Answer man
June 15, 2009
Some recent commenters have suggested that I put up or shut up on this global warming shit. “Give a solution instead of being part of the problem” they say (damn that was hard not to put “problem” in quotes). Maybe you bitches have a point so here we go. Problem: Global Warming. Solution: Warming tax. If temperatures rise as predicted by what the UN climate models and their “consensus” of scientists say are correct then the tax on carbon emissions goes up dramatically. If the temperatures fall, the tax goes down. Surprisingly, this is not my idea but that of economist Ross McKitrick. He points out:
The IPCC predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios. That implies the tax will climb by $4 to $24 per tonne per decade, a much more aggressive schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources.
Global-warming activists would like this. But so would skeptics, because they believe the models are exaggerating the warming forecasts.
…
Under the T3 tax, the regulator gets to call everyone’s bluff at once, without gambling in advance on who is right. If the tax goes up, it ought to have. If it doesn’t go up, it shouldn’t have. Either way we get a sensible outcome.
That makes sense. Wow. Look at me. Promoting a solution.
June 15, 2009 at 10:32 pm
That’s a very interesting and original idea. However, due to the lag time between CO2 emission and CO2 concentation (if we stopped emitting altogether tomorrow, concentration would level off at around 450-500 ppm, instead of staying at the 388 ppm they are today), waiting for problems to become blatantly obvious before we start mitigating them may not be a good idea. We’re working 50-60 years ahead of schedule – even if we stopped all emissions today, we’ve guaranteed the problem will escalate for another half century.
I’d love you to come check out my blog, which has to do exclusively with climate change, especially how it relates to ideas such as credibility and risk management. Link on my username. Thanks!
June 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Global warming has a fingerprint. It’s warming in the troposphere. It is not an “interesting or original” idea. It is one of the main tenets of the global warming theory.
June 16, 2009 at 9:18 am
The interesting and original idea I was referring to was the tax based on temperatures, not the tropospheric warming. We’ve known about tropospheric warming for far too long for anyone to call it original!
June 16, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Sorry for the sloppy comment. It was getting late. The “fingerprint” to which I was referring was what was said in the article (and as quoted above):
The IPCC predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios.
June 16, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Climatic fingerprints are fascinating. I first learned of the GHG fingerprints in the video “Solar Schmolar” by greenman3610. He has a Youtube series called “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” which is absolutely fantastic. Have you seen it?
June 16, 2009 at 9:26 pm
On your advice, I watched “Solar Schmolar” (a link would be nice). It had nothing to do with any warming in the tropical troposphere (the fingerprint).
June 17, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I’m a fan of tarriffs. We pass strict-ish rules for our companies and sock businesses in countries that don’t have similar rules with tarriffs to make up the U.S. cost of compliance. We could do it with child labor and human rights stuff, too. Oh, we’ll be buying local, too (and, yeah, I know it means our prices’ll go up, but if the project is worth it, it’s worth it).
June 17, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Very early 20th century of you Dave. That Smoot-Hawley tariff bill did so much for our economy in the Great Depression. Let’s make people poorer for a good cause.