Wrong Science ?
The climate debate and the science behind it is inconclusive. On one side is the view the we create global warming by emitting CO2 and should stop it before the climate goes haywire and we have a disaster.
The evidence to support Global Warming is fairly good, and in some areas is the current best science we have. That does not make it correct and also the debate is not over. When the debate is over then science has stopped and there is nothing more to discover.
On the other side is the belief that Global Warming is not happening, or if it is, it is not our fault. The science for that point of view is also fairly good.
The data about global climate is buried under so many layers of politics, dogma, academic reputations and such, that even reading the raw scientific papers does not arrive at any clear conclusion.
So lets make a big assumption, that the whole Global Warming thing is one big mistake and hoax.
Write Answer
Ok, so then why cut carbon emissions, and do the economically painful, switch to non fossil fuels?
- Firstly, the USA is currently shoveling cash at unbelievable rates at other nations to buy their oil. This is unsustainable from any point of view. (Yeah Pickens Plan!) We will go bankrupt as a nation trying to buy foreign energy.
- Second, The oil is running out. We are just about out of 'Easy Oil' and as oil becomes more scarce, the price will be come increasingly volatile. As oil becomes harder to get, the funds to research and build a non-oil base infrastructure will not be available.
- Third, The environment (not the climate) is damaged by fossil fuel burning, starting with the lungs of Humans.
- Fourth, Oil is used to make plastics and fertilizer, not just for energy. The world food supply and much our modern junk we buy at WalMart is dependent on oil. It does not need to be. Fertilizer can be made from air and electricity. Plastics are the difficult one, and rubber for tires. That might be a far better use of oil.
Wrong Execution
So hooray for Obama and the climate bill. It forces a reduction in fossil fuel use and dependence on foreign oil.
And now for the main point (drum roll please)
The massive tax that the new climate bill represents $175 per household, with 105,480,101 households in the USA so that would be 18 billion dollars. There has been absolutely no talk about how the fees collected as 'carbon taxes' would be spent. There has also been no talk about how much money the carbon credits would rais for the government. The 18 billion dollar estimate is the best I can do for now. Maybe it is more like a trillion dollars? Who knows? It does not get talked about.
Not only that, there are zillions of loopholes in the bill so that the major emmiters of carbon won't suffer too much. So who is going to suffer if we are to actualy reduce carbon emissions? I bet it will be the middle class, as usual.
My crystal ball tells me that the money will go to social spending.
The correct answer should be to earmark ALL the money gathered from carbon sin taxes to alternate energy.
Could you imagine what 18 billion dollars of research into algae oil would do?
TF
Footnote: The down side...
Obama's climate bill will bankrupt the nation, while spending the money on 'lets be happy' programs. This will result in an economy with no money to change over to alternate energy, an no time to research alternatives before the oil runs out, leaving us in poverty and despair. Nations in poverty have no desire to help the environment. Conclusion: Obama's climate bill will be the worst thing ever for the climate.
Go Google 'The law of unintended consequences.'
