Carbon Pricing Is Not a Fix for Climate Change

[kensi]

There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
and address climate change:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/

[We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

[benj]

On 8/16/2019 11:56 PM, kensi wrote:
> There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
> and address climate change:
>
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>
>
> [We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
> as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]
>

Journo-science American is nothing but ignorant bullshit. Move along.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:56:28 +0200, kensi
<kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>and address climate change:

It keeps the economy going, and that's good.

[bigdog]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 11:56:32 PM UTC-4, kensi wrote:
> There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
> and address climate change:
>
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>
> [We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
> as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]
>

We don't need a fix for climate change. The climate does not need to be fixed. It
is changing quite nicely on its own just as it has always done.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>and address climate change:
>
>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>
>[We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
>as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]

What's this *carbon pricing* Newspeak shit?

Hey, stupid, a tax is a tax no matter what you
money-grubbing socialists rename it. You can't
get the tax to pass after years of fear-montering
so you next predictable step is to rename it so
it sounds more benign.

It is to laugh!

--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregory

Nadegda, kensi, Fran, Pandora » these are easily
ignored misandrists and anti-American, leftist liars.

[%]

On 2019-08-17 6:35 a.m., Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>> and address climate change:
>>
>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>>
>> [We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
>> as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]
>
> What's this *carbon pricing* Newspeak shit?
>
> Hey, stupid, a tax is a tax no matter what you
> money-grubbing socialists rename it. You can't
> get the tax to pass after years of fear-montering
> so you next predictable step is to rename it so
> it sounds more benign.
>
> It is to laugh!
>

it's to slap your face off your head

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, % <per...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2019-08-17, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, kensi <kkuntsi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>>> and address climate change:
>>>

>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.corn/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/

>>>
>>> [We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
>>> as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]
>>
>> What's this *carbon pricing* Newspeak shit?
>>
>> Hey, stupid, a tax is a tax no matter what you
>> money-grubbing socialists rename it. You can't

>> get the tax to pass after years of fear-mongering
>> so your next predictable step is to rename it so

>> it sounds more benign.
>>
>> It is to laugh!
>>
>it's to slap your face off your head

Shut up or I'll have to bounce my fists off
your rubber lips.

LOL

[Sergio]

kensi pupa is stupid, now approching starfarter stupid.

"massive build out of renewables" not cost effective, ask Germany
"Keynesian stimulus" has been proven boopus, Gov is 75% ineffecient
"save the planet" from commie socialists
"carbon pricing" new stock market for trading fictitious credits
makes $$$$$$ for wall street, soaking the middle class and poor.

[Praetor Mandrake]

On 8/16/2019 11:58 PM, benj wrote:

Whay are you always anti-Keynesi?

[Praetor Mandrake]

On 8/17/2019 8:35 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>> and address climate change:
>>
>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>>
>> [We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
>> as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]
>
> What's this *carbon pricing* Newspeak shit?
>
> Hey, stupid, a tax is a tax no matter what you
> money-grubbing socialists rename it. You can't
> get the tax to pass after years of fear-montering
> so you next predictable step is to rename it so
> it sounds more benign.
>
> It is to laugh!
>

Not really. A tax only on carbon, not the oxygen of carbon dioxide is a
third tax, meaning it only costs one third as much as your basic
application tax. What if we taxed you a penny on a million dollars?
Same concept.

[Nadegda]

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

Ronald Reagan infected his brain and now he has a massive case of the
stupids, just like the rest of the GOP.

<snicker>

--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600

[%]

On 2019-08-17 6:59 a.m., Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, % <per...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-08-17, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, kensi <kkuntsi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>>>> and address climate change:
>>>>
>>>> https://blogs.scientificamerican.corn/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>>>>
>>>> [We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
>>>> as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]
>>>
>>> What's this *carbon pricing* Newspeak shit?
>>>
>>> Hey, stupid, a tax is a tax no matter what you
>>> money-grubbing socialists rename it. You can't
>>> get the tax to pass after years of fear-mongering
>>> so your next predictable step is to rename it so
>>> it sounds more benign.
>>>
>>> It is to laugh!
>>>
>> it's to slap your face off your head
>
> Shut up or I'll have to bounce my fists off
> your rubber lips.
>
> LOL
>

do it , do it right now and if you don't then live knowing you're a liar

[Mattb]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:56:28 +0200, kensi
<kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>and address climate change:
>
>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>
>[We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
>as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]

Won't the companies such as power companies just pass this on to the
consumers? Making for higher electric bills.

[%]

only if you keep using power

[Mattb]

Do you believe poor people should not use power?

[%]

it wouldn't matter what i believe they have no choice but to use it

[Odd Bodkin]

You mean like cigarette companies passed on the cost of massive lawsuits
onto smokers by dramatically raising the price of cigarettes from 60 cents
a pack in 1975 to $8 a pack today? And that’s one of the reasons cigarette
consumption is down in this country? Why yes, I think that’s very likely.

If it costs more, people will use less.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Depends on what for? Are poor people on power starvation levels now?

[%]

no it doesn't depend on what for , they use it whether they like it or not

[Nadegda]

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!

I'm fairly sure kensi is suggesting the government spend on this, not the
power companies (which all ought to be nationalized anyway, being as they
are natural monopolies and all). This would likely be in combination with
a massive tax hike on the highest income brackets and closing all of the
numerous loopholes that people like Trump use to evade taxes.

In other words: we're going to build a ton of solar panels and windmills,
and we're going to make Trump pay for it!

[Mattb]

You want their power bills to go up?

[Mattb]

Some don't have A/C because of the cost yes.

Then democrats want to control us through taxation.

[Mattb]

Democrats are all about control through taxation. They need that
money to buy votes.

[Mattb]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 20:13:45 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
<nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:

>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 15:15:10 -0400, Mattb wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:56:28 +0200, kensi
>> <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>>>and address climate change:
>>>
>>>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>>>
>>>[We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
>>>as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]
>>
>> Won't the companies such as power companies just pass this on to the
>> consumers? Making for higher electric bills.
>
>I'm fairly sure kensi is suggesting the government spend on this, not the
>power companies (which all ought to be nationalized anyway, being as they
>are natural monopolies and all). This would likely be in combination with
>a massive tax hike on the highest income brackets and closing all of the
>numerous loopholes that people like Trump use to evade taxes.
>
>In other words: we're going to build a ton of solar panels and windmills,
>and we're going to make Trump pay for it!

Where would they build them they might upset a snail somewhere. or
a lizard.
>
><snicker>

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

They might. But the idea is that customers will then either choose “green”
providers that can compete because of lower prices, or cease to be customers
by producing their own, “green” electric power (with solar cells on the
roof, for example).

This has nothing to do with physics or gun control.

F’up2 sci.environment

--
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Mattb]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 16:11:44 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Point...@web.de> wrote:

>Mattb wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:56:28 +0200, kensi
>> <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions
>>>and address climate change:
>>>
>>>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/carbon-pricing-is-not-a-fix-for-climate-change/
>>>
>>> [We need a massive build-out of renewables. This could do double duty,
>>> as Keynesian stimulus as well as saving the planet.]
>>
>> Won't the companies such as power companies just pass this on to the
>> consumers? Making for higher electric bills.
>
>They might. But the idea is that customers will then either choose “green”
>providers that can compete because of lower prices, or cease to be customers
>by producing their own, “green” electric power (with solar cells on the
>roof, for example).

I had solar installed and it is enough most the time even in
Washington State. Have 2 powerwalls. Can be done but was expensive
barn needed a new roof and is no longer used as a barn was the perfect
place.

>
>This has nothing to do with physics or gun control.

There is much of physics in a solar system, but no gun control I
agree.

I believe if the Carbon taxes are used only to install more solar and
wind then it might be good if it goes into the general fund it is BS.
>
>F’up2 sci.environment

[Just Wondering]

We don't need more taxes. We need more limited government.
People believe all sorts of weird stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76Hi6uf0fiM