Anything you would like to add to this open letter to President-Elect Obama?

Question

The letter is titled, "Yes you can change the climate, Mr Obama." What would you add, change, leave out? Or if you were writing your own letter, what would you say on this topic?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026855.800-yes-you-can-change-the-climate-mr-obama.html

Answer 1

Absolutely correct. Nothing to add. Carbon is pollution, catastrophic change is inevitable, no one will ever act voluntarily, and someone has to pay for it. A vocal minority will never accept this, an apathetic majority will remain, and we will likely get more of the same - a global morass of poor governance, graft by the powerful minority and inaction by the average person - until in the end at the inevitable crisis the grafters say "What? We do nothing, just business." and the graftees get the shaft, again. This article speaks absolute truth about leveling the playing field; not redistributing wealth, but taking away the unfair advantage. We can solve the energy pollution problem, the energy climate problem, the energy security problem and create a permanent domestic and worldwide distributed industry. And we can do it in a fair way. If you want to consume more you have to pay more. The insatiable will finally pay their fair share. And the extra they pay will be fairly distributed to everyone, including themselves, in the form of improved social services and infrastructure. And then you can either work harder for more, in the grand tradition of capitalistic self determination, or you can finally realize that more is not more. Less is more.

Answer 2

Belief in AGW is really an education problem, because those who are not taught how to evaluate truth from fiction are easily led into following charismatic leaders who lead them down the wrong path to faith instead of reason. The data shown in the studies linked below pretty much prove the AGW concept is based on altering observed data to match preconceived concepts instead of the scientific method of deriving a concept from observed data. Apparently the AGW faithful do believe the chicken came before the egg! So the real problem is assumptions made on a religious view of a natural gas that is also plant food. Using those assumptions they altered the math so that Co2 would have a thousand times the climate effect it actually has.



http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm



This link has 3 pages and the important data is on the 2nd & 3rd pages.

http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-water-vapor/

Answer 3

I'm not exactly what you would call a Limbaugh Listener, but some aspects of this article do seem to raise my "socialism" radar.



"Well, here's the clever bit that should make this tax popular with most voters: every penny raised from the carbon tax should be divided equally among a country's citizens."



"People who live in a huge house, drive gas-guzzling cars and fly lots will lose out under this regime. The dividend they receive will be outweighed by what they pay for fuel, flights and heating. Most people, however, will be richer. Families and retired people struggling to make ends meet would gain far more from the dividend than they lose in higher bills."





This is just too easy for people to label redistribution of wealth, and it is bad economics from the beginning. A much more logical approach would be to first, implement a long term phase in of a carbon tax, setting a future date 5-10 years in the future, which would increase yearly by a small amount over a long period of time. This alone would encourage private investment in alternative energy, hopefully increasing R&D and giving a jump start to mass production of cleaner technologies.



Furthermore, once the tax is put into effect it should be used to increase the R&D funding more and place subsidies on the technologies which are already available, both of which would have the effect of lowering the price of renewables further. Giving carbon money to poor people makes very little sense IMO...



Using money to encourage alternative energy could also solve the China-India problem, two nations which are unlikely to agree to any tax treaty. If they see their Western competitors are starting to invest in alternative energy however, it could lead them to research these as well, if only for the sake of staying competitive--especially when they consider there will be a future tax on CO2 (even if it is only imposed on North America and Europe) that will increase demand of these technologies.



Motivating China would perhaps have the greatest effect at developing a clean alternative to fossil fuels, since China is on average about 5x better at researching, developing and mass producing new technologies economically than the US.

Answer 4

Why would this new tax system be any more successful than the old tax? Perhaps the problem is that it is a tax and not a solution?



I would add Mr. Obama, if you truly care for the poor of this nation then don't tax them any more. These taxes may be intended for the rich but they won't pay them they will only pass them on to the poor and the middle class to pay.

Answer 5

He said he'd show leadership - that's a pretty standard nonspecific comment for a world leading to make. It's not a precursor to taking radical action.



Judging by what other world leaders are doing, he'll delegate the task of managing CO2 policy to someone else and never make public comment on it. That will allow him to associate himself with less controversial issues like improving public education and access to health care.

Answer 6

Mr. Obama is a consummate politician and is no doubt aware that Canadian Liberal leader Stephane Dion made a variant of the carbon tax and dividend scheme a central plank in his platform in the recent Oct 14 election. Dion lost badly for a variety of reasons and is now being hurried into retirement by the Liberals. Obama just won an election and has both time and a public mandate on his side, but I think that he will be wary of following Dion's example.



All that being said, I think that a carbon tax is a good idea because it will help to redress the imbalance in tax burden between fossil fuels and renewable energy. The key problem is that renewable energy is more labor intensive and the cost of income taxes paid by the workers is included in the cost. Fossil fuel production employs less labor and hence is taxed at a lower rate. The carbon tax should be set at a rate that at least equalizes the tax burden per unit of energy from fossil and renewable energy. The present tax system perversely discourages job creation and favours harm to the environment.



I would favour using revenue from the carbon tax for the following purposes:

1. provide incentives for renewable energy projects

2. build and/or repair national infrastructure

3. pay down the national debt

Although I don't vote in the US, I an a director for a company that is planning renewable energy infrastructure investments in ND, SD and MN. The projects will likely go ahead with or without incentives, but capital will be easier to raise with incentives and that would advance the time line.

Answer 7

The author has no credibility. A previous article he states "Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth"



The man is an idiot, no reputable person would state evolution is a fact.



Go ahead and follow this Al Gore wanna be if you so desire.

Answer 8

although I don't believe in AGW, I'd be in favor of the carbon tax and dividend plan. Seems like a much more effective way to encourage conservation of resources, Cap and trade is popular with politicians because it conceals the tax, and opens up a lot of lobbying oporutunitiesas well as creating a large new bureaurocracy of loyal democrat voters.

If the AGW crowd was really interested in reducing waste, they'd be for reducing speed limits.air resistance increases with the square of the velocity. Lower speeds would favor smaller cars (less need for crashworthiness, and high speed stability). And make bicycling more competitive.

A BTU tax would be better, so that use of coal is not penalized excessively. It's hypocritical and wasteful to use natural gas to generate electricity, then charge car batteries. A lot of energy is lost with each conversion. It's like saying to future generations "we're so green, we burnt all the clean fuel, inefficiently".

Answer 9

Presidential elect Obama is not assertive enough to get real 'change' happening,he is too much of an intellectual and even he cant change the climate/environment considering he wont even sign Kyoto(that will be Obama's first act when he gets into office,do nothing but do a lot of talking etc. you get the picture)

Answer 10

Our nuclear energy policy is completely screwed up, hopefully it will get fixed under obama, but i have my doubts. I think most people (including james hansen) are for this option at this point. We need a strategy similar to france or japan. Breeder reactors look promising especially Th-232 --> U-233 breeders. In my opinion, removing red tape from nuclear energy is the cheapest, most realistic way to solve this problem.

Answer 11

You scare me by way of fact which you have gave away our young little ones destiny by way of fact of your uncontrolled spending which will reason greater deficits and arguably mass inflation inflicting mass tax hikes on the destiny generations..

Answer 12

Please lower the emission requirements for diesels (The standards are only in Cal., NY, Mass. and NH), so we can have the wonderful cars being driven in Europe, Australia, Japan, and other countries that are getting 50-60 MPG and producing half the CO2 we are. These cars pollute much less overall and could help us have inexpensive cars that can cut our CO2 emissions in HALF. These cars are being made NOW by Ford, GM, VW, Toyota, and many others.



These cars that are available NOW can save individuals money, help us get off Arab oil, and still help save the world from CO2 pollution. They are not the final answer, but the best thing we have NOW!



European and Japanese "Environmentalists" are just not as stupid as ours.

Answer 13

He needs to recognize that the youth of the world can change the worlds melt down, and the way to do just that is with a city to university

green trades show and peace event concerts to provide green jobs and promote nonviolent s done right it will save the planet



Solution City Trade Show & A Peace Concert

Answer 14

this quote:

"Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death."

from Cornelius: [reading from the sacred scrolls of the apes, Planet of the Apes]

Answer 15

Mr.Obama- keep your change. I don't want it. I love America.

Answer 16

I am just speechless. i will just say, my perception is sharply different and I don't think he agrees with you in spite of his public statements.

Answer 17

i what a electric car now

Answer 18

With people who think that you can change the climate, just bulldoze all the public schools, because they're producing people who believe this nonsense.