What do you consider to be the most serious environmental problem facing the world? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Crystal · #1 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007

The November 17th-23rd edition of The Economist published a The Economit/YouGov poll on climate change. They asked likely Democratic voters and then likely Republican voters, "What do you consider to be the most serious environmental problem facing the world today?" and I thought it would be interesting to see what our members thought.

Their poll results were as follows:

Likely Democratic voters:
Global Warming: 53%
Damage to the ozone layer: 12%
Air pollution: 10%
Water pollution: 5%
Deforestation: 5%
Extinction of plant and animal species: 5%
Unsure: 5%
Other: 4%

Likely Republican voters:
Water pollution: 17%
Unsure:16%
Other:16%
Deforestation: 15%
Air pollution: 14%
Global warming: 9%
Damage to the ozone layer: 7%
Extinction of plant and animal species: 4%

Crystal · #2 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007

Senator Joe Lieberman: News Release

Quote:

Washington D.C. -- Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT) and John W. Warner (R-VA), chairman and ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection today introduced a bill that would achieve substantial, long-term cuts in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

On its own, the America's Climate Security Act (ACSA) is projected to reduce total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 19% below the 2005 level (4% below the 1990 level) in 2020 and by as much as 63% below the 2005 level in 2050. Lieberman and Warner presented their new bill as the core of a new federal program that Congress should pass to avert catastrophic global climate change while enhancing America's energy security.

"With all the irrefutable evidence we now have corroborating that climate change is real, dangerous, and proceeding faster than many scientists predicted, this is the year for Congress to move this critical legislation," said Lieberman. "If we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."

Opinions on the Lieberman/Warner bill?

hairballxavier · #3 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007

It's a scam. And the sponsors of the bill should be tortured to death, dragged through the streets, and fed to the dogs in order to prevent them from emitting any more CO2 when they breathe.

partofme · #4 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007

I haven't really heard much about this bill yet but from what I can gather many in Washington are waiting because either a democrat will get nominated or at least a republican that can't be any worse in regards to climate change as Bush which means they will have a much better shot at getting something passed that will actually be signed into law. I'm not counting on anything that makes major cuts being signed by the president which means it would have to be veto proof and since many are hoping for a gain in democratic seats then the odds would be better if they wait anyway. I'm not saying that they shouldn't try to get something through now but anything major would probably have to wait anyway.

mudwhistle · #5 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

I haven't really heard much about this bill yet but from what I can gather many in Washington are waiting because either a democrat will get nominated or at least a republican that can't be any worse in regards to climate change as Bush which means they will have a much better shot at getting something passed that will actually be signed into law. I'm not counting on anything that makes major cuts being signed by the president which means it would have to be veto proof and since many are hoping for a gain in democratic seats then the odds would be better if they wait anyway. I'm not saying that they shouldn't try to get something through now but anything major would probably have to wait anyway.

The new Carbon Tax should be coming to your gas pump soon.

I mentioned this right around the time that 'Inconvenient Truth' came out. Everyone said I was nuts. Now it is close to a reality.

Quote:

Emissions total about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon, so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would translate to a tax of about $1.00 per gallon. (To be precise: motor gasoline emits 19.564 pounds of CO2 per gallon, diesel emits 22.384 pounds of CO2 per gallon, and jet fuel emits 21.095 pounds of CO2 per gallon[4]. So a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $0.978 per gallon of gasoline, $1.119 per gallon of diesel, and $1.055 per gallon of jet fuel.) At a price of between $2.5 and $5 per gallon, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise gas prices by 40-20%.

Carbon tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, at a minimum, add another $1.00 to each gallon of gas, or add another 20-40% to your grocery bill, or if you're traveling add another $100 to a plane ticket.

And what do you get for all of this added expense? Do you think people will stop driving if their gas costs $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon? Europeans have been paying close to $10 per gallon and it hasn't curbed their use. What makes them think it will curb ours?

Some countries want to get even with us for not signing the Kyoto Protocol which was just a way to even the playing field between us and countries who have economies that aren't working as well as ours. Has it ever occured to them that it is because their tax laws discourage productivity?

No. Poorer and less productive countries want to give us the shaft because after all we Americans have it coming to us. Kyoto was just a missed opportunity to do this. Now they have another chance.

Quote:

Time to Tax the Carbon Dodgers (April 5, 2007)

This BBC commentary calls for a tax on exports from wealthy countries – such as the US and Australia – that have refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The author argues that the tax would encourage these governments to “develop responsible climate policies” and could “redress the balance” of production costs between countries that pay for their CO2 emissions and those that “won’t take climate change seriously.”
Energy Taxes - Social and Economic Policy - Global Policy Forum

Quote:

On January 1, 1991, Sweden enacted a carbon tax, placing a tax of .25 SEK/kg ($100 per ton) on the use of oil, coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol, and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. Industrial users paid half the rate (between 1993 and 1997, 25% of the rate), and certain high-energy industries such as commercial horticulture, mining, manufacturing and the pulp and paper industry were fully exempted from these new taxes. In 1997 the rate was raised to .365 SEK/kg ($150 per ton) of CO2 released. In 2007, Sweden will raise taxes on carbon emissions.[14]

Finland, the Netherlands, and Norway also introduced carbon taxes in the 1990s.

The United Kingdom Treasury imposed the Fuel Price Escalator, an incrementally-increasing pollution tax, on retail petroleum products from 1993. The increases stopped after politically-damaging Fuel protests in 1999, at which time tax and duty represented more than 75% of the total pump price. Tax now represents about 2/3rd of the pump price[15]

In 2005 New Zealand proposed a carbon tax, setting an emissions price of NZ$15 per tonne of CO2-equivalent. The planned tax was scheduled to take effect from April 2007, and applied across most economic sectors though with an exemption for methane emissions from farming and provisions for special exemptions from carbon intensive businesses if they adopted world's-best-practice standards of emissions. After the 2005 election, the minor parties supporting the Government opposed the proposed tax, and it was abandoned in December 2005.

In 1993, President of the United States, Bill Clinton proposed a BTU tax that was never adopted. His Vice President, Al Gore, had strongly backed a carbon tax in his book, Earth in the Balance, but this became a political liability after the Republican's attacked him as a "dangerous fanatic". In 2000, when Gore ran for President, one commentator labeled Gore's carbon tax proposal a "central planning solution" harking back to "the New Deal politics of his father."[2] In April 2005, Paul Anderson, CEO and Chairman of Duke Energy, called for the introduction of a carbon tax.[16] In January 2007, economist Charles Komanoff and attorney Dan Rosenblum launched a Carbon Tax Center[17] to give voice to Americans who believe that taxing carbon emissions is imperative to reduce global warming.

Also, most of the revenue that will be fleeced from the American public through this new tax won't even go towards cleaning up the environment.

Only a small percentage is tagged to help develop alternative fuel sources. Most of it will go to fixing Medicare and Social Security, something the Dems stopped Bush from doing a couple of years ago. Also, it will go towards paying for 'kids' health care needs. The official meaning of the word 'Kids' could be redefined by next year to include adults up to 30 years. So this Carbon Tax will help pay for Hillary's Universal Health Insurance program.

So the intention was supposed to be to cut emissions, not take more cash to pay for the Democrat's pet projects. It looks like a swindle to me folks.

Europe is doing it and the Democrats are salivating at the possibilities. Problem is Europe has a transportation system already in place that makes owning a car unnecessary in most cases. That can't be said for here in the United States. The price of everything will skyrocket overnight if the Dems are allowed to implement this new tax.

If it is just a matter of guilt here is a link you can use to buy Carbon Credits to lessen your guilt over your polluting ways.
| TerraPass: Fight global warming, promote clean energy

tiny tim · #6 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Quote:

And what do you get for all of this added expense? Do you think people will stop driving if their gas costs $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon? Europeans have been paying close to $10 per gallon and it hasn't curbed their use. What makes them think it will curb ours?

Gasoline use per capita (in Liters)(2003)

United States 1,635.2
United Kingdom 436.0
Sweden 593.9
Spain 242.8
Italy 344.7
France 260.4
Ireland 512.7

How's that? Smaller cars, more public transportation. Europeans never reached the level of consumption we did, so I guess you are technically correct in saying they haven't greatly "curtailed" their use. They've always used less. You don't think price played a part in that?

Transportation: Motor gasoline consumption per capita

I do like that the Rebublicans 2nd most popular choice was "unsure". Indeed.

partofme · #7 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

The new Carbon Tax should be coming to your gas pump soon.

I mentioned this right around the time that 'Inconvenient Truth' came out. Everyone said I was nuts. Now it is close to a reality.

So, at a minimum, add another $1.00 to each gallon of gas, or add another 20-40% to your grocery bill, or if you're traveling add another $100 to a plane ticket.

And what do you get for all of this added expense? Do you think people will stop driving if their gas costs $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon? Europeans have been paying close to $10 per gallon and it hasn't curbed their use. What makes them think it will curb ours?

Some countries want to get even with us for not signing the Kyoto Protocol which was just a way to even the playing field between us and countries who have economies that aren't working as well as ours. Has it ever occured to them that it is because their tax laws discourage productivity?

No. Poorer and less productive countries want to give us the shaft because after all we Americans have it coming to us. Kyoto was just a missed opportunity to do this. Now they have another chance.

Also, most of the revenue that will be fleeced from the American public through this new tax won't even go towards cleaning up the environment.

Only a small percentage is tagged to help develop alternative fuel sources. Most of it will go to fixing Medicare and Social Security, something the Dems stopped Bush from doing a couple of years ago. Also, it will go towards paying for 'kids' health care needs. The official meaning of the word 'Kids' could be redefined by next year to include adults up to 30 years. So this Carbon Tax will help pay for Hillary's Universal Health Insurance program.

So the intention was supposed to be to cut emissions, not take more cash to pay for the Democrat's pet projects. It looks like a swindle to me folks.

Europe is doing it and the Democrats are salivating at the possibilities. Problem is Europe has a transportation system already in place that makes owning a car unnecessary in most cases. That can't be said for here in the United States. The price of everything will skyrocket overnight if the Dems are allowed to implement this new tax.

If it is just a matter of guilt here is a link you can use to buy Carbon Credits to lessen your guilt over your polluting ways.
| TerraPass: Fight global warming, promote clean energy

A carbon tax uses the market to encourage investment in alternatives since it is economically logical to have alternatives or to look for them. Estimates of harm to economic growth because of climate change in the future makes what we would lose for such a tax look like nothing.

hairballxavier · #8 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

A carbon tax uses the market to encourage investment in alternatives since it is economically logical to have alternatives or to look for them. Estimates of harm to economic growth because of climate change in the future makes what we would lose for such a tax look like nothing.

Those estimates are based on computer climate models that use incomplete, cherry-picked, speculative and inaccurate input.

That's the problem with a computer model, garbage in, garbage out.

If someone had told me 10 years ago that so much of public was so gullible that they would support an air-tax I would have laughed. I knew there was alot of grape kool-aid junkies out there, but this is ridiculous.

But back then I didn't realize that there was going to be such a huge media blitz of fearmongering disinformation that is unprecedented in the history of the world. The amount of propaganda is even greater than there was during WWII.

goober · #9 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

I checked other, because the single greatest environmental problem is overpopulation. All the other problems are just symptoms of overpopulation.

This can only be addressed by lowering the birth rate, or increasing the death rate, or some combination of both.

Unfortunately, this is probably the most unattractive issue for a politician to deal with, only the Chinese have made any serious attempt to deal with the birth rate, something possible in an authoritarian state, but not really a big vote getter in a country that elects it's leaders.

mudwhistle · #10 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

A carbon tax uses the market to encourage investment in alternatives since it is economically logical to have alternatives or to look for them. Estimates of harm to economic growth because of climate change in the future makes what we would lose for such a tax look like nothing.

Because the estimates are based on a consensus rather then actual science you would be hard pressed to prove that man is responsible for Global Warming in the first place.

Any meteorologist who isn't on the Global Warming bandwagon will tell you that it is impossible to prove man is directly responsible for the warming and that it is just part of a normal cycle that has repeated throughout recorded history.

The earth heats up and cools down and CO2 emissions has only a minute effect on the process.

There are too many factors that effect changes in weather patterns to be able to nail down with any specificity what is causing it.

Predictions of an increase in hurricane activity have proved to be false the last 2 years and the causes and effects of the melting of the polar icecaps has been greatly exaggerated as well as outright lied about.

Fear tactics are being used to fleece the world of billions in cash pure and simple. It is all about money, not the environment.

The leading Global Warming activists have been shown to be the worst offenders themselves. They aren't setting an example for the rest of us to follow and they must in order to prove they are serious about saving the environment.

mudwhistle · #11 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

I checked other, because the single greatest environmental problem is overpopulation. All the other problems are just symptoms of overpopulation.

This can only be addressed by lowering the birth rate, or increasing the death rate, or some combination of both.

Unfortunately, this is probably the most unattractive issue for a politician to deal with, only the Chinese have made any serious attempt to deal with the birth rate, something possible in an authoritarian state, but not really a big vote getter in a country that elects it's leaders.

How do you want go about increasing the death rate?

We already know what Libs are doing to decrease the birth rate.

mudwhistle · #12 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiny tim

Gasoline use per capita (in Liters)(2003)

United States 1,635.2
United Kingdom 436.0
Sweden 593.9
Spain 242.8
Italy 344.7
France 260.4
Ireland 512.7

How's that? Smaller cars, more public transportation. Europeans never reached the level of consumption we did, so I guess you are technically correct in saying they haven't greatly "curtailed" their use. They've always used less. You don't think price played a part in that?

Transportation: Motor gasoline consumption per capita

I do like that the Rebublicans 2nd most popular choice was "unsure". Indeed.

This is why we consume more then other countries:

Quote:

So the intention was supposed to be to cut emissions, not take more cash to pay for the Democrat's pet projects. It looks like a swindle to me folks. Europe is doing it and the Democrats are salivating at the possibilities. Problem is Europe has a transportation system already in place that makes owning a car unnecessary in most cases. That can't be said for here in the United States. The price of everything will skyrocket overnight if the Dems are allowed to implement this new tax.

At one time we were working on a mass transit system everywhere in the Unted States, but that was scrapped when the automobile became the primary means of transportation in America.

tiny tim · #13 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Because the estimates are based on a consensus rather then actual science you would be hard pressed to prove that man is responsible for Global Warming in the first place.

Any meteorologist who isn't on the Global Warming bandwagon will tell you that it is impossible to prove man is directly responsible for the warming and that it is just part of a normal cycle that has repeated throughout recorded history.

The earth heats up and cools down and CO2 emissions has only a minute effect on the process.

There are too many factors that effect changes in weather patterns to be able to nail down with any specificity what is causing it.

Predictions of an increase in hurricane activity have proved to be false the last 2 years and the causes and effects of the melting of the polar icecaps has been greatly exaggerated as well as outright lied about.

Fear tactics are being used to fleece the world of billions in cash pure and simple. It is all about money, not the environment.

The leading Global Warming activists have been shown to be the worst offenders themselves. They aren't setting an example for the rest of us to follow and they must in order to prove they are serious about saving the environment.

Hardly a true word in that entire post. I challenge you to back that up MW, any of it.

View Poll Results: What do you consider to be the most serious environmental problem facing the world?
Air polluton	2	10.00%
Damage to the ozone layer	1	5.00%
Deforestation	2	10.00%
Extinction of plant and animal species	1	5.00%
Global warming	5	25.00%
Water pollution	3	15.00%
Other	6	30.00%
Unsure	0	0%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll