Man Made Global Warming - yet another opinion

Cardew

Let us, for the sake of argument, concede that the 'believers' are correct and that man made CO2 is a serious problem.

OK you have defined the problem! Now give us a solution.

I suggest that any solution is one that China and India will find acceptable and impliment - As well as the rest of the world of course.

Of course the UK take measures like increase the tax on my flght to the USA this week to £80 and my car tax to £400 - have I done my bit!!!!!!!

A_fiend_for_life

Cardew,

I would say solutions that mitigate the potential problems of peak oil and climate change should be favoured.

Doing nothing about it because other countries are reluctant or sluggish is not a wise stance since we would be relying on other countries actions to improve energy security. I concede that if China and India do nothing then little is done in resolving climate change some measures at least do improve energy security.

Tax is not always the right answer. For example increasing tax will not deter those who can still afford the additional cost. If for example government was to propose increased VAT on domestic fuel it might reduce consumption by those with less financial resource but it would also increase costs due to ill health. it would make little difference to consumption by those who can still afford the cost. It would probably have a greater effect on voting intentions. Using a sledgehammer to miss a nut.

Subsidising insulation gets part of the way but it needs a balance between those that are high users and those who genuinely need it. The Tories have proposed adding a surcharge to energy bills as a payback mechanism for those receiving upfront insulation. It also creates jobs and some of the cost is recovered through income, corporation tax, VAT and reduced number of people on benefits.

Transport. Increasing tax on vehicles has maybe made a few people down grade but probably does little to decrease the number of cars on the road. Congestion remains a problem. Improving and increasing public transport might be the most pragmatic and challenging solution. It might need subsidising (indirect tax) rather than direct tax but it would reduce congestion, reduce energy consumption and provide a cushion for fuel price rises. Side effects? Huge job losses in automotive and aviation industries, suppliers including mineral extraction and road maintenance companies. I don't know how you mitigate that. If we add to that reduced consumption. We are talking a huge number of job losses in retail, distribution and somewhat limited manufacturing. Do we subsidize our own manufacturing? Do we develop new industries? Or do we go for a four or even three day week?

Have you done your bit? I would suggest very few people in the uk have done their bit to reduce their emissions down to 80%. The truth is, the vast majority of us are only prepared to reduce what is convenient to us, governments and people alike and then partake in the blame game. A pointless endeavour. While the government is looking at building new runways and charging an extra £80 I am getting mixed signals. If a tax such as this is going to be raised it should at least be ringfenced for sustainable alternatives.

I would say that governments will continue to fail because while we have our eyes on the climate change ball we have missed the peak oil ball that is effectively sitting in the back of the net.

A_fiend_for_life

Might be better to look at individual industries.

Cardew

Britain acting alone is rather like Australian firemen trying to put out their bush fires with a water pistol!

If we reduced our emissions to zero - i.e. became an unpopulated desert, the savings in CO2 would be 'used up' in 12 months by China alone.

thescouselander

I agree that increasing taxes is not going to work. People will see their living costs rise and will therefore negotiate higher pay rises to mitigate their higher costs. Tax rises will therefore only have a temporary effect and will be inflationary.

moonrakerz

I hate to say this - but ............ something sensible from the Daily Mail !

I think this sums up my attitude to the man-made global warming frenzy, I don't really know to be honest - some of the evidence put forward to support it is either decidedly dodgy or deliberately falsified.
But what really gets up my nose is when I express my doubts, the "Al Gore" look-alikes attack me as though I had accused their husband/wife/son/daughter of being a child molester and that I personally will bring about the end of the world by 20?? (fill in as appropriate) !

http://pageblog.dailymail.co.uk/2009/02/breaking-wind.html

cepheus

moonrakerz wrote: »

But what really gets up my nose is when I express my doubts, the "Al Gore" look-alikes attack me as though I had accused their husband/wife/son/daughter of being a child molester and that I personally will bring about the end of the world by 20?? (fill in as appropriate) !

The reason people do this is simply because

• AGW is probably irreversible beyond a point, so although AGW is virtually proven, it is the sceptics who have to be sure, and the evidence is way against them. Sowing doubt may be OK if they reverse the effects and pay for all the subsequent damage, but they can't and will leave everyone else to try to clear up the mess.
• The Goal of the sceptics is not to prove AGW wrong, they know it is a losing battle. It is to cause a delaying action by highlighting doubt with Joe public so as to continue 'business as usual' and the profits which go with it. There will always be some doubt about any scientific issue, it just gets more and more certain. A clever PR campaign can magnify any doubt and criticism for political purposes.
• Most of the sceptical arguments are ludicrous to anyone who has a sense of proportion, and has studied the problem. It's like arguing with 'Man didn't go to the moon' even flat earth conspiracy theorists. There is an instinct to say wake up and stop being conned!

Scientists are really sick and tired of ill informed 'debate' try reading this

Misinformation about Climate Science – Union of concerned scientists - http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/climate-misinformation.html

moonrakerz

cepheus wrote: »

• The Goal of the sceptics is not to prove AGW wrong, they know it is a losing battle.
• Most of the sceptical arguments are ludicrous to anyone who has a sense of proportion, and has studied the problem.

Scientists are really sick and tired of ill informed 'debate' try reading this

See what I mean !

Cardew

Turning to far more important matters than Climate Change.

For years there was on overwhelming concensus amongst scientists that more than 2 eggs a week would clog up your arteries and a heart attack was inevitable!

Now after depriving me for all these years they have decided I can eat as many as I like!!!!

greenbee

Cardew wrote: »

Turning to far more important matters than Climate Change.

For years there was on overwhelming concensus amongst scientists that more than 2 eggs a week would clog up your arteries and a heart attack was inevitable!

Now after depriving me for all these years they have decided I can eat as many as I like!!!!

But on this board... only if they're organic free range ones