Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

A fully implemented CO2 global tax could reduce human emissions to ZERO.

We don't have the technology to sustain modern life without CO2. We are better off trying to adapt to any climate change that might occur.

We don't have the technology to sustain modern life without CO2. We are better off trying to adapt to any climate change that might occur.

At the moment, with our real (not fantasy) technology, the absence of petroleum would, I believe, prove genuinely devastating and lead to mass loss of life and a reduced life expectancy for many.

We aren't using petroleum merely because we're stubborn and trying to avoid tax. On a freezing winter night when the wind isn't blowing, are we going to switch to wood stoves?

Nuclear power would help -- but remember, it was, "like, dangerous to the planet, you know?" and steadily fought by the same sort of folks who think wind and sun can "do it all." If they hadn't fought it, we might be in a better place now. Live and learn, eh?

Civilization depends upon the vast availability of relatively inexpensive energy. And if you think we need energy now -- WAIT! lol. AI is going to require plenty more. By the way, what are the "concerned" using to suggest the end of fossil fuels on social media? They're using electricity -- many from their home computers. Ironic? I'll let others judge for themselves.

By the way, petroleum is useful for FAR more than combustion.

The average person seems to have no idea and is perhaps encouraged by some not to know. Do we think artificial heart valves are entirely carved from wood? Do we understand how some of the components of fertilizer are synthesized? Is fertilizer made from the wind? What do we think would happen to the global food supply if fertilizer production were drastically curtailed?

Furthermore, why do so many solutions from our liberal friends always seem to involve still more taxation? Do they tend or hope to be employed by government or by institutions dependent, at least in part, upon government largess? If so, does this leave them objective in all respects?

May we be protected from the youthful and certain. Give them time to realize that there's more to understand than they yet suspect. Give them the strength to resist being herded by any attractive celebrities or politicians for whom math is, like, "not their thing," you know?

At the moment, with our real (not fantasy) technology, the absence of petroleum would, I believe, prove genuinely devastating and lead to mass loss of life and a reduced life expectancy for many. We aren't using petroleum merely because we're stubborn and trying to avoid tax. On a freezing winter night when the wind isn't blowing, are we going to switch to wood stoves? Nuclear power would help -- but remember, it was, "like, dangerous to the planet, you know?" and steadily fought by the same sort of folks who think wind and sun can "do it all." If they hadn't fought it, we might be in a better place now. Live and learn, eh? Civilization depends upon the vast availability of relatively inexpensive energy. And if you think we need energy now -- WAIT! lol. AI is going to require plenty more. By the way, what are the "concerned" using to suggest the end of fossil fuels on social media? They're using electricity -- many from their home computers. Ironic? I'll let others judge for themselves. By the way, petroleum is useful for FAR more than combustion. The average person seems to have no idea and is perhaps encouraged by some not to know. Do we think artificial heart valves are entirely carved from wood? Do we understand how some of the components of fertilizer are synthesized? Is fertilizer made from the wind? What do we think would happen to the global food supply if fertilizer production were drastically curtailed? Furthermore, why do so many solutions from our liberal friends always seem to involve still more taxation? Do they tend or hope to be employed by government or by institutions dependent, at least in part, upon government largess? If so, does this leave them objective in all respects? May we be protected from the youthful and certain. Give them time to realize that there's more to understand than they yet suspect. Give them the strength to resist being herded by any attractive celebrities or politicians for whom math is, like, "not their thing," you know?

A global carbon tax could begin at 5 dollars, or 5 euros, or anything like that, targetting only oil, coal and gas.
As the price goes higher and higher, new technologies might emerge. If you apply only in 1 country, the companies will move to another. If it's applied equally, changes will begin to happen.

A global carbon tax could begin at 5 dollars, or 5 euros, or anything like that, targetting only oil, coal and gas. As the price goes higher and higher, new technologies might emerge. If you apply only in 1 country, the companies will move to another. If it's applied equally, changes will begin to happen.

Applied equally as in a "climate accord" where, oddly, some very powerful nations (and I DON'T mean the United States) can, somehow, apparently end up with favorable treatment?

I'm often Panglossian, but I have yet to see a genuine utopia.

But, again and again, from some quarters, we see cries for "more tax," "more tax." Saving the world requires yet more taxation? Oh.

I suspect many feel that "taxation" will only effect "the fat cat capitalists," and therefore will leave the young tax advocates mostly untouched.

Of course, not all capitalists are at all plump. And, in any event, let us test ourselves for genuine understanding!

Indeed, let us ask: if the cost of air conditioning and heating and transportation fuel and fertilizer go up, then rents and fares and the cost of food will eventually:

a) go down; b) go up; or c) like, you know, what difference does it make, anyway, so long as the fat cats are brought low -- even those who aren't really, you know, like, plump.

Applied equally as in a "climate accord" where, oddly, some very powerful nations (and I DON'T mean the United States) can, somehow, apparently end up with favorable treatment? I'm often Panglossian, but I have yet to see a genuine utopia. But, again and again, from some quarters, we see cries for "more tax," "more tax." Saving the world requires yet more taxation? Oh. I suspect many feel that "taxation" will only effect "the fat cat capitalists," and therefore will leave the young tax advocates mostly untouched. Of course, not all capitalists are at all plump. And, in any event, let us test ourselves for genuine understanding! Indeed, let us ask: if the cost of air conditioning and heating and transportation fuel and fertilizer go up, then rents and fares and the cost of food will eventually: a) go down; b) go up; or c) like, you know, what difference does it make, anyway, so long as the fat cats are brought low -- even those who aren't really, you know, like, plump.

By the way -- 5 dollars per ... what?

I'm afraid we'll need a second measurement unit declared.

If the tax is going to be 5 dollars "per oil well per lifetime," well, some might have much smaller objections! If it's 5 dollars "per calorie" then I guess we will all have to learn how to cook moose on a wood fire. And how to make a shelter in the forest out of pine branches. And good luck paying for bus fare to the forest, eh?

Actually, I prefer salmon to moose, now that I think about it. Others may feel differently. But even beans would become much more costly and hard to come by, I believe, mi' lords.

By the way -- 5 dollars per ... what? I'm afraid we'll need a second measurement unit declared. If the tax is going to be 5 dollars "per oil well per lifetime," well, some might have much smaller objections! If it's 5 dollars "per calorie" then I guess we will all have to learn how to cook moose on a wood fire. And how to make a shelter in the forest out of pine branches. And good luck paying for bus fare to the forest, eh? Actually, I prefer salmon to moose, now that I think about it. Others may feel differently. But even beans would become much more costly and hard to come by, I believe, mi' lords.

"devastating and lead to mass loss of life and a reduced life expectancy for many"

  • On the contrary: the present use of coal, oil, and gas is devastating and leads to mass loss of life and reduced life expectancy of many due to floods, draughts, wildfires, and hurricanes. They drown, starve, burn or get smashed.

We have a moral obligation towards future generations to reduce our individual carbon footprints.
We did not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children and grandchildren.

"devastating and lead to mass loss of life and a reduced life expectancy for many" * On the contrary: the present use of coal, oil, and gas is devastating and leads to mass loss of life and reduced life expectancy of many due to floods, draughts, wildfires, and hurricanes. They drown, starve, burn or get smashed. We have a moral obligation towards future generations to reduce our individual carbon footprints. We did not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children and grandchildren.

"targetting only oil, coal and gas"

  • As methane has more global warming potential than CO2, the tax should first target meat and dairy products.
"targetting only oil, coal and gas" * As methane has more global warming potential than CO2, the tax should first target meat and dairy products.

@tpr but methane transforms itself into CO2, and it's essentially removed from plants, that the cattle eats during growth.

What truly adds carbon to the atmosphere should be the target. Fossil Fuels. But yeah, Methane does increase the temperature in the mid-term, contributing to permafrost, and others. At least is what I think.

@tpr but methane transforms itself into CO2, and it's essentially removed from plants, that the cattle eats during growth. What truly adds carbon to the atmosphere should be the target. Fossil Fuels. But yeah, Methane does increase the temperature in the mid-term, contributing to permafrost, and others. At least is what I think.

For the people who jokes about Nuclear War, being the opposite of global warming: It would cool down the planet only temporarily, but after that, the temperature would increase.

For the people who jokes about Nuclear War, being the opposite of global warming: It would cool down the planet only temporarily, but after that, the temperature would increase.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.