Dani Speaks Up!
I left the following comment at http://daniellerowleymsyp.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/climate-change-local-candidates/
Danielle seems a nice girl, and I hope she will give the things in my comment some thought.
Hope I get a reply.
All very nice answers, but perhaps you should ask your candidates how much it will cost you, the tax payer to meet for instance, your target of ” 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020″.
You realise that whatever the politicians do, you and all the other British taxpayers will pay for it.
So the question is how much would you personally be prepared to pay.
Here are some of the options.
Extra 5% tax + 5% price rise in all commodities (including food) that have a component of co2 producing energy.
Extra 10% tax + 10% price rise in all commodities (including food) that have a component of co2 producing energy.
Extra 20% tax + 20% price rise in all commodities (including food) that have a component of co2 producing energy.
Lose your job because your employer cannot continue business because of the rising cost of energy and taxation.
Because of taxation costs and shortage of energy the economy slumps to 1930’s or lower levels. Government cannot maintain social welfare levels.
Food costs skyrocket as suppliers struggle to meet the energy needs for production.
Much of the British public experience hunger and starvation and extreme poverty.
As an economist I believe the last scenario is likely if the world has to meet the IPCC co2 emission reductions and wealth transfers.
Now if this is going to save the planet from burning up, as you no doubt have been told many times already, then perhaps you and your family are ready to starve to save the planet, after it is our fault that we got in this situation in the first place right?
But is the planet really going to burn up? Is the current warming unusual? Is CO2 the terrible bogey that we are being told. If we are going to starve shouldn’t we be absolutely certain that CO2 causes global warming?
No sense in asking the politicians though, because they will do what ever the voter asks them, because thats the way to get elected. Therefore maybe you should give the issue a lot more thought!
Here are some facts about that terrible noxious gas CO2 which no-one has told you about.
Do you know optimum CO2 concentration for life including ours is between 600 and 800 ppmv.
At these concentrations crops grow incredibly well, have more resistance to drought and disease with higher yields. Ask any glass house operator.
Humans according to most accounts are comfortable at 1000ppmv concentration of CO2.
You can find these facts simply by using google and doing a search like this “optimal commercial greenhouse carbon dioxide enrichment”
Here are some of the sites I found in this way.
http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2_enrichment.php and “safe levels of carbon dioxide”. eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide . (1% = 10,000ppmv).
Does human induced CO2 cause global warming?
Oops did you know that is only an unproven hypothesis?
Check out my blog which points out several disproofs of that hypothesis. http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please excuse the lampooning of the politicians which I have included but they do richly deserve
So I warn you, before you ask the politicians to do some of the things on your page, please consider the terrible cost to you and your loved ones if they end up doing what you ask.
By: rogerthesurf on May 5, 2010
at 10:59 pm
Thanks for the comment Roger,
I do realise that there is a lot of money needed to make these goals reality. I would be willing to give money towards the cause, but I do think there are other options available. The replies have outlined the plans from different parties, however none of the percentages are as high as in the question. That was just a guide from a national campaign, not my personal view.
I was also looking for simple replies so that young people could understand them more easily, without going too deep into the economy and numbers.
Great that you are considering these things.
The scenarios I gave you are realistic though.
Because our economies rely so much on the use of fossil fuels, to restrict the use of fossil fuels to the extent required by the IPCC would simply destroy our current economies.
The other options you mention, which I presume are the use of non CO2 emitting fuels and renewables etc. are and always will be very expensive and not suitable for all types of essential industry, especially transport.
From our point of view, we will simply see prices for anything that uses energy, especially fossil fuels, (and just about everything including fresh food does), simply skyrocket, but if we have a job, our salaries will not keep pace.
Even a 30% slowdown in economic activity will bring us to the same level as the great depression of the 1930’s which possibly your grand parents can tell you about. This caused poverty and starvation thoughout the US and the rest of the western world.
I think it is especially important to have a balanced view of Anthropogenic Global Warming and one must take into account both the terrible cost and the degree of certainty of the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.
I think it is especially important to present both the theory and its cost to vulnerable young people. In fact I would question the morality of people who blindly advocate only the solution, and not the cost of it and advocate the theory and not the uncertainty of it.
You are welcome to visit my blog. It does lampoon a number of political figures so please do not be offended, but it also looks at some of the problems with the AGW theory in a way that is easy to understand.