What would you pay to 'do something' about AGW

[Riverwind]

I have the impression that the majority of people telling us to 'do something' about global warming are also unwilling to make sacrifices themselves and if they even acknowledge that the cost of 'doing something' will be astronomical they will insist that someone other than them should be forced to pay for it.

Well the draft Copenhagen treaty that the warmists are pushing includes a requirement that rich countries contribute 0.5 to 1.0% of their GDP to a fund to pay off their 'climate debt' to the rest of the world. This makes it possible to put a specific quantity on the cost of 'doing something'.

For reference spending 0.7% of GDP ($10 billion) could be paid for by making one of the following cuts to spending:

1) End of all programs for federal children (eg family tax credit)

2) 33% reduction in health and social transfers to provinces

3) 33% reduction in OAS/GIS benefits.

4) 66% reduction in EI benefits

There are obviously other options for cuts, however, I would like people to think about what they would 'sacrifice' - i.e. you can't say 'cut military spending' if you are a person that does not support the military and want to cut it no matter what. Tells us what government spending programs which you actually care about and you would sacrifice in the name of this AGW threat.

UPDATE: The cost is intended to capture all possible climate related spending. i.e. if you oppose spending $10 billion/year in blood money but support that much being spent on renewable energy subdies then please state that along with the government programs you would cut to pay for it.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Riverwind

[GostHacked]

Well the draft Copenhagen treaty that the warmists are pushing includes a requirement that rich countries contribute 0.5 to 1.0% of their GDP to a fund to pay off their 'climate debt' to the rest of the world. This makes it possible to put a specific quantity on the cost of 'doing something'.

If one country pollutes more than another, it just has to pay more? How is money going to pay for a 'climate debt'. IF global warming is real, then there can really be no monetary value assigned to it that will correct the issue. If you can afford it, you can pollute all you want. That seems to be the thing here.

Investment into technologies to reduce pollution would be better. Invest in ways to reduce the amount of trash we generate would be better.I don't think global warming is as much of a threat as use being buried in our own garbage.

[Riverwind]

How is money going to pay for a 'climate debt'.

The 'climate debt' thing is a scam designed to take money from evil rich people and give it to good poor people. If AGW did not exist the activists would invent another reason to demand the same amount of money. I only used it because it is a concrete number that does not depend on complex economic calculations.

Investment into technologies to reduce pollution would be better.

You should still be able to but a limit on what spending you would support for such investments. You don't need to assume that the money all be sent overseas as blood money.

[Keepitsimple]

I believe that by far the majority of Climate Change is from natural sources. When temperatures go up, I believe that humans contribute to a small degree....and when temperatures go down, humans contribute in a small part to mitigating the cooling. I believe that funding consideration should be given to true environmental concerns such as air quality, pure water and continued investment in alternative energy sources BUT THE FOCUS should be on energy security - not on the misplaced vendetta against CO2.

[M.Dancer]

I have yet to be convinced that AGW is a bad thing.

[eyeball]

I think AGW is real and I think we're bound to spend far more than 1% of GDP simply to mitigate the effects of AGW, which appear to be coming much faster than predicted.

“It caught us all by surprise because we were expecting there to be multiyear sea ice – the whole world thought it was multiyear sea ice,” said Dr. Barber, who just returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea.

“Unfortunately what we found was that the multiyear [ice] has all but disappeared. What's left is this remnant, rotten ice.”

Story

It may be that its too late to do anything about AGW.

[Riverwind]

I think AGW is real and I think we're bound to spend far more than 1% of GDP simply to mitigate the effects of AGW, which appear to be coming much faster than predicted.

Ice dissappearing from the north will be mostly a good thing. Also, the endless 'its changing faster than we thought' stories are nothing but propoganda intended to delude the sheep. If you look at several key metrics like OHC, Surface Temps, Tropo Temps you find that warming is proceeding much more slowly than previously thought.

In any case you did not say what you would sacrifice to pay for your worry. So if GW is such a concern which of the programs you like should get cut?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

Ice dissappearing from the north will be mostly a good thing. Also, the endless 'its changing faster than we thought' stories are nothing but propoganda intended to delude the sheep. If you look at several key metrics like OHC, Surface Temps, Tropo Temps you find that warming is proceeding much more slowly than previously thought.

In any case you did not say what you would sacrifice to pay for your worry. So if GW is such a concern which of the programs you like should get cut?

Sea ice disappearing will have no effect on sea levels. Ice cap and glacial melting will have a huge effect. That is simple arithmetic.

[Shwa]

by making one of the following cuts to spending:

If there are other options to cuts, then why are cuts the only option you are offering? That doesn't make sense. Surely there are ways to raise 10 billion other than cuts to government services.

For instance, have a shame tax on all the crappy products purchased at Walmart. Say a dollar per item added. That should raise enough every year no problem. Or have a fat-person tax where anyone overweight has to pay a buck for every pound they are overweight. Really, if there is GW it is likely fat people's fault for all the extra stuff they have consumed and the energy it took to produce it. They should know better and now they should pay. Heck I am in for 20 right now!

BTW - when I saw 'fat people' this doesn't include people with glandular problems. Just so we are clear.

[eyeball]

In any case you did not say what you would sacrifice to pay for your worry. So if GW is such a concern which of the programs you like should get cut?

I don't see what's wrong with cutting programs I don't like first such as;

Government programs aimed at the war on terror and drugs for starters. Programs aimed at delivering welfare to corporations, especially those who pollute or are involved in the development and manufacture of arms, would also be very high on my list. Public spending for hosting the Olympics. Bailouts for millionaires / billionaires etc etc.

As for cutting programs I might otherwise not worry about or feel we need, I'd cut funding for; artists, promoting tourism, or sports and cultural events, heritage funding i.e. Parks Canada/museums etc.

As for those I 'like' or think are most important such as health and welfare, education, or environmental protection... if we have to start cutting those we'll likely be long past the point of no return so...

[Riverwind]

I don't see what's wrong with cutting programs I don't like first such as;

The problem is many people do like those programs and you cannot ensure that they would be the ones cut to pay for your environmental obsessions.

The point of the question was to see if you would still support the spending even if it was paid for by cutting programs you do like while programs you don't like are left untouched in order to mollify people who think spending money CO2 is a waste.

In your case, it is quite plausible that the cost of paying for CO2 will likely come out healthcare and environmental programs first. Healthcare will be affected because it is rising fast and simply not providing the additional funding each year would be a steathy way to cut spending. Environmental programs would be axed because all of the money spent on CO2 would be counted toward environmental virtue so therefore cuts would be hidden in increasing costs for the CO2 related stuff.

If that happened would you still support the spending on CO2?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Surely there are ways to raise 10 billion other than cuts to government services.

The point of the question was to see if you would still support the spending even if it was paid for by cutting programs you do like while programs you don't like are left untouched in order to mollify people who think spending money CO2 is a waste.

i.e. do you put your money where your mouth is. will your make the real sacrifices that you seem to happy to impose on others?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shwa]

i.e. do you put your money where your mouth is. will your make the real sacrifices that you seem to happy to impose on others?

Well, I am not saying that I am happy to impose on others, at least I hope not. However, why not ask if people supporting the 10 billion would be happy to cut a body part off - a leg or an arm if you will. Or if they were willing to put their money where their mouth is, would they cut their lips off? That sort of thing.

[Riverwind]

However, why not ask if people supporting the 10 billion would be happy to cut a body part off - a leg or an arm if you will.

The question would make sense if the removal of the leg would provide the $10 billion to pay for the environmental commitments. However, it obviously won't but cutting EI benefits by 66% would which is why I am asking people if their committment is strong enough to accept such significant sacrifices. If you are not willing to accept such sacrifices then you are admitting that there is some doubt in your mind about the seriousness of the problem and you might want to reconsider before forcing other people to make sacrifices.

[eyeball]

The problem is many people do like those programs and you cannot ensure that they would be the ones cut to pay for your environmental obsessions.

The point of the question was to see if you would still support the spending even if it was paid for by cutting programs you do like while programs you don't like are left untouched in order to mollify people who think spending money CO2 is a waste.

In your case, it is quite plausible that the cost of paying for CO2 will likely come out healthcare and environmental programs first. Healthcare will be affected because it is rising fast and simply not providing the additional funding each year would be a steathy way to cut spending. Environmental programs would be axed because all of the money spent on CO2 would be counted toward environmental virtue so therefore cuts would be hidden in increasing costs for the CO2 related stuff.

If that happened would you still support the spending on CO2?

Before I did anything I'd have to settle a few fundamental questions regarding the public's position on climate change via a binding referendum. The god damn scientists, bureaucrats, environmentalists, economists, politicians and corporations et al have all had their chance to weigh in on what should or shouldn't be done. I just flat out don't care what they have to say any more. Its our turn.

I'd say if everyone feels the same way about cuts to their favourite programs then tax the shit out of rich people and big corporations first. Sorry, but there just doesn't seem to be any other way. We already have mountains of evidence that cutting their taxes hasn't done a bloody thing to help increase government revenues anywhere, so...it stands to reason that maybe we should do what the sceptics think for a change, don't you?

OTOH perhaps we should put the metal to the pedal, liquidate the planet and move on to the next one.

[Riverwind]

I'd say if everyone feels the same way about cuts to their favourite programs then tax the shit out of rich people and big corporations first.

You are refusing to take responsibility for your own opinions. If you think it is so important you should be making the sacrifices. Not the 'rich'. Not the 'corporations'. Not any other convenient scapegoat.

As for a referendum, it would be a meaningless exercise unless it was a referendum on which social programs should be cut to pay for doing anything. The opinion of someone who wishes to force someone else to pay the cost of 'doing something' is completely irrelevant.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

You are refusing to take responsibility for your own opinions.

No I'm not, I'm simply giving you an opinion you don't want to hear.

If you think it is so important you should be making the sacrifices. Not the 'rich'. Not the 'corporations'. Not any other convenient scapegoat.

In any case, for what its worth, I support increasing consumption taxes, instituting taxes on pollution, carbon and drugs and eliminating income taxes.

I'm not however willing to sacrifice a single penny of funding for health and welfare, education and environmental protection until funding for military conflicts outside of our borders, drug wars and aid to dictatorships has been stopped. If people want to spend their money on this sort of crap let them pay for it themselves through war bonds and donations.

As for a referendum, it would be a meaningless exercise unless it was a referendum on which social programs should be cut to pay for doing anything. The opinion of someone who wishes to force someone else to pay the cost of 'doing something' is completely irrelevant.

No referendum on military policies though right?

Your total aversion to the public also democratically deciding how to approach AGW makes your opinions on what constitutes force seem hilarious. How much longer will Canadians be forced to accept near total inaction on something a majority of them want addressed? Like I said everyone but the public has had their chance. Its time to lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

Edited December 1, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

In any case, for what its worth, I support increasing consumption taxes, instituting taxes on pollution, carbon and drugs and eliminating income taxes.

Fair enough - but cutting income taxes does not raise the $10 billion for blood money. BTW - what is your opinion on the HST?

I'm not however willing to sacrifice a single penny of funding for health and welfare, education and environmental protection

So given a choice between cutting these services and 'doing something' about CO2 you choose these services?

Your total aversion to the public also democratically deciding how to approach AGW.

We have had two referendums in Quebec where the questions were deliberately choosen to maximize the chance of a yes vote. During the campaign the yes side bent over backwards to convince people it was a pain free choice when no rational analysis would support that view. The referendums did not pass but the example illustrates how referendums are the playthings of the elite who set the questions which frame the debate.

I said the question would have ask people what they would sacrifice if they support the motion because any other question would mislead voters. California is going broke today because of citizens initiatives which demand services without any thought on how to pay for them.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shwa]

The point of the question was to see if you would still support the spending even if it was paid for by cutting programs you do like while programs you don't like are left untouched in order to mollify people who think spending money CO2 is a waste.

i.e. do you put your money where your mouth is. will your make the real sacrifices that you seem to happy to impose on others?

That was the point of my response too. If you really, really, REALLY support GW then you should at least be willing to cut your lips off. Or worse. And I am sure more than a few can think of something worse to cut off. {gulp}

I am sure there is a moral to all of this...

[Martin Chriton]

I'd say if everyone feels the same way about cuts to their favourite programs then tax the shit out of rich people and big corporations first. Sorry, but there just doesn't seem to be any other way. We already have mountains of evidence that cutting their taxes hasn't done a bloody thing to help increase government revenues anywhere, so...it stands to reason that maybe we should do what the sceptics think for a change, don't you?

Great. So you want to make Canada uncompetitive for corporations and successful people -- why would they stay? Further, any company that stays is going to have to past the cost on to the consumer. Whether it's by lowing salaries or increasing price of goods and services. You'll still end up paying for it.

As Riverwind asked earlier, what sacrifices are you will to make? If none, why should anyone else make any.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Martin Chriton

[Martin Chriton]

-

Edited December 1, 2009 by Martin Chriton

[wyly]

Sea ice disappearing will have no effect on sea levels. Ice cap and glacial melting will have a huge effect. That is simple arithmetic.

that's not totaly correct it isn't the equal displacement that everyone assumes it is, but that isn't the major consequence...the major effect of sea ice disappearing is it will accelerate ocean warming which in turn will accelerate sea level rise due to thermal expansion, plus accelerated ocean warming will also accelerate CO2 release from the oceans...

[wyly]

I think AGW is real and I think we're bound to spend far more than 1% of GDP simply to mitigate the effects of AGW, which appear to be coming much faster than predicted.

It may be that its too late to do anything about AGW.

it is too late to stop it, now it's AWG damage control...

read the artical on the icepack a few days ago I'm sure many scientists are surprised...what was orignially projected to take untill 2100 to occur then then pushed up to 2050 and now possibly before 2020 certianly refutes the deneiers claims it's actually happening slower than projected...

[eyeball]

Great. So you want to make Canada uncompetitive for corporations and successful people -- why would they stay? Further, any company that stays is going to have to past the cost on to the consumer. Whether it's by lowing salaries or increasing price of goods and services. You'll still end up paying for it.

As Riverwind asked earlier, what scarifies are you will to make? If none, why should anyone else make any.

At this point what I'm willing to take responsibility for is more important than what I'm willing to sacrifice. I'm willing to take responsibility for deciding the fundamental question of whether we should be addressing AGW in the first place and putting it directly into the hands of Canadians themselves through a binding referendum.

You actually trust leaving such an important responsibility to politicians alone, isn't that what got us here in the first place?

[Riverwind]

At this point what I'm willing to take responsibility for is more important than what I'm willing to sacrifice.

Taking 'responsibility' means squat if that means you will seek to make someone else pay for your obsessions.