You can take away effective refrigerants
You can make lying movies and raise the awareness.
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
You could go Communist.
Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."
You could make people eat grass, live in caves, and beat their clothes on rocks down by the stream.
Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
Keep people in the dark as to science and real facts.
Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”
Cut all cheap energy.
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Return to the stone age.
Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
That is one method. The method that is being pressed upon us by the greenies as their solution to AGW.
However, if there truly was global warming and it was caused by CO2 there are many solutions.
First of all, bring back railroads. That still is the cheapest and efficient of mass commodity hauling available.
Make our streets and roads more efficient. A lot of energy is wasted sitting at stop lights and they pollute more when at a stand still. I could write a book on this subject. But that sums it up.
Reduce the government bureaucracies. Delete the Department of Education. A lot of time, money, effort and energy is wasted by a department that never does what its name says. Delete the EPA. It only protects selected individuals but not the environment. It uses too much energy. And there are many other fossil fuel guzzling departments.
All environmentalist protesters can make only $10,000 a year. Anything after that goes to the government to pay for police protection and other expense they needlessly cause. People like Mia Farrow would fatten the US Treasury.
All environmental Lawyers can only make $20,000 a year including benefits.
Put a sales tax of 100% on all politician's golfing activities.
Mandate that Washington D. C. be powered by solar or wind power exclusively. if they expect us to do it they are leaders and should show us how.
Build more hydroelectric dams and forget about the snail darter, who will survive anyway.
Build more nuclear facilities. They have proven their worth.
Outlaw private jets.
All yachts have to go back to sails. Oil tankers will have to be sail driven.
The governments will have to cut all fossil fuel usage by 80%.
All diplomatic negotiations will be by telecommunication. This would not only save fossil fuel but the negotiations should be public anyway.
Congress shall enact no laws that doesn't apply to them. There was a law enacted under Reagan to that effect but it got canceled out silently and speedily by another administration.
Open up all public oil fields without restraints. A $5 dollar claim just like in the gold rush days should be sufficient.
Pipelines shall have priority. After all proper design and usage will reduce energy usage. Better than shipping by train.
This is just a start, but why go on? It'll never happen because it would affect the powerbrokers the most.
I don't see a reason why we should "fight" global warming. One must see when you've lost a cause, and the fight against global warming seems to be lost, as there was never a fight, just people who traded CO2 certificates in another bubble market. So, live with it, and get prepared for the sea levels rising. They don't come flooding your coasts in a day; it will take about 200 years. Lots of time to move.
By that, I don't want to say you shouldn't act environmentally friendly. CO2 is a gas we all breathe out, and it's not a killer gas. Look around what they pump into your environment, like by fracking gas, and take care of the nuclear plants near you. I'm rather concerned about these immediate dangers, rather than CO2.
Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."
You could make people eat grass, live in caves, and beat their clothes on rocks down by the stream.
Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
Keep people in the dark as to science and real facts.
Taxes aint the answer. What would slow the global warming down would be Limit the amount of fuel per person through government controlled fuel coupons every one in the US can not own a house bigger then 1000 square feet. This would make it fair and rich people like Gore would have to be just like he wans me to live
Raising taxes will do NOTHING. Man-made, Catastrophic, Global Warming simply does not exist.
Al Gore.....the Messiah of Alarmist, Climate scientists......has done nothing to diminish his carbon footprint. If CAGW is such a serious threat to Mankind, then why the Hell does he continue to jet and limo his big butt all over the world to discuss CAGW, when he can easily do so via the internet??!!!
A number of disgustingly corrupt ,so-called Climate 'scientists' and enterprising con-men have manipulated and falsified data in order to scam Taxpayers out of $Billions to further the Warming faith's agenda. Those folks need to see some serious jail time!
There is a scheme run by someone who really values the environment. He has a long term (30+ year) plan that is guaranteed to turn global warming round and stabilise it.
We have every confidence of the project's success but for complete peace of mind, your donation will be refunded if it does not work out.
Send all donations to the graphicconception cuddly panda organisation. No amount too large.
NB Project outcome will be decided by the organisation and their decision will be final.
Most economists don't think $150 a ton is needed. Most fascist economist may believe that but it is idiotic to pretend to know what most economist think. That is what the wacko left does. They simply proclaim that there is a consensus with their wacko idea and then anybody that disagrees is a denier or racist or hates clear air and clean water and kicks puppies. It is hard to argue with such juvenile thought processes.
I see the rasin has finally noticed that his idea of federalizing land for nuke plants so NIMBYs can't block them might have a bit of trouble - such as requiring major changes in water rights laws, states rights, tort law, and the Constitution. Meanwhile Alph metions several non-tax techniques that deiers don't seem to know exist. And, as the raisin has poo-poohed, but not contradicted, even China is setting up cap and trade.
Conserve energy, live green, everyone watch his or her carbon footprint.
Taxes will really not solve the problem at all. I know this is sacrilege to the warmers, but it is true.
In Europe, they pay 2 times as much in gas,and still use gasoline. Their cars are generally more fuel efficient than ours, but the fuel efficiency would likely only see a reduction of about 30% in fuel use ASSUMING we also paid twice as much because of some gas tax.
So raising the cost of gas by $3 would make the yearly cost of driving every car, $1500 more. A family with 2 cars goes up by $3000. That is $3000 a year out of average joe's median income of $51,000, just to reduce our gas use by 30-50%. ANd don't make the mistake of thinking that e-cars are ready to take the place. If they were, they would have spread like wild fire in Europe.
So how much more should be put into electricity costs? Should it be the same amount for the same reduction?
So we are at $6000 per year or more than 10% of the median household income to reduce our CO2 by 30-50%???
Now lets talk about what this really means. We do not see 100% of our pay. Instead, we pay federal, state, local, sales tax, social security, sin tax, medicare, property tax. We pay more than 40% to taxes already.
So we $30,600 as our median take home minus $6000, leaving $24,600 for our households. A loss of 20% of our take-home pay!!!
I don't believe AGW is going to destroy the world, but let me propose a solution.
Open up drilling in the US for 10 years. We would recieve around $80 billion in tax revenue per year. With this revenue, Take $20 B a year and pump it into research for batteries and cheaper solar power. This woudl be used to set up the electric cars and push solar to be competitive.
For 2 years, take $50 Billion of the rest of the revenue towards nuclear power. Towards the following ends:
1.) Reduce and eliminate the red tape and non-safety related regulations on nuclear.
2.) Spend about $2 B coming up with plans for a nuclear power plant that could be replicated many times.
3.) Use half of the rest of the money to make federal land purchases to be rented out to the nuclear power industry, which would be out of the jurisdiction of the local gov't and thus not allow them to shut plants down.
4.) Use the rest of the money as a low interest loan for starting capital for a first set of nuclear power plants. These nuclear power plants would be of the same design, reducing design costs and allowing easier and cheaper monitoring and quality control.
After this, use the funds from the rent charges in 3 to make future land purchases. Open a nuclear power plant to replace any coal power plant that is older than 30 years old.
You have taken care of most all CO2 emissions within 30 years. No new taxes. Further, since these measures would reduce nuclear power below coal, we would all save money.
Edit:
One thing to note. I HATE having to suggest the federal gov't overstep their bounds in purchasing lands. This is ONLY necessary because the enivronMENTALists have spread scare-mongering lies about nuclear power to the point that people fear having green-glowing children with 5 eyes. It is all anti-science garbage, but unfortunately it has been effective anti-science garbage.
Virtual,
Funny that you mention cap and trade in China as they build a coal power plant a week. You think this demonstrates your point. What it REALLY demonstrates is that you can install a cap and trade tax scheme and still ahve CO2 emissions INCREASING.
You will note my plan give a timeline, a cost and an amount of reductions as you blithely praise some tax solution that you STUPIDILY claim are not taxes that will only lead to moderate CO2 emission drops.
I understand you warmers believing on faith the future predictions of models to such a point that you pee yourselves. Sure, why not. It faith in a religion. What I don't get is why you reject plans to stop your apocalypse in favor of plans that have no hope to. That just plain stupidity if you truly believe in your religion so much.
Without exception, the most common solution to curing the world of its fever from so-called "global warming" discussed is to raise taxes. How much would taxes have to increase before so-called "global warming" was cured?
Beside so-called "questions" here how can the Illuminati Precious Bodily Fluids Gore- Obama Global Warming Conspiracy be fought back against? https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Regulation. Ban new coal plants and require replacements for existing coal plants to be in progress.
fee and dividend. get money paid to you for using clean energy from those who use dirty energy.
cap and trade. industry receives credits for polluting less or pays for polluting more
regulations and laws
most economists think $150 a ton of co2 is needed to make a difference
none that I can think of
destroy the Conservative Movement
