What do you think of Global Warming and carbon taxing?

Do you think this is a ploy to just make people money, or there may be a problem and global warming is an issue.

Answer #1

i think its both. alot of people use the idea to make money but then again it is a real problem. I think it’s just the earth taking it’snatural course, and whatever happens, happens.

Answer #2

There definitely is a problem with climate change and the implications it has on the environment: “The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.” - http://funadvice.com/r/14mjpejn5pg

From the New York times: “The reversal of the slow cooling trend in the Arctic, recorded in samples of layered lakebed mud, glacial ice and tree rings from Alaska to Siberia, has been swift and pronounced, the team writes.

Earlier studies have also shown that the Arctic, more than the planet as a whole, has seen unusual warming in recent decades. But the new analysis provides decade-by-decade detail on temperature trends going back 2,000 years — five times further than previous work at that detailed a scale.” - http://funadvice.com/r/bf25ui58dds

As for using this as a means to gain money, the intentions would mean that the money effect would be instant but after a prolonged period of time, people will get the idea and reduce their carbon emission. Even though the idea altogether is completely absurd IMO. The statistics that need to go into place, hiring the people that do the statistics, then implementing into the system, then keeping track of all this will cost A LOT of money.

Answer #3

Global warming as in our worldly average temperature rising is obvious. It is rising at an alarming rate of approximately 2 degrees in the last 100 years. I don’t believe for a second the cars we drive and the industry in this country have anything at all to do with it. We cause way to much pollution which I thinks needs to be cut back for thousands of reasons. I think it is totally money driven. Al Gore makes millions and millions every year pushing his “inconvenient truth”

Answer #4

i am glad to see that there are others that believe it is a natural process that the earth is going through- that is my take on it.

all of the money they are wasting trying to reverse a natural process could be used elsewhere. we should know well enough to leave nature alone or risk creating an even worse scenario. Al Gore is a nut that has profited from attempting to sway the thoughts of the world to actually buy into the lie. we would be far better served by preparing for the change the earth is headed for rather than trying to stop it.

Answer #5

The industrial revolution has caused an increase in CO2 levels quicker than would be possible naturally. Since we have no historical data for the effect of this increase we have to rely on complex computer models. Over time the models become more complex and accurate. The vast majority of climate scientists have concluded that the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases is affecting our climate. There is also a fringe view that there is no man caused climate change.

There is a great deal of money in the balance. Any policy that requires a reduction of carbon emissions would mean $billions/year is losses for some very large and well connected corporations. Even though climate change skeptics are a small fringe minority they are well funded by the industries that rely on continued use of fossil fuels. This gives the impression to the general public that both views are equal and the topic is still up in the air when in fact for most scientists the conclusion is that climate change is real and one of our most pressing problems.

Since the climate models are complex and evolving it is possible that 50 years in the future that we will discover that it isn’t as much of a problem as we anticipate; on the other hand it is also possible 50 years in the future that it will be worse than we imagine.

Slowly phasing in a carbon tax seems the most reasonable action at this point. It would slowly move us away from fossil fuels as they get more expensive and renewable energy becomes more competitive.

Answer #6

I agree. Even if you are part of that fringe view, and even if climate change doesn’t turn out as badly as we currently expect, there are plenty of other reasons to move away from non-renewable sources of energy.

Answer #7

I do not agree with the carbon tax, and the buying and selling of the carbon taxes. I do agree that fossil fuels are a limited resource and we do need to find other methods of producing energy.

More Like This
Ask an advisor one-on-one!

Global Environmental Solutions

Masonry Waterproofing, Dust Control, Roadbase Stabilization


Natural Carbon Credits

Environmental Conservation, Rainforest Protection, Carbon Credits


Earth Rewards

Environmental Conservation, Technology, App Development


Light Planet

LED Lighting, Accessories, Trade Accounts


Solar Unlimited

Solar Energy, Renewable Energy, Green Energy