Another way is to meet the invading force with (a tax funded) army sufficient in strength to make the fight uneconomical for the invading forces. Clearly the Ukraine forces are no match for the Russian forces, so other nations would have to send armed forces over, spending their citizens tax dollars.
But maybe you can think of an effective and efficient way we could lower the demand for resources, or waging war, without taxes?
Edit:
Raisin Caine. You got the right idea, but you are comparing apples with oranges. Texas is already flaring of their natural gas, rather then exporting it to Europe. So while the keystone pipeline could potentially be used to transport gas rather then bitumen, I suggest they don't need any more from Canada or the Arctic.
>>a convenient excuse<<
There is nothing convenient about it- and that is the reason this has to rank in the Top 3 of the most stupid things Deniers believe and say.
1. Why would any government deliberately create a huge headache for itself just to raise taxes when it can raise taxes whenever it wants without needing a reason?
2. Why would the government invent an excuse that science could study and discredit if it was not true?
3. Why would the government invent an excuse that required the cooperation of people and nations all over the world - including people and nations that don't give a sh-t about America and could never be trusted to keep their word?
There is no single answer to reduce our carbon emission and reduce the threat global warming is causing.
governments can take many measure, taxes are just one of the answers, along with investing in making the forms of alternative energy cheaper and more efficient, building regulations which have to include alternative energy provision, Governments can get together with other nations and decide joint measures, emission caps to force businesses which produce a lot of pollution to reduce it, stop deforestation and plant more trees, promote recycling, reduce the use of chemical fertilizers by promoting organic growing methods are just some of them.
In addition there are many things we can do as individuals, use our cars less, walk or cycle instead, recycle, reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables, turn down the heating and air conditioning, buy energy efficient products, use less hot water, switch things off when not in use etc. etc.
Bringing this about and persuading governments, industry and the public that the benefits are worth the cost and effort will not be easy but failure is not an option if we are not to destroy our planet.
Tom Friedman is nuts raising a value added tax will hurt the USA . It will hurt poor people and old people on fixed incomes . These are the people democrats claim they love?
And Obama is spending 340 billion in his new budget for
Climate change . Its a money laundering operation.
Putin would not be scared of that .
You got to love the "carbon tax" solution. It may reduce CO2 by an unknown amount over an unknown period of time and cost an unknown amount. How can you not love certainty like this???
FSM,
Open up the Keystone Oil pipeline. Drill in Alaska.
Do this and have the car companies move towards more fuel efficiency, like we are doing, and the problem goes away. No war machine needed, more taxes collected, more money in the US economy. Win win win.
As opposed to your solutions which will raise the cost for everyone.
In fact, I would be happy if we made ourselves oil independent, drop our military budget in half, close down bases in Germany and Japan, and get out of the Middle East. I could care less about Russia.
For Russia though. I would stop trying to get the old soviet countries to give up their nukes and grandfather them under the nuclear powers. Russia will be really hesistant to invade them then.
Dook,
Too funny.
I was wondering if you could show me the text where Tyndall talks about extreme positive feedbacks to the point of tripling the effect of CO2 alone. I must have missed that.
Advocates implemented policies. There can't be any otherwise. Global Warming, as smart as it may be, can't implement any policies by itself. It needs people, who will believe in that scam, and set some policies to make their life more miserable.
It depends whether you believe
(a) that Al Gore is a time traveler who blackmailed, bribed, or brainwashed John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and the other circa 30 thousand scientists from circa 50 countries over 150 years.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
OR
(b) That fossil companies with trillions of $ of future revenues at stake if global warming is what consensus science has said for over 25 years, might have spent a little pocket change to spread lies about that science and buy politicians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartla...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
The National Academy of Sciences advises the nation on science. It does not advise on politics. You can review the NAS position for a summary of the science.
Policy doesn't need rational thinking, ethics, or principle... only votes or military might.
Some say carbon taxes are the answer to stopping global warming, while others say this was the agenda all along and is a convenient excuse.
Now, in response to the invasion of Ukraine, Tom Friedman writes:
I’d also raise our gasoline tax, put in place a carbon tax and a national renewable energy portfolio standard ― all of which would also help lower the global oil price (and make us stronger, with cleaner air, less oil dependence and more innovation). You want to frighten Putin? Just announce those steps.
