Where is the data showing that carbon credits have reduced global emissions and slowed down global warming? Where is the data showing that since a certain country has inacted carbon credits, their c02 levels have gone down? Where is the evidence showing that the ice caps are melting slower because of carbon credits and other climate change laws already placed into affect? Where is californias data showing that increasing solar energy and other renewable energy sources has lowered their c02 emissions? I thought this was science people?????? WHERES THE BEEF? Id add this to the already existent global warming thread but i really want this question to be answered.
give it time dude.. a couple trillion more, and you'll see the changes you're looking for. are you saying that more taxes won't slow down global warming?
spend baby spend...soon or later every craps game hits 7! ...damn...snake eyes again..keep trying DC... GO DC! I for one welcome our ruined futures via our overlords excesses!!!!
I wish I had my MET professor here to answer your question, he isn't but if he were he would be able to show you all the data you are looking for. I'll have a look around the net and come back later with my findings.
The EU's 2020 program spends $250 billion per year in the hopes that they can lower the temperature .1 degree farenheit. By the year 2100. Imagine if we instead took that annual $250 billion and put it towards helping people by 2012.
your MET professor can directly correlate the addition of the carbon tax with declining co2 levels? I'd love to see that..
It'll never happen. The liberal argument takes the form of: X implies Y, therefore if Y does not result from X we need more X. Climate change law implies a 'fix' to climate change, therefore if climate change is not fixed as a result of climate change law we need more climate change law. Stimulus spending implies a fix to unemployment, therefore if unemployment is not fixed as a result of stimulus spending we need more stimulus spending. Health care law with fix access to health care, therefore if access to health care is not fixed as a result of health care law we need more health care law. They use it for everything
This is sort of like yelling at capitalism when America is falling when we never had it for real in the first place
The goal of climate legislation is to reduce carbon output based on the scientific theory that C02 output by humans is one of the leading causes behind global climate change. The thermometer was never meant to be the measuring stick that everyone looked to in order to gauge whether or not policy was effective. I think a simple thought experiment can demonstrate that, all else equal, having a solar plant results in lower carbon emissions than a coal-burning plant... I'm not sure what you're looking for here..
But if we are spending billions of dollars, shouldnt we make sure what we are doing is actually helping? Shouldnt we be able to see c02 levels dropping off in areas that are enacting climate legislation? How do we know what we are doing is being effective? Or should i just " know" that its working without any facts or data as you seem to imply? Thats not science, thats religion ( ie faith ) . It also saddens me that you dont understand that , you just blindy accept it.
I'm not a believer in climate change but I am an environmentalist and while the oil companies are protected by the government through subsidies and regulation there will be no alternative energy renaissance. If I hadn't heard Obama's speeches about claiming to be an environmentalist i would almost think he has no interest in changing the status quo. The Free Market will provide us with cheap, clean alternative energy if politician's stop holding it back so their oil buddies make some extra bucks.
Its just like when the stimulus or the wars didn't work, what did the politician's ask for more money and more troops. Its the same bullshit.
Obviously the science behind it is important if we are going to invest billions of dollars . Why you so mad?
Yeah I'm super mad Just seems if you really cared about the science you might actually post about it in the science section, but it seems you like your science politicized much like others who doubt climate change.
Spending money on climate change is political. What dont you understand about that? If you dont have anything to contribute just stop posting in this thread. If you want to contribute, explain to me how asking for data and facts gives me a " politicized" view on global warming?
Technically what he is looking for is data that shows a cost / benefit relationship of climate regulations. Objectively speaking, if your going to invest "x "amount of dollars into a program, that intends to produce a cost reduction in the long term, which we can call "y", then y must be greater than or equal too x in orde to make the statement that it was a worthy investment. Of course, climate legislation is mostly based off the view that we will create a planet we can't live on if we don't enact laws to prevent it. This is subjective and based on inaccurate, and incomplete information. Not to mention, that no matter what laws you enact, this planet will go through periods of being non inhabitable on its own anyway.
Well what are you concerned about? The money being spent or what the effects climate change laws have had? Your first post mentioned nothing about money. What are the exact laws you'd like the data for? You can't ask vague questions and expect specific answers.