On Carbon Taxation Theories and Future Alternatives for Survival

 

The so-called scientists who are united in a grand consensus about taxing carbon to save the planet seem to be limited to agreeing on partial taxes that might prevent the future disaster that they claim. Carbon reductions would have to be massive everywhere to avoid disaster. The ugly facts are that those in power [EU members mostly] want to exclude China, India and most emerging nations, tax the US, and also ignore the salient fact that their own EU members have not cut carbon emission standards according to agreed norms. The matter is complex [see WIKI Carbon Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax].

 

Let us assume that carbon emissions must be reduced to save the planet. The end of civilization is in sight! What can we do?

 

So, let us jump ahead of this mess and ask: could the planet inhabitants stop burning fossil fuels to an extent that CO2 levels would be reduced to meet these goals? Given that the USSR, India, US and others in Africa and Asia are reluctant or refuse to make such cuts then what happens to the world?

Given the huge costs of avoiding energy generation by coal and petroleum components the answer is NO! It will not happen. Many nations would collapse economically if they were forced to use only alternative energy sources.

 

So, given our histories of our planet just what would happen?

 

Well, war for sure as survival then clearly depends on lowering carbon emissions at all costs everywhere and that means many nations would not be permitted to manufacture food and other essentials with energy. This assumed state then tends to predict that collations of countries might form new alliances where they avoid as much carbon oxidation as possible and prevent others from using any at all. The powerful would use as much alternative energy as possible even at high energy costs of solar and wind mechanisms just to survive. This is undoubtedly the predictive teaching we get from a study of the history of the world. The outcome would mean war, mass starvation, malnutrition, migration away from cold climates and much more.

 

The Solution

[1] Prevent the less powerful nations from using carbon-based energy systems on pain of war.

[2] Demand a drastic reduction in the human population.

[3] Secure all locations on the planet where energy is cheap and not carbon based to produce food, arms and goods.

[4] Employ the Survival of the Fittest methods as usual.

Comments

rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 4, 2019 - 4:15pm
There is no hope. 
Dino Manalis Added Jan 4, 2019 - 5:10pm
We should research, develop and improve all energy sources to make them less polluting, but we shouldn't rush and carbon taxes would merely increase revenues and economic pain.  Things have to be done carefully.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Jan 4, 2019 - 5:11pm
Anak Kraktau just spewed more into the atmosphere than all of humanity's history. 
 
Tax volcanoes. 
ChetDude Added Jan 4, 2019 - 8:33pm
Universal, Global, Birth Control as a Sacrament -- along with education and empowerment of Women to use it -- resistance to selfish religious dogma -- and fair distribution of resources as we power down and lower population to a sustainable level could be accomplished within 3 or 4 generations.
 
We'd just need a different paradigm, a different set of goals - provision of everyone's basic human needs with higher Quality of Life to replace the "infinite growth" for higher "standard of living" (for a dwindling few) on a Finite Planet model we're using...
Katharine Otto Added Jan 4, 2019 - 10:47pm
rycK,
So much for international shipping and air travel.  I don't know of any solar or wind powered jets or PanaMax ships.  Could those who plant trees reduce their carbon taxes?  What about those who reduce their exhalations?  Exercise less, breathe less?  
 
GMO people, engineered to inhale CO2 and exhale O2, like plants do?  There might be a market for that.
 
Just call me creatively hopeful.
opher goodwin Added Jan 5, 2019 - 6:12am
The UK - now 33% energy from renewables and 25% reduction in energy needs due to efficiencies in appliances and LEDs.
Germany 40% energy from renewables.
The fossil fuel industry is old, polluting and has been superseded by better, more efficient and less polluting industry. The 3% of scientists who stupidly contest global warming and the greenhouse effect are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. There is your fake news!
We have the means to address a problem that will cause us immense difficulties and huge costs in the future. Not to do so is plain stupid.
It is not about a carbon tax. It is about using your intelligence to avert a major danger.
opher goodwin Added Jan 5, 2019 - 6:14am
Katharine - in terms of aviation and shipping it is perfectly possible to use better fuels and more efficient engines to substantially reduce pollution. This would actually reduce costs by reducing fuel use and is already happening. We just need to help it happen faster.
opher goodwin Added Jan 5, 2019 - 6:23am
BTW - so-called scientists make up 97% of the scientific community - you know - the most highly trained, educated people on the planet. 
This deriding of experts and science in favour of superstition and off the cuff stupidity is pathetic. Trump sure has started something. He's a fool who ignores all advice from people that know and has encouraged everyone else to jump on the same bandwagon of stupidity. He's done it for political reasons. The stupid are just following because they haven't the sense to see what is really going on.
The Dark Ages - we're still in them! And the US is, if it doesn't wake up soon, heading right down into the darkest depths of mindlessness where intelligence and education count for nothing and the morons hold sway.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 10:14am
Dino Manalis
 
"We should research, develop and improve all energy sources to make them less polluting, but we shouldn't rush and carbon taxes would merely increase revenues and economic pain.  Things have to be done carefully."
 
Perfectly stated even if carbon dioxide increases the temperatures. We should note two  things:
 
[1] the so-called scientists and concerned yoyos cannot  tell if what we are experiencing is cyclic over several centuries and may be a natural phenomenon.
 
[2] the ONLY thing the drooling left wants is more taxes as they seem to think that is the way to change things. 
 
Pollution is bad but leftist demands are worse. 
 
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 10:22am
 Opher
 
"BTW - so-called scientists make up 97% of the scientific community - you know - the most highly trained, educated people on the planet"
 
I am one of those scientists [Sr Scientist retired from a major chemical company, 26 peer-reviewed papers and 6 patents] and can state the notion that this 'science is settled' is pure left-wing political slop. Science is never settled and all criticism and such should be readily and willingly inspected because that is how science progresses. Nothing  is protected from criticism. 
 
And all their 31 computer models adopted by the UN are pig droppings. They have not predicted anything substantive. 
 
The predictions  in the 1970 book  Limits to Growth was wrong, wrong, wrong and from MIT too!! 
 
Why not comment on Al Gore's  predictions Opher??
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 10:23am
Opher
 
"The 3% of scientists who stupidly contest global warming and the greenhouse effect are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. "
 
Total lie. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 10:36am
Katharine Otto
 
rycK,
So much for international shipping and air travel.  I don't know of any solar or wind powered jets or PanaMax ships.  Could those who plant trees reduce their carbon taxes?  What about those who reduce their exhalations?  Exercise less, breathe less? 

 
At this time only about 3% of the total energy is from alternative sources. Spain nearly went broke trying to implement solar panels. They persited and with subsidies have made some progress.
 
"
Subsidy reductions[edit]
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Spanish government drastically cut its subsidies for solar power and capped future increases in capacity at 500 MW per year, with effects upon the industry worldwide. "The solar industry in 2009 has been undermined by [a] collapse in demand due to the decision by Spain", according to Henning Wicht, a solar-power analyst.[4] In 2010, the Spanish government went further, retroactively cutting subsidies for existing solar projects, aiming to save several billion euro it owed.[11][28] According to the Photovoltaic Industry Association, several hundred photovoltaic plant operators may face bankruptcy.[29] Phil Dominy of Ernst & Young, comparing the feed-in tariff reductions in Germany and Italy, said; "Spain stands out as an example of how not to do it".[30] As a result, a Spanish association of solar power producers has announced its intention to go to court over the government's plans to cap solar subsidies. In 2014 alternative energy group NextEra filed a complaint against Spain at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.[31]"--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain#Policies,_laws_and_incentives
 
Spanish debt to GDP is 165% .
 
"Starting with Greece in 2009, five of the 19 eurozone states have been struggling with a sovereign debt crisis, by many called the European debt crisis. All these states started reforms and got bailout packages (GreeceIrelandPortugalSpainCyprus). As of 2015, all countries but Greece have recovered from their debt crisis. Other non-eurozone states also experienced a debt crisis and also went through successful bailout programmes, i.e. HungaryRomania and Latvia (t
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 10:37am
Much of Spanish debt is from deficits caused by solar and wind project subsidies. Same with Germany. 
Even A Broken Clock Added Jan 5, 2019 - 12:34pm
rycK - your first comment seems to express your true feelings. "There is no hope." You go from there to the premise that the leftist hordes who are seeking absolute power and control will force war upon the portion of the world that refuses to go along with the agenda of the leftists.
 
I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of humanity that you believe we will go directly to war. After all, as Isaac Asimov said, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
 
Of course, given the demonstrated incompetence of this administration, I am expecting it to break out into violence at any time. But as to what you fear? I scoff at your fears.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 12:41pm
Even
 
 
"rycK - your first comment seems to express your true feelings. "There is no hope." You go from there to the premise that the leftist hordes who are seeking absolute power and control will force war upon the portion of the world that refuses to go along with the agenda of the leftists."
 
Then, refute my premise with a path forward for minimizing carbon emissions without war or crashing several economies!
 
How do we get from point A to point B??
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jan 5, 2019 - 12:47pm
Even
 
"After all, as Isaac Asimov said, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.""
 
How about the yellow jacket rebellion in France?
How about ISIS and violence. 
Should we have taken down Hitler in non violent ways. 
 
Show us some nonviolent ways to make peace in Africa or the Middle East.
 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 6, 2019 - 2:41pm
If the computer models that completely omit the two primary causes were accurate, I would still doubt their veracity and "scientific" nature. 

Recent Articles by Writers rycK the JFK Democrat follows.