Oh yes, that'll go down a storm in a downturn

It might be better if it were universal. Then it would avoid those trying to get advantage by saying that you cannot underprice carbon to get a competitive advantage. It could also replace the VAT as a source of funding. This may not be an additional tax. It could reduce car tax, but by very little. I think that motorists pay it at an effective rate of several hundred per ton of carbon.

Such a policy would limit EU countries ability to industrially compete with the USA, Japan and Australia.
Never mind the fact that a large proportion of the revenue will get spent on policies unrelated to anthropogenic global warming prevention. Then a large proportion of the revenue will be spent on the provision of “renewable” technologies that will be outdated by technological advance and will lumber us with heavily subsidised or expensive energy infrastructure. And it can be guaranteed that no way near enough gets spent on the more important research and development of fossil fuel replacement tech to lessen the costs of the eventual change by increasing efficiency and the options available.
Also such tax will be regressive by and large.
.

It depends on how it is done. It could be added to imports and deducted from exports to countries without their own equivalent carbon tax. Effectively having no impact on imports and exports.


I would rather use it for renewables even if they are become out dated. As long as the output of carbon is reduced. Over time better technologies will come along and replace them. But waiting till the best technology comes along means we do nothing till it is too late. The fact that it will make low carbon power generation much more profitable will encourage R&D, though the governments could actually use this money directly to pay for such R&D at universities.

Yes it is regressive but since governments are only looking at regressive taxes to raise funding then governments should be aware of the problems that they are creating for themselves. Plus in the UK it can be offset against existing green taxes so the effect could be minimal. It could be could be used to reduce existing green taxes.

We are talking about AGW theory which if valid and if it is as dangerous as organisations such as the IPCC is claiming, it will be 80-100 years before any serious effects are felt. And most propogaters of the effects of AGW underestimate vastly our ability to adapt and the possible positive effects of a more carbon rich atmosphere and a warmer planet.
The theory itself has become the environmental issue and a major survival issue since the Crop derived biofuel scandel made rises in food prices greater and were created further inflation from speculaters. Also the issue lies with how it is distracting us from the main environmental issue of now which is primary human induced ecological destruction. Such a theory is becoming much like the panda as an environmental issue.

and AGW propogaters state what planet are we leaving in the long run.

But I say in the long run we are all dead1
And we will all die before it becomes a major problem to humanity

Another problem with agw is the number of IFs (if AGW is real, if it can have serious consequences, if we can't adapt to effects, if we can't gain net benifit from AGW and if it is economically viable to feed and electrify the worlds populations with "low carbon" tech and if technology doesn't devope means by which we can accurrately bioengineer the planet on a macro scale etc)

And on another issue is the kyoto and copenhagen deals which were much like the stalinist 5 year plans except even less ambitious and sucessful, even over a longer period of time.
1. j.m. keynes

There are some effects being felt now. The sea levels are already rising and are starting to affect low lying countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives. The actual benefits of greenhouse warming may not be that great. We might have warmer summers, but then a heat wave will kill off thousands of UK citizens as well. So the chances are that you will be killed in a heatwave that you decided was not worth it. Also who said that there would be a net benefit here in the UK? Also how would you feel if your planet was a mess and your parents generation could have done something about it?

It is not a matter of if we cannot adapt. We can but will there be the same standard of living to do so. Odds are that we will all be poorer because of the waste of the previous generation.

EU = Idiots.

No but WE wont since we will be dead.

Bangladesh and the maldives both aren't feeling the effects of sea level rise more than the natural interglacial trend rate growth in sea levels and regional variation in the last hundred years.

Bangladesh has had flooding issues for over 500 years. They live on a river delta! Bangladesh and the maldives aren't feeling the effects of rising sea levels they are feeling the day to day, month to month and year to year fluctuations in regional conditions, which for any country thet has an average height above sea level of around 1.5m, you can expect to happen frequently. Also the maldives is likely suffering from coastal erosion also.

90 years for a sea level rise of ~70cm sea level rise is an exceptional amount of time to move from affected areas, especially since the vast majority will occur in the last 40 years/ 90.
The fact is that cold weather kills more than heatwaves ever do. Also deaths from extreme weathers have decreased dramatically across the board and again it is part of adaptability. We can adapt to it easily and odds are on that the green house effect as a result of CO2 is largely over exaggerated.

The AGW "debate" has been wridden with emotion.

We have probably done and are doing more damage to people's standard of living and lives with crop derived biofuels than AGW will do to humanity ever.

I will agree with that. I would support a ban on the import and export of biofuels. If a country wants it then starve your own population. Biofuels are a waste of time and a diversion from proper solutions.

+1

Biofuels are only bad because of the corrupt and selfish greed of those in power. All cash crops create the same problems, whether they be tobacco, sugar cane or opium. The crop is not the primary problem - it's the distribution of cash that creates inequality and suffering.

Can I remind you that forests provided our primary fuel since before history books began. The use of materials such as locally produced straw and prunings for heating is a perfectly valid use of natural resources. Such resources are tiny compared to the fossils we burn, but they're definitely not evil. Many other biofuels do not add up, but the concept is not innately flawed. I rather like the idea of algae tanks in deserts providing hydrogen for the world, where as turning maize from fertile farming land into diesel is not such a good idea.

As I've said many times before, I really wish people would STFU about "Global Warming". We've always had climate changes. What we should be concerned about is conserving our resources. Something like 90% of the planets fossil fuels have been burned in my Dad's life time. Something like 90% of the worlds toxic landfill has been produced by the same generations. There are more people alive today than have died - as in, all the previous generations over the last 10,000 years add up to fewer consumers than are consuming today. Our impact on the planet has grown uncontrolled over the last century.

Like any uncontrolled growth, it will end dramatically. Probably with 10 billion people dying in famine an plague, and it's all because we're selfish and greedy and reproduce too much. The saddest fact is that we all know it's wrong, but people still drive their kids to school willingly damning their grandchildren to hell. Every gallon of fuel burned is like raping a thousand babies. Of course, these babies are far away so no one really cares.

Biofuels from genuine waste is perfectly fine, like the use of chip fat to run vehicles. It is being reused. It is the growing of crops or palm oil for fuel that is the problem. Yes recycling and efficiency of use is the first aim. Europe and Japan are ahead of the US and Australia in this respect.

I sincerly doubt that 90% of fossil fuels have been burnt previous to now.

Also the burning of biological material as a fuel isn't viable in a modern age with 7 billion people on the planet taking land from possible food supply or destroying habitats to expand production.

But such doomsaying isn't practical, we have difficult future in resource gathering and ecology but we will adapt.

Sorry, I expressed that badly.

I meant, 90% of all fossil fuels we've burned were burned in the last 75 years. Mankind has been around for many thousands of years, but 90% of all environmental devastation and squandering of resources was done by the last 3 or 4 generations.

This generation is the worst yet by far, many millions of times worse than just 10 generations ago. It's absolutely mind blowing just how incredibly hungry this generation is, and the planet can not sustain it.

I have already answered your other comments.