That global warming thingy

[Paul E. Schoen]

Dump the IRS and use taxes on gas instead. It's always better to tax
consumption, not earnings.

The surcharge I propose is only on the fuel, but the income tax return is
the most reasonable way to provide the rebate. It could be on the State
level, or the federal, depending on who imposes the surcharge. It could be
both.

I think an economic means of control such as this is much more equitable
than an outright ban on SUVs, or extra taxes depending on vehicle type or
fuel economy. Let anyone buy and drive whatever they want, but penalize
them only if they exceed reasonable consumption, and reward them if they
conserve.

Paul

 

[Eeyore]

We have to go out for BLT's; it's too hot to garden today.

BLTs ?

Over here that's a Bacon Lettuce and Tomato sandwich.

Graham

 

[MassiveProng]

They're just now reaching southwestern Canaduh ;-)

Yes, and in the 15 years they have been here, they have killed about
one tenth of one percent of what they thought they would.

Not the big problem they thought at all.

 

[Eeyore]

"Homer J Simpson" Gave us:

Killer bees are nowhere near the big threat they were touted as
being.

The TV Nooz has a vested interest in telling scare stories to make them
'exciting'.

Graham

 

[MassiveProng]

Dump the IRS and use taxes on gas instead. It's always better to tax
consumption, not earnings.

Sales taxes suck big time.

I just paid $25 extra bucks to Scumifornia so I could have my video
card without having to wait for an online purchase delivery!

Add it all up, and I paid Crudifornia a couple hundred bucks just to
use my PC.

BULLSHIT!

 

[MassiveProng]

That's not what I meant by 'arctic ice'. The ice at the North Pole is floating
on the sea and as such it won't affect sea level if it melts.

The same applies to a lot of the ice around Antartica too.

Glaciers TRAVERSE from land INTO the sea, and the only part that is
"floating" is the part that is breaking up.

So yeah... it will add a bit, but only a few hundred thousand
Megatons.

 

[Jeff L]

If they're incapable of explaining it properly what do they expect ?

The Guradian's now talking about Antarctica melting,
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2016243,00.html

yet even Greenland's pretty much untouched ! Indeed some say the ice is getting
thicker because there's more water vapour around to create precipitation. Ditto
Antarctica.

If the Arctic ice melts it's not going to raise sea level as much as an

*inch* !

I thought that too, or at least a raise of under a foot - but the real
problem is not the ice melting, but the water expanding as it warms up. We
warm the massive amounts of water on the planet up a few degrees, and it
expands enough to raise the sea level to very bad levels. Considering the
deep sea oceans are 12 + km deep in most places, a small volumetric change
of a 1% expansion could roughly raise the levels: 12,000 m * 0.01 = 120m!

 

[Jeff L]

Shorter Skiing season, which sucks

No snowmobiling this winter - we had one poor *day* this year where you
could have done a little careful driving. 15 years ago you had a minimum of
2 months to go snowmobiling. This is just outside of Halifax, Canada

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The TV Nooz has a vested interest in telling scare stories to make them
'exciting'.

Ever stood on a bee just before going to sleep?

 

[Eeyore]

*inch* !

I thought that too, or at least a raise of under a foot

Not even a foot. ZERO !

Ice that's originally floating that melts does not affect the level. It's basic
physics.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

but the real
problem is not the ice melting, but the water expanding as it warms up. We
warm the massive amounts of water on the planet up a few degrees, and it
expands enough to raise the sea level to very bad levels. Considering the
deep sea oceans are 12 + km deep in most places,

Where ? I thought mainly 3 km for deep ocean.

a small volumetric change of a 1% expansion could roughly raise the levels:
12,000 m * 0.01 = 120m!

Where did you get your 1% from ?

And it's not all 12km deep btw. In fact I know of nowhere that deep. A heck of a
lot of it is shallow. Plus it takes apparently ~ 10,000 years to make
significant changes in overall ocean temperatures.

Maybe you ought to study science before posting ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

No snowmobiling this winter

So you reduced your CO2 emissions !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Ever stood on a bee just before going to sleep?

Nope. I take it that it wasn't a 'killer' then ?

Btw the bumble bees are already out round here and collecting pollen.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Not even a foot. ZERO !

Ice that's originally floating that melts does not affect the level. It's
basic
physics.

Nope. The part above water level will average out but will raise it.

 

[Eeyore]

Democratic presidents were pummeled by the auto unions into not raising CAFE

It's funny how you guys talk of Europe being 'socialist' when in fact it's the
US that's being held to ransom by trades unions !

Such a thing would never be tolerated here.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Dump the IRS and use taxes on gas instead. It's always better to tax
consumption, not earnings.

That makes sense to me.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Or dump it and water on Mars. Terraforming in action.

Please don't make me want to thump you for cretinism !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Homer J Simpson" wrote

The surcharge I propose is only on the fuel, but the income tax return is
the most reasonable way to provide the rebate. It could be on the State
level, or the federal, depending on who imposes the surcharge. It could be
both.

The 'rebate' can be achieved simply be a commensurate reduction in personal
income taxation.

I think an economic means of control such as this is much more equitable
than an outright ban on SUVs, or extra taxes depending on vehicle type or
fuel economy. Let anyone buy and drive whatever they want, but penalize
them only if they exceed reasonable consumption, and reward them if they
conserve.

Indeed. It makes sense to me.

European experience suggests you'd have to tax gasoline @ more than $2 a gallon
to make a lot of difference though.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Glaciers TRAVERSE from land INTO the sea, and the only part that is
"floating" is the part that is breaking up.

Not neccesarily. The 'floating parts' have in the past not broken up as early in
the year. It still makes no difference if they do.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Nope. The part above water level will average out but will raise it.

Utter bollocks. May I smack you round the head ?

Why do you think ice floats ? Is it magic ?

Graham