• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Man-made climate change - we're doomed!

wickedken

TRIBE Member
More than enough time to take in the rapid crumbling of modern western civilization. Civilization may already be too strong a word for this half-assed, fully partisan shit-show. ;)
I guess you're not a fan of where things are headed.
 

wickedken

TRIBE Member
There's more evidence economic policies (e.g. taxes) may not be enough and that the start of agriculture started this whole carbon thing - and industrialization just made it worse - and agriculture as we know it can't scale without massive carbon impact.

Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable

Ancient farmers spared us from glaciers but profoundly changed Earth's climate

Doomed!
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
There's more evidence economic policies (e.g. taxes) may not be enough and that the start of agriculture started this whole carbon thing - and industrialization just made it worse - and agriculture as we know it can't scale without massive carbon impact.

Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable

Ancient farmers spared us from glaciers but profoundly changed Earth's climate

Doomed!
Industrialization also made it better - for instance in 1970 there were Malthusian prophecies that we wouldn't be able to feed the earth by the year 2000. The issue? Their math plotted out expected population growth accurately, but failed to anticipate advances in agriculture.

We grow more bushels per acre for all crops across the board. We're also doing so with less toxic/persistent chemicals and more ingenious hybrids and crops we have created.

And to help global warming a big part of it will be continuing these trends in agriculture - in fact if we can't continue becoming more efficient in agriculture we are likely to starve under aggressive warming scenarios that impact staple crops quicker than our ability to come out with replacements suited to the new climates...
 

wickedken

TRIBE Member
Hey awesome! Revenue neutral - we get pack the tax we pay in! they send us the cash back! and we get to help the environment! it's a win-win all around! it's like helping the climate for free! You don't need to have a Nobel Prize but you must be stupid if you don't like this.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Hey awesome! Revenue neutral - we get pack the tax we pay in! they send us the cash back! and we get to help the environment! it's a win-win all around! it's like helping the climate for free! You don't need to have a Nobel Prize but you must be stupid if you don't like this.
More recent stanford research is now available:

https://www.worldscientific.com/toc/cce/09/01

"Eleven teams participated in a recent Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) project, examining the economic and environmental impacts of a carbon tax. The studies included “revenue recycling,” in which the funds generated from a carbon tax are returned to taxpayers either through regular household rebate checks (similar to the Citizens’ Climate Lobby [CCL] and Climate Leadership Council [CLC] proposals) or by offsetting income taxes (similar to the approach in British Columbia).

Among the eleven modeling teams the key findings were consistent. First, a carbon tax is effective at reducing carbon pollution, although the structure of the tax (the price and the rate at which it rises) are important. Second, this type of revenue-neutral carbon tax would have a very modest impact on the economy in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). In all likelihood it would slightly slow economic growth, but by an amount that would be more than offset by the benefits of cutting pollution and slowing global warming."

So yes - the evidence suggests this policy is a bit of a no brainer.
 
Top