electric power become extremely unreliable and costly for most of the US. It might be even less than that. We are probably completely out of time to build anything before there are serious consequences, even if the environmental folks would get out of the way, which they aren't going to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trains are a backwards 1800s technology that lacks flexibility. Heck I can't even ride a train if I wanted to, because it's a 10 mile walk to the station..... and even if the station were right next door, it takes twice as long (1 hour) as a car to reach my job. Plus what if I need to make a sudden trip in the middle of night? No trains run after 10pm around here. So I'd be stuck.
Cars offer flexibility. And they are modular, such that they can scale up from minimal operation (a few cars running at 3am
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an example of the "culture shift" that will need to happen for public transit to become viable. You buy ten bags of groceries and shop once every two weeks. That's the norm in the US. If you shopped every day or every other day and bought less at a time then public transportation becomes more acceptable. You'll say you don't have time, but again that's just another cultural value.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gas tax should be used for one purpose only - to repair the roads. I don't want to see the US copy the EU model where drivers are taxed to death to fund all kinds of non-related projects like military or welfare or food stamps, while the nondrivers pay zero taxes but get the free handouts. Gasoline tax should be as close to a use tax as possible - like a road toll.
That said I do think we need to double the gasoline tax. Our roads are falling apart, and need the extra money.
Re:Too Controversial (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had a reason to suspect that that's what we'd do with a carbon tax, I'd be all for it.
Alas, past history suggests that we'd use the money gained to fund some congresscritter's favorite boondoggle instead.
Oh, and do we plan to impose a carbon tax on India and China? Not sure I see much point in crippling our industry unless they do the same, since we won't be solving global warming by any action that's not worldwide....
Re:Too Controversial (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you can charge China and India a carbon tax. It would be collected as a tariff on imports and indexed to the amount of CO2 discharged by industry in countries that did not mandate control of CO2 emissions. China would notice this very quickly.
Experts (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an expert in a relevant field to understand fully this issue, and chances are neither are you. Other than wait and reserve judgment, the only logical choice I can make when there is overwhelming consensus among experts (there is on climate change) is to listen to them. I support cap and trade, not because I think it's a good idea - because I'm not qualified to know that - but because the majority of those who are qualified think it is, and science is not a political process even when the conclusions polarizes people along political lines.
Re:Experts (Score:5, Insightful)
ROFL!
Given a choice between paying attention to television talking heads, or paying attention to scientists, I'd go with the scientists.
Amusingly, the same site notes that corporations are taking global warming seriously [digitaljournal.com]-- if you go by the market-theory, I'd say that this is pretty serious.
Re:Experts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Experts (Score:5, Informative)
Notice that they're meteorologists. In other words, they study short term trends and don't have PhD-level understanding of ensemble averages and other techniques necessary to analyze long term trends. (Heck, they're TV personalities. They might not know more than how to wave their hands around a green screen.)
But sqrt(2) is right to say that most [people-press.org] scientists [jamstec.go.jp] agree that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a dangerous temperature increase. The percentage of scientists who agree with this statement increases with increasing relevance [uic.edu] of the scientist's field.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
100 hours? Please. It takes a lifetime to get the kind of knowledge required to be an expert in any field. I am not an expert, you are not an expert. If you're trying to prove otherwise you'll have to do better than a few dozen hours of "research". Your opinion on this matter is, pardon my saying so, worthless. Mine is too for that matter.
Which is why I have to look to the people who's opinion is not worthless: scientists with relevant knowledge and experience. Collectively they do not constitute a single s
Re:Experts (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say "research" do you mean enrolling in graduate physics courses at an accredited university to learn about the radiative physics of the atmosphere? (This would involve some kind of objective measure of your ability to construct and solve equations.)
Or does "research" mean reading crackpot [ucr.edu] websites, then using trick #11: "10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)"
Considering your other [slashdot.org] comment (which is wrong [slashdot.org]), it's probably not necessary for you to answer this question.
Keep in mind that all the creationists I've seen are convinced that they understand evolution better than 97% of evolutionary biologists. Just like you seem to be convinced that you understand radiative physics better than 97% of climatologists, and the overwhelming majority [slashdot.org] of scientists in all fields.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a strength of the scientific method, not a failure. Our understanding of the natural world is always improving and ideas change over time. Climate change isn't a new idea, it's time tested. There is more debate about what gravity is and how it works than there is about if climate change is happening and humans are to blame.
Because there aren't enough taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a good idea, but must replace Income Tax (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way to sell it to the masses would be to promote it as the elimination of Income Taxes. Set a date (20 years?) by which point income taxes will be eliminated, and slowly ramp up the Carbon (GHG) tax while reducing income tax over the same period of time.
What? You're opposed to eliminating Income Tax?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Imbalance. (Score:4, Insightful)
What then of all the high value goods we import (which have a high impact per given mass compared with food), these don't polute here, but some other country has paid the price both in impact and in tax.
What a way to collapse global trade.
Any system needs to a per-ton value on carbon, as a baseline, and then build the system bottom-up from there. Slapping taxes on everything seems to be the only option being considered.
And how do they propose we tax BRIC? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bottom line: if you don't get the BRIC nations to sign on to any type of comprehensive deal and they actually abide by it, Cap and Trade in the US isn't going to amount to much on a global scale.
Someone Please Explain (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Someone Please Explain (Score:5, Informative)
Do you really think that the members of the National Academy of Sciences haven't thought of these obvious questions?
If you really want to know the answers, you could start by reading articles on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_sun_paradox [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permo%E2%80%93Carboniferous_Glaciation [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleozoic#Climate [wikipedia.org]
food for thought (Score:3)
Step 1: mess up the environment
Step 2: mess up the financial system
What is step 3?
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:5, Informative)
It hasn't been okay to pollute the air for several decades now. That's why cars have catalytic converters to scrub-out human-damaging pollutants like NOx and HC (produce ozone) and CO (poison). Power plants have scrubbers to eliminate the same things, plus soot, so you no longer see black smoke but white stream coming from their towers.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:4, Insightful)
Air quality has improved since the days of L.A. being famous for its smog. Maybe not directly the cause of catalytic converters, but it's very probable that it is due to taking the problem of air pollution seriously and implementing many steps to try and put a curb on it.
Are you serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that post a few hundred lines up that suggest fact checking? I would suggest some sanity-checking.
So for a simple tweak in software, cars would not only gain performance, save more gas, but also eliminate the need for expensive (cats are one of the world's biggest uses platinum) catalytic converters? ... oh yeah it's completely wrong and stupid.
Man, it makes complete sense now that the car companies of the world, especially those on the verge of bankruptcy in this economy, don't want the public to know that they are totally IGNORING this simple reprogramming of the ECU for the great reason of...
Cats are there to change NOx (smog, eventually becomes ground level ozone, the kind you WANT depleted) emissions into more harmless NO2.
Problem is NOx emissions come from higher ignition temperatures (why Diesels get great fuel economy and power, but have always been seen as a dirty fuel source/powertrain), _which are a result of running lean_.
As a general point, it's also important to remember that CO2 emissions are different from the "Emissions" that they usually talk about in cars (LEV, ULEV, ZEV). Even the "Zero emission vehicles" (many of which are fuel celled) still emit CO2 and water, it's just that they don't burn anything containing nitrogens, and thus emit "zero" NOX (still a bit arguable since fuel cells run hot, and the atmosphere is 80% diatomic nitrogen).
Anyway, point of the matter, and man I hope people have read this far, is that CO2 is what is being attributed to global warming (save that debate for another thread), but the "emissions" coming out of tailpipes are what's important for whether your children have chronic asthma by their teenage years.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:4, Informative)
Doubt anyone will have read that previous post unless they care, so here's an errata addendum:
NO2 should have read O2 and N2, NO2 is still an NOx (x being integer), the platinum traps that molecule til another NO comes along and smacks into it, and changes both into diatomics.
Another point is that CO2 and "emissions" can both still be attributed to cars (although more CO2 from power sources like coal fired plants).
This is where the debate between mpg and "emissions" comes in, and why depending on where you're from, some "emissions" are worse than others because of politics (europe vs CARB vs rest of America), but why everyone thinks better mpg (less CO2) is awesome.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because breathing CO2 just recycles CO2 that's already in the biosphere. Digging miles into the earth to burn fossil fuels releases CO2 that hasn't been part of the biosphere for tens of millions of years. As I've repeatedly explained [dumbscientist.com], fossil fuel use can be causally linked to the skyrocketing CO2 concentration through the C-12/C-13 isotope ratio (among other techniques).
Oddly enough, the National Academy of Sciences is aware that humans exhale CO2. Imagine that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically because everyone knows that nuclear plants kill people.
Ask anyone about Chernobyl and they will tell you about the thousands of people that died because of it all across Europe. And how the entire state of Pennsylvania was nearly wiped out because of Three Mile Island. Then there are all those poor Japanese people that died because of a radiation release in Japan.
If you then show these people that (a) Zero people died because of Three Mile Island, (b) 46 firefighters died in the Cherynobyl accident, and (c) nobody died in Japan you will be branded a liar and some kind of anti-environmental kook. Probably a REPUBLICAN that believes in wierd religious stuff and wants money, not family.
We are about 40 years too late to educate people and the tabloids have taken over the job.
Political Agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes this smell of political agenda rather than a genuine concern for the environment is that they urge action that will ultimately have no real value.
People will still need to drive to work. Trucks and trains will still need to run. Airlines will still fly, people will still run their AC, wash their clothes and dishes, watch TV, power their lights, etc.
The only difference will be that they will pay more and the government will get a big fat check to spend on more crap we don't need. Gee, more tax and spend, who'd a thunk?
If they had a real concern and really did want to reduce carbon, they would have forcefully and whole wholeheartedly endorsed nuclear power. They would have suggested a Nation Mandate, special legislation limiting lawsuits, standardization on just a few designs, mass production of parts and encouraging U.S. industry to make the parts (I seem to remember that the turbines are ONLY made in Germany and Japan), etc, etc.
Of course all the anti-nuke wackos will start lining up to poo poo this , but they cannot deny that nuclear power is carbon free, far safer than any other energy when properly handled, and far more efficient than any other fuel. And if you can push aside all the crap ( 5 year environmental impact studies, endless lawsuits, etc.) they can probably be built for far less than their traditional cost.
Re:Political Agenda (Score:4, Informative)
The only difference will be that they will pay more
That is what the power companies said when the EPA began to regulate SO2 emissions, but it didn't happen - instead, the emitting companies significantly reduced their emissions to the point where the cost of a permit became negligible.
The reality is that, when the cost of an externality is added to the cost of an activity, then people will moderate that activity to lower their own costs. This is basic economics.
Re:Political Agenda (Score:4, Insightful)
Cap and Trade is order of magnitudes above restrict S02. It will make EVERYTHING more expensive. Alternatives? Like I'm going to drop $30k on a Pirus instead of just paying a few thousand more a year for gas.
You comment is like saying if I put a bag over your heard, you will find a way to moderate your breathing.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:5, Informative)
If you then show these people that (a) Zero people died because of Three Mile Island, (b) 46 firefighters died in the Cherynobyl accident, and (c) nobody died in Japan you will be branded a liar and some kind of anti-environmental kook
Well, here [who.int]'s what the World Health Organization says. Some significant quotes, for people who don't want to bother reading:
A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This was due to the high levels of radioactive iodine released from the Chernobyl reactor in the early days after the accident.
In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident.
It is expected that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl will continue for many years, although the long-term magnitude of the risk is difficult to quantify.
The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs).
Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population [ Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine] from radiation exposure
The numbers in this report are contested by a Greenpeace study (available here [greenpeace.org]). Greenpeace estimates the number of cancers attributable to the Chernobyl accident to 270000, out of which 93000 fatal.
Even ignoring the Greenpeace numbers, if you'll say only 46 people died at Chernobyl, but omit the fact that thousands more have contracted cancer as a direct consequence of the Chernobyl accident and 4000 more are expected to die of it, then you're indeed a liar and a kind of anti-environmentalist kook.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:4, Funny)
Basically because everyone knows that nuclear plants kill people.
Exactly. If there's one thing the hippies love to protest about more than carbon emissions or the extinction of cute fuzzy-wuzzies, it's the Evils of Nucular Power. There was some girl on the radio recently here who made me want to gag her for being so stupid. The reporter asked her, quite rightly, what her stance on nuclear power was, given that it was a readily available, safe, clean source of power that could, right now, replace most of our fossil fuel power stations. Her answer? "Well, fossil fuels create carbon but so do nuclear power plants because the mining process creates carbon. We really need wind and solar power." The sheer naivety makes me want to bite a kitten. No carbon's being "created", and wind and solar together can't replace current baseline power needs. Hippies are so scared of the word 'nuclear' that they refuse to see that it's the best possible solution for short- to medium-term power production. They're like a little kid who you ask "do you want icecream or cake?" and they say "BOTH!" And no matter how many times you say to them "We only have a dollar, and icecream costs a dollar and cake costs a dollar, you can't have both!" they will still scream "I WANNA BOFE! ISEKWEEM AAAAND CAKE!"
...OK, I'm done with my rant for now. Gah.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:4, Interesting)
Good point. That's why I've been toying with the idea that loggers can fix the CO2 problem. Send them out to harvest pine trees at the end of their fast-growing (and thus fast-CO2-absorbing) phase. Stack the wood in warehouses or use it to build houses, just as long as it's treated so it doesn't decompose. If we can do this on a large enough scale, loggers might be able to sequester CO2 by cutting down enough trees, then planting another set of trees to continue the process.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:4, Insightful)
Depending on your latitude, it may more more sense not to re-plant the trees, as snowpack reflects more IR back into space than the trees' CO2 sequestration offsets.
Assuming global temperature is the only concern, of course, but that seems to be the trendy thing to do.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:5, Insightful)
All carbon credits are designed to do is to lower emissions through impoverishment of the "masses". This will dramatically increase the divide between the rich who can afford to invest in carbon credits, government workers (who will largely live exempt due to special "needs"), the special interests (unions who back political organizations, academics who live in government funded universities, and contractors who perform special services for government workers), and the rest of us. I have not seen an explosion in "green jobs" outside of the jobs that the stimulus package has created, and we all know that none of the "green energy sources" that are a reality today can even come close to providing a fraction of the power needed to sustain the way we live today.
There for, carbon credits are a method of reducing emissions through impoverishment... well... impoverishment of the "masses" (I hate that term). Corporations like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan will benefit greatly as the ones who provide access to the new carbon trading markets.
Folks, if you truly believe in "equality" and all that jive, carbon credits arent the way to go. They will create the greatest divide in wealth since the creation of the Feudal Society.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why it needs to be a revenue neutral carbon tax, where revenues are redistributed equally to everyone. So if the average person uses 500 gallons of gasoline in a year and the tax is $.20 per gallon, then everyone would receive back $100 every year whether they used 500 gallons or not. No impoverishment necessary.
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:4, Insightful)
It's because the impact is more secondary then primary. The entire cap and trade situation which is more or less the exact same as the carbon tax which would be the same as Stronger anti-smog legislation with the exception of efficiency, is little more then a revenue and control stream.
Cap and Trade was designed by political hacks who wanted to use Global warming to resolve the issue of the third world debt incurred with the oil crisis in the 1970's (which was a major issue in the 80's and 90's until Kyoto came about with the cap and trade system). A carbon tax is little more then the same except it gets to pick winners and losers so there is more control over who benefits and who does not. Cutting through the BS, is simply applying stricter regulations and fines in excess of profits made by ignoring the regulation. Both of the previous systems will eventual result in this except the penalties can be applied before the technology is available. This way they do not have to wait to extract revenue from businesses who will simply pass it down to the consumer which means you and me.
If anyone was serious about reducing pollution, then something way more simple would be in place. This is how you know that global warming- the political aspect of it anyways, it more about revenue and control then the environment. You see, if they were serious about Co2 being a problem, then treaties like Kyoto would take all those scientists sent to convince the world they needed to tax and impoverish their populations through IPCC reports, and put them in a room with the purpose of finding practical sources of clean energy or ways to make existing sources cleaner. Then they would patent all this and offer the tech discovered to any country or business operating within the country and possible make it a requirement of implementation on new facilities for admission or continues membership into international trade unions the WTO.
In fact, almost all of the so called problems could be solved by a system like that in which clean tech is shared with the users and all countries. Instead, they want systems where either the government of a country impoverishes it's population by tax or caps that do little more then make things cost more, or by building up impoverished nations like Kyoto accords specify. And just to put it bluntly but brightly so people can understand, the Kyoto treaty has something like 137 countries sign onto it with the US being about the only one not doing so. Of those 137 countries, only 38 or so had Co2 limits imposed and an effective way around those limits is to move your pollution to the third world countries which is why you see Europe relying a lot more in manufacturing from China and India which are now some of the leading polluters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Grandfathered in (Score:5, Informative)
the fact is CO2 is not toxic, it only becomes a problem if it displaces enough O2 for the O2 level to drop below 21%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity [wikipedia.org]
Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. For short-term (under ten minutes) exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health[48] although physiological experiments show that such levels can be tolerated for some time [49].
...and so on. Have a read. Its very interesting. Or give Jim Lovell a call. He will tell you all about it.
Re:Cap Tax (Score:5, Informative)
Just because it's funny to say "Straight from the horse's mouth":
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1109 [speaker.gov]
But here's the primary link:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html [epa.gov]
They're using the endangerment clause ("air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare") of the Clean Air Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007521----000-.html), intended to be used to regulate actually dangerous emissions, to regulate CO2.
Enough links? =)
Re:Who is going (Score:4, Informative)
Being as volcanoes are responsible for an irrelevant amount of CO2, no one. Humanity produces several orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanoes. It's like suggesting that we tax squirrels for using the road while they cross the street.
Re:Who is going (Score:5, Funny)
Being as volcanoes are responsible for an irrelevant amount of CO2, no one. Humanity produces several orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanoes. It's like suggesting that we tax squirrels for using the road while they cross the street.
Sure, but just for kicks, I'd like to see the IRS try to enforce taxes on both volcanoes and squirrels.
Re:Who is going (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd definitely like to see IRS personnel inside an active volcano.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who is going (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Who is going (Score:4, Informative)
I'd definitely like to see IRS personnel inside an active volcano.
Sorry, they stopped offering tours years ago.
Re:Who is going (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who is going (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who is going (Score:4, Insightful)
Well officer, you see it's like I was doing 150mph relative to the ground in a 30mph limit but the Earth is going around the sun at 67000 mph so my 120mph over the limit is totally irrelevant.
Tim.
Re:Who is going (Score:4, Informative)
97% of annual CO2 emissions are natural. Only 3% are anthropogenic. It mostly comes from decaying biomass. Look it up. What, don't they highlight this fact on the greenist web sites? My country (Canada) is responsible for 0.06% of total CO2 emissions. Hardly seems worth gutting my standard of living over.
Sure. What Watts doesn't tell you is that before humans those 100% went straight into building new biomass (and some other CO2 drains). It's called a "balance". Now not only do humans suddenly add 3% on top, they also prevent creation of new plant matter at an increasing rate, mostly by cutting down rain-forests and replacing them with (at best) mono-culture trees.
Let's try an analogy: a river flows through a valley, rain causes flooding - but no, you say, it's not the 3% of water from the rain that causes the flooding, it's the 97% normal discharge.
Re:Who is going (Score:4, Informative)
Not even a percentage point, nice try though.
Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:5, Informative)
[who is going] to tax all the volcanos around the world for their CO2 production?
The CO2 out gassed by active volcanoes comes to about one percent of anthropogenic emissions [grist.org].
Learn to be check the numbers [skepticalscience.com] when you hear outrageous claims like this.
Re: (Score:3)
[who is going] to tax all the volcanos around the world for their CO2 production?
The CO2 out gassed by active volcanoes comes to about one percent of anthropogenic emissions [grist.org].
Learn to be check the numbers [skepticalscience.com] when you hear outrageous claims like this.
Your right... We should Tax the Oceans!
I mean with That Terrible Greenhouse gas Dihydrogen monoxide that is being emitted by world's Ocean's just have to be stopped.
Re:Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:5, Informative)
Just imagine how different our society would look if every citizen took the time to check outrageous claims, even the ones that sound truthy.
But I wonder if it would even help if the outrageous claims of certain agenda-driven media outlets and purveyors of hate were to be exposed. At some point, people will believe what fits their inner narrative before they will believe what can be demonstrated to them to be true.
For example, if you hate those elite college-educated types and high-falutin' liberals like Al Gore, when someone tells you that global warming is just a scam and a conspiracy dreamed up by the majority of climate scientists who are all being paid off by the filthy rich Sierra Club, it's going to fit your inner-narrative, and you're going to believe it. So when you see a report that the last 12 months were the warmest year in recorded history, you're going to dismiss it as just part of the conspiracy.
"Checking the numbers" only works on those whose minds are open enough to step outside the comforting, narrative-supporting cocoon of Fox News and question the notion that everything that challenges your assumptions is part of the conspiracy. And even well-educated, otherwise mentally-capable people can be imprisoned by that narrative, because it's comforting.
Re:Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
"Checking the numbers" only works on those whose minds are open enough to step outside the comforting, narrative-supporting cocoon of Fox News and question the notion that everything that challenges your assumptions is part of the conspiracy. And even well-educated, otherwise mentally-capable people can be imprisoned by that narrative, because it's comforting.
So you're saying that all the people who have checked the numbers and still doubt AGW are... deluded? Crazy? Blind followers of Fox News?
The "you need an open mind" argument is only valid coming from someone who doesn't apply absurd stereotypes to those who disagree. (Which, if I haven't been clear, excludes you.)
Re:Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
- Ad-hominem fallacy - Anyone who does not agree is a crackpot. When this is the mindset it makes me doubt since this is not science but an ad-hominem attack.
- Fudged numbers - I understand this does not mean malice, but especially reluctance to find out the causes or let other scientists help find it raises doubt.
- Financial gain - Al Gore made a lot of money, and a proposal for 'carbon tax' will give the government a financial gain. Like I doubt any statement that greatly benefits the person who made it this raises doubt.
- Science incomplete - CO2 is a greenhouse gas (of many), but the model is not yet complete, there are a lot of unknown factors. By claiming this is the ultimate cause you blind yourselves to other possibilities which have not been sufficiently refuted (partially because of first reason, actual scientists who disagree or even raise valid questions are ridiculed).
I for one doubt some of the explanations given why the earth is warming up, and have been digging a little deeper and crunching the numbers... the results are unsettling, what if CO2 is not the main cause of the rise in temperature? If you are investing a lot in CO2 reduction you might be wasting resources that can be used for better purposes. We can better start by making changes that everyone agrees with, like reducing fuel consumption will lead to better air quality (not CO2 but other byproducts and fine particles). Forcing people to pay a tax or to buy imaginary 'carbon offsets' (fuck, how stupid are some people) is not a way to a solution, it's a way to monetize a problem...
Re:Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Forcing people to pay a tax or to buy imaginary 'carbon offsets' (fuck, how stupid are some people) is not a way to a solution, it's a way to monetize a problem...
Make no mistake, I think everything else you said is also wrong, but I though this deserved special attention. Of course, "carbon offsets" are a way to monetize a problem. It's quite obviously a bribe to capitalists to get them to support reducing CO2 by monetizing the problem. The way capitalism works, nothing will ever be done about anything that doesn't translate into money. As long as CO2 emissions are free, corporations will pay, at best, lip service to reducing emissions. Corporations only have one real duty, and that's to deliver profits to their owners. If it doesn't cost anything and the alternatives do, the alternatives will rarely be used (essentially only by specialty companies that cater to patrons who care and can afford to deal with such a companies).
Carbon Dioxide is an externality [wikipedia.org], there are really only about four possible way to fix an externality: Criminalization, Civil Tort law, Government provision, Pigovian taxes. If CO2 is a problem you have four possible solutions:
1) Criminalize CO2 emissions.
2) Allow citizens to sue companies because of their CO2 emissions.
3) Tax everyone to pay for large carbon sequestration operations.
4) Tax the people who release the CO2.
If you don't like option #4, what would you choose instead and why?
Re:Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:4, Interesting)
Make no mistake, I think everything else you said is also wrong, but I though this deserved special attention. Of course, "carbon offsets" are a way to monetize a problem. It's quite obviously a bribe to capitalists to get them to support reducing CO2 by monetizing the problem.
You miss the point.
If the government gets money from CO2, the government will do everything it can to *encourage* the use of more CO2 so that it can get more money. As another poster further up in the thread said, this is like trying to make cows go extinct by opening hamburger restaurants-- it simply does not make sense.
The problem here is that you recognize that capitalists will (generally) take whatever action makes them the most money, but what you don't seem to realize is that the government will do the exact same thing.
4) Tax the people who release the CO2.
If you don't like option #4, what would you choose instead and why?
The only realistic option is to make "green" energy sources either cheaper, better, or both than existing carbon-based energy sources. Note: it will probably have to be both cheaper and better. After all, Linux is significantly cheaper than Windows, but even that isn't enough to get it widely adopted.
Now I'm not going to comment on *how* that should be done, because frankly I don't know. But any band-aid you put on the problem before "green" energy can effectively replace carbon-based energy is a costly waste of time-- it won't solve the problem, it *will* cost us all a buttload of money.
Re:Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:5, Interesting)
Please understand me, I think there is some warming and I think CO2 plays a part in that... But if you blindly accept the CO2 as the only culprit you are not really looking for a solution but settling for one handed to you. Leaving some questions unanswered (or discarding them outright) only feeds the paranoia of some, and the hopeless feeling that other scientists experience because of the perceived demise of the scientific method(s). Until now the best success against these 'crackpot' opponents has been to refute their false statements (like the volcano's etc.), so this is the way to go, answer any and all arguments with good science and facts that can be checked.
As to your question 'what incentive do climate scientists have': funding, which can be quite a lot. The scientific community has commercialized, there is no denying that. I think 'mislead' might even be a big word, but it is understandable they won't say "we're not sure about the cause, we need to study more" and instead say "this is the likely cause, we need to study this more" which becomes a hyperbole 'fact' when competing for the funds. It's not exclusive to global warming, scientists are also trying to sell their services and any salesman can tell you that to sell it helps to exaggerate a little... This is no conspiracy on a massive scale, just some typical human behavior. These people are no saints here to save us, they're just another working guy making their living with this stuff...
Although people like Al Gore are plain opportunists. Sorry but it has to be said, if he had any altruistic goals he sure as hell would not have capitalized on it personally... fucking hypocrite.
Re:Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at all.
I'm just saying that Fox News panders to the internal narrative that their fans already believe. Their viewers aren't blind, they've just got their eyes tightly shut.
People who doubt AGW are sensible. It's the normal reaction to such extraordinary claims (such as "the earth is getting warmer").
When you disregard, out-of-hand, the work of tens of thousands of scientists, and say that "it's all a conspiracy or scam" then you start to wander into kook territory.
Re:Volcanos: not responsible for warming, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
All I'm saying is it's hypocritical to shout "You need an open mind!" while simultaneously demonstrating one's own closed-mindedness.
Re:Same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Cap and Trade is just a fancy phrase meaning "tax" anyway. I hate the verbal misdirection.
I hate the fact that calling it "cap and trade" actually makes it more likely to get passed than calling it a tax.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every resource is "rationed." It just so happens that in Capitalism those with power get more rations than others.
Re:Same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
This already goes on, it's rampant. The solution is more restrictions and regulations on Wall Street to stop people from being able to make money who don't actually produce anything of value. It shouldn't be possible to get rich skimming off the top and siphoning away wealth from the working class that actually moves the economy. This country produces thousands of college graduates every year who go on to be bankers or Wall Street traders when they should be engineers and scientists. We produce people who not only don't contribute anything themselves but actually make it harder for other people to be productive. This can't go on forever, and if we don't put and end to it it's going to put an end to us.
Re:Same thing (Score:4, Interesting)
That still doesn't explain why we need an entire class of people who are wealthier than the engineers, scientists, and workers they are supposed to be empowering to produce. I can almost accept that argument if not for the fact that it still doesn't justify those people, the bankers and Wall Street traders, being able to live better than the people who actually have the ideas they support in the first place. Perhaps there is a legitimate place for them, but I think the role they currently play has grown to the point of absurdity.
Re:Same thing (Score:4, Informative)
Pollution is wasted energy, technology will eventually catch up with it and make great progress.
Unfortunately, that's not the case. In the most efficient burning of a fossil fuel, the result is CO2 and water. There's no way to make the CO2 not be there. There's no wasted energy. Moreover, added CO2 is an externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [wikipedia.org] so individuals have no incentive to reduce the creation of CO2. This is true with pollutants in general. As with most difficult externalities, the impact of the pollution is not directly on the individual who created it, and it is diffuse enough that one cannot easily trace any specific bit of pollution back to any specific source. That's precisely why we have the government regulate the sources. Cap and trade is a very efficient system which takes advantage of market forces to more efficiently reduce pollution.
Re:Same thing (Score:5, Interesting)
I also have religious beliefs, like you. I believe in pink unicorns and fairies.
There's a lot of both economic theory and empirical data backing up that cap and trade systems are more efficient. See for example this study showing that cap and trade would very well for handling levels of sulfur dioxide pollution in the US http://www.jstor.org/pss/2647033 [jstor.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Water vapor amplifies the effects of greenhouse gases as a feedback effect it is not however, strictly a causal agent. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries while Water vapor generally is transient.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing about cap and trade is that a lot of left leaning environmentalists hate the idea because they feel that it's a case where markets/capitalism are intruding into environmental matters and the economic libertarians hate it because its government intrusion into markets. Cap and trade worked well for controlling NOX and SOX emissions but had unintended consequences where it was tried in Europe. The Carbon offsets were poorly defined and often lead to fraud.
Re:Now that's news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Bill Gates and computers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:no more or less valuable (Score:4, Insightful)
unless he continues to be right. So far, the "CO2 is the cause" crowd have continued to get it wrong, so why do so many people continue to listen to them? The initial theory of CO2 heating the planet up was based on the observations of Venus' atmosphere and temperature. Venus was described as a runaway greenhouse effect. While it's true that the atmosphere of Venus has a much higher concentration of CO2 than on Earth, it's also true that Mars has a higher concentration of CO2. Venus is much hotter than Earth, Mars is much colder. So what gives? Scientists have more recently concluded that the high temperatures on Venus aren't cause by a greenhouse effect. [dailyradar.com]
No Scientists did not conclude that the high temperatures on Venus aren't cause by a greenhouse effect.
Anthony Watts, a climate sceptic and meteorologist, posted an entry by Steve Goddard (I don't know his qualifications) on his blog that said the high temperatures on Venus aren't cause by a greenhouse effect. If you want me to take that post seriously than show me the paper in a respectable peer reviewed scientific journal that says the same thing. That way I know that at least some knowledgeable scientists have looked at the paper and checked the data and calculations.
I'm sorry but I've seen more than enough "scientific" blog posts and it will take more than that to convince me of an argument.
Re:Politicized science (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a television weather reporter here, not a published scientist.