58% say governments use Climate as excuse for Taxes

[Quew]

Rule of thumb for NS the NS crowd are more often wrong then right thus when the most say anthropogenic climate change is real we can all rest easy that that it is in fact not real, the down side is the number of times that the people of NS have said that in many more words that the US is doing great, that basically means the US is a hell hole.
Anyway NS is basically opposite land take whatever the majority say and reverse it and you got the truth most of the time.

In NS Oppositeland Climate changes you.

[Salandriagado]

Oh, it's true. Even if climate change itself is a real thing, it's used primarily as a pretext for taxes by governments that are in trouble financially. For most of the past decade, holes in government budgets were filled with environmental taxes. Governments could appear responsible and environmentally friendly and patch up holes in their budgets at the very same time, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that politicians will jump at an opportunity like that.

...and some people wonder why I view giving the common rabble the vote with so much unrestrained cynicism.

And what would happen if you selected voters from a smaller pool of people?

- If you selected them by wealth or prestige in society, you'd find that they'd all vote for economically right-wing parties.
- If you selected them by aristocracy or nobility, you'd find that they'd all vote for economically right-wing and socially conservative parties.
- If you selected them by level of education, you'd find that they'd all vote for economically right-wing parties.

That last line is simply isn't true.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Rule of thumb for NS the NS crowd are more often wrong then right thus when the most say anthropogenic climate change is real we can all rest easy that that it is in fact not real, the down side is the number of times that the people of NS have said that in many more words that the US is doing great, that basically means the US is a hell hole.
Anyway NS is basically opposite land take whatever the majority say and reverse it and you got the truth most of the time.

NS says Hitler bad, therefore the Holocaust didn't happen.

[Wisconsin9]

Rule of thumb for NS the NS crowd are more often wrong then right thus when the most say anthropogenic climate change is real we can all rest easy that that it is in fact not real, the down side is the number of times that the people of NS have said that in many more words that the US is doing great, that basically means the US is a hell hole.
Anyway NS is basically opposite land take whatever the majority say and reverse it and you got the truth most of the time.

In NS Oppositeland Climate changes you.

What a simplistic, ridiculous, and ignorant worldview.

[Xsyne]

Rule of thumb for NS the NS crowd are more often wrong then right thus when the most say anthropogenic climate change is real we can all rest easy that that it is in fact not real, the down side is the number of times that the people of NS have said that in many more words that the US is doing great, that basically means the US is a hell hole.
Anyway NS is basically opposite land take whatever the majority say and reverse it and you got the truth most of the time.

In NS Oppositeland Climate changes you.

Drinking bleach is a bad idea.

[Hollorous]

Rule of thumb for NS the NS crowd are more often wrong then right thus when the most say anthropogenic climate change is real we can all rest easy that that it is in fact not real, the down side is the number of times that the people of NS have said that in many more words that the US is doing great, that basically means the US is a hell hole.
Anyway NS is basically opposite land take whatever the majority say and reverse it and you got the truth most of the time.

In NS Oppositeland Climate changes you.

Drinking bleach is a bad idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sumb3GYuAT8

Untrue.

[Sociobiology]

"The fact of the matter is there is no solution to climate change. The American government cannot solve the problem, because it is a global problem. Liberals say "we need to lead" but the fact of the matter is China, India, Brazil, Russia and any other emerging market does not give two fucks. They will not follow us by adopting expensive alternative energy, they will laugh at us for hurting our own comparative advantage.

china is already investing in alternative energy as is Japan, Brazil, and Europe. I'm not sure about India.

The computer models that estimate climate change have been shown to be highly flawed.

source, esspecally consider how many models there are, and that many are not really models but real world measurements.

The calculus and statistical properties of the models vary significantly, as do the predictions.

but they have a consensus on the connection to CO2 and the conclusion that the earth is warming due to human activity, you realize you just pointed out one of the strengths of climate change science, right?

Not only so they tend to overestimate they have only been able to explain about 20-40% of the variation in climate to human behavior (that is the R squared tends to be .2 - .4).

source
also you do realize that is huge R squared for a complex real world system, right?
also what do you think you have shown? that human are not the only effect, duh, no shit, No scientist claims otherwise. Human effects are however the largest force pushing warming.

Democrats use climate change for a partisan advantage, as do republicans in the denial. However hurting our economy for a faux domestic battle on a global issue is an exercise in stupidity."

switching to an independent resource will not hurt the economy if anything it will boost it by increasing manufacturing. the only economy hurt by this will be Qatar's
Also all global issues are fought on a local scale, not unless you want to give the UN the ability to enforce regulation on the US.

[Atlanticatia]

We need a carbon tax. It can be beneficial for both the environment and the economy if it's done well.

[Sociobiology]

Is there any reason that I ought to give a shit instead of just making fun of them? I'd be glad to test my blood against theirs, and let's see who lasts longer in a climatological crisis. It's fucking ignorant as hell to ignore the advice of people who are highly trained to study the subject matter and do it for a living, and if that much of our population really doesn't care, then I have no pity for them at all.

It doesn't matter if it was just a few people, but there's so many of them that they could turn conservative voting if it came to preventing their taxes from going up. People hate higher taxes outside of the tax collectors and wealth redistributionists.

yet they constantly demand the government do things, welcome to the conundrum of human society.

[Constantinopolis]

When a problem is sufficiently slow-acting or subtle, such that most people do not notice its effects worsening from one year to the next, then most people will consider it a non-problem and resent those who raise taxes (or cause some other inconvenience) in order to fix it.

Such problems are simply not going to get solved and we're just going to have to live with their effects. Climate change is one of them.

[Hyfling]

Given carbon taxes are a pretty weak, even counterproductive measure for a government to adopt as an attempt to combat global warming, I can see why.

Cigarette and booze taxes work to reduce consumption. Why wouldn't carbon taxes work?

In Australia we had a carbon tax up until recently and, although the amount of carbon we produced dropped, this was mostly caused by a lot of factories closing down (not saying this is the carbon taxes fault) and moving to China, where they will likely pollute even more than they did at home due to the complete lack of environmental regulation.

Our largest polluters, the power companies, didn't start building new clean power stations, they just passed the increased costs onto the consumers. Qantas did the same thing, and even worse, they are refusing to take the cost off now that it has been repealed.

Meanwhile, another policy, the RET (renewable energy target) which involved subsidizing and funding the construction of wind farms and solar generators was working really well in South Australia, it was proving a much better way to reduce carbon emissions. The difference is this policy cost the government money, instead if raising it.

I was just saying there are much better ways of reducing carbon usage, like if the current government would stop listening to our idiot 'environmentalists' and started replacing our coal power plants with nuclear ones.

EDIT: I'll post some sources when I get to my computer.

[Hyfling]

-snip-

This may just be the most ignorant thing I have ever seen written on NSG, and considering some of the stuff I've seen on here, that's saying a lot.

[Sociobiology]

When a problem is sufficiently slow-acting or subtle, such that most people do not notice its effects worsening from one year to the next, then most people will consider it a non-problem and resent those who raise taxes (or cause some other inconvenience) in order to fix it.

Such problems are simply not going to get solved and we're just going to have to live with their effects. Climate change is one of them.

see CFC's and atmospheric lead

[Lenciland]

Have you ever heard of Bill Gates or the high-tech billionaires? Some of the richest, most educated, most prestigious people in the world and they usually vote very liberal.

The exception that proves the rule. Now, as a general rule: most people who are wealthy will, in any country, vote for the status quo on social matters and to lower taxes.
Those with a higher education will more or less do the same, and the aristocracy (regardless of wealth) will add some social conservatism into the mix.

How does my example that disproves your claim actually proving it? Yes, the aristocracy usually vote conservative, but America doesn't have aristocracy(I'm American).
I find that most truly wealthy people vote very liberal and aren't afraid to give money away, only the upper middle class votes conservative. The more educated people are the more socially liberal they seem to be. University professors, for example, tend to be liberal people as do teachers and doctors. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, etc are all considered some of the most educated people in the world and they support liberal ideas. The fact of the matter is that truly wealthy people vote liberal while the upper-middle votes conservative. People with higher education also tend to vote liberally, the only group that you've mentioned that votes conservatively is the aristocracy, but they're nothing more than privileged little brats who want to hold on to as much power as possible.

[Sociobiology]

The exception that proves the rule. Now, as a general rule: most people who are wealthy will, in any country, vote for the status quo on social matters and to lower taxes.
Those with a higher education will more or less do the same, and the aristocracy (regardless of wealth) will add some social conservatism into the mix.

How does my example that disproves your claim actually proving it? Yes, the aristocracy usually vote conservative, but America doesn't have aristocracy(I'm American).
I find that most truly wealthy people vote very liberal and aren't afraid to give money away, only the upper middle class votes conservative. The more educated people are the more socially liberal they seem to be. University professors, for example, tend to be liberal people as do teachers and doctors. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, etc are all considered some of the most educated people in the world and they support liberal ideas. The fact of the matter is that truly wealthy people vote liberal while the upper-middle votes conservative. People with higher education also tend to vote liberally, the only group that you've mentioned that votes conservatively is the aristocracy, but they're nothing more than privileged little brats who want to hold on to as much power as possible.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-your-wage-predict-your-vote/264541/

[Connori Pilgrims]

-garbage-

*sees post count*

Yep. Nothing to see here.

That said, the main topic of the OP seems to be that a majority of people perceive climate problems as an excuse to raise taxes on them. They are right to be skeptical of government intentions.

Current market-based measures of climate mitigation (Kyoto Protocol, carbon credits and other similar measures) were created by said governments (with generous helping from business lobbies intent on minimizing impacts to the bottom line). These measures can be easily researched and assessed to self-defeating at best and downright malicious towards the developing world (and the climate) at worse. Given this, even I would raise an eyebrow if my government proposes a new tax claimed to help the environment.

If we want people to be more willing to pay environmental taxes, we need higher government accountability.

[Infected Mushroom]

Saw someone post this on another forum.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/23/climate_an_excuse_for_new_taxes_scientists_dont_know_what_theyre_talking_about/

People all around the world, responding to a survey by Ipsos MORI, have generally agreed with the ideas that scientists don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to the climate – and that governments are using environmental issues as an excuse to raise taxes.

These not-so-green views were transmitted as part of Ipsos MORI's new Global Trends 2014 survey, which can be seen here. Respondents were asked to respond "agree", "disagree" or "don't know" to various statements.

On balance the people of the world concurred with the statement "even the scientists don't really know what they're talking about on environmental issues", with only 42 per cent disagreeing and 48 per cent agreeing. Disbelief in scientific climate expertise was strongest in China, Japan and Germany. In Britain, the US and Australia, people were less sceptical, with those populations pretty much evenly split as to whether scientists know what they're on about regarding the environment.

The survey respondents also strongly endorsed the idea that "the government is just using environmental issues as an excuse to raise taxes", with 58 per cent in agreement and just 31 per cent disagreeing worldwide. The only countries in the survey where people actually disagreed were Italy and Sweden. Brits and Americans concurred with the notion of green tax plundering, but not as strongly as most nations: Spain, France and Belgium were the places that really got behind the idea.

Much has been made by some news organisations of the response to the statement "the climate change we are currently seeing is a natural phenomenon that happens from time to time". Here some 49 per cent of the people of the world disagreed, and 41 per cent agreed: but in the US and Britain (also India and China), more agreed than disagreed.

According to some, the survey shows a connection between "global warming denial" and "speaking English", much though they don't speak English in China, India, Poland or Russia - all places where people apparently believe that today's climate change is natural.

In fact what the survey really shows is the weakness of surveys, because a further statement, "the climate change we are currently seeing is largely the result of human activity", gained strong agreement everywhere - even in Britain, the USA, Russia, China, India and Poland.

So it would seem that an awful lot of people believe that "the climate change we are currently seeing" is both a natural phenomenon which happens from time to time and largely caused by humans.

Of course the confusion here may be worsened by the fact that we aren't "currently seeing" any climate change by the headline measure: there has been no global warming for perhaps 15 years.

But it does seem much clearer that people in general don't think scientists in general really know what's going on with the climate. This seems fair, as the more advanced climate physicists and related specialists freely admit to large uncertainties - and no other kind of scientist's opinion is much more valuable than a layman's, much though many marginal eggheads might disagree.

And it does seem completely beyond dispute that various governments have seized upon environmental issues and used them to impose various increasingly painful taxes and levies, though there doesn't seem to be much connection between the level at which a government does this and its citizens belief that it is doing so.

I think it's pretty ridiculous when people who aren't scientists are saying that scientists don't know what they're talking about. To me, it's just another case of climate change deniers burying their heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. I see views like that as detrimental to human society.

What say you, NSG?

I would agree with them.

The government IS using climate change rhetoric to raise taxes and make us less and less able to hold on to what we earn.

I'll take climate change seriously when 100% of scientists can actually agree it exists, exactly what causes it (and they decide its primarily our fault), and can all agree on exactly how serious it is and what the actual practical consequences are. Right now its just doomsday talk and hearsay (who knows what will happen in 100 years, all I know is that we're paying through the nose because of taxes and regulations)...

Until then, don't make my petroleum more expensive please government. I know you need to finance some stuff under the table, but PLEASE don't use the climate change card. If the governments of the world were really all that serious about fighting the phantom of climate change and there really is this big consensus that its so dangerous as to constitute a crisis, there would be a treaty with everyone onboard.

[Dakini]

So 58% of people are horrifically ignorant.

[Reich Line]

"The fact of the matter is there is no solution to climate change. The American government cannot solve the problem, because it is a global problem. Liberals say "we need to lead" but the fact of the matter is China, India, Brazil, Russia and any other emerging market does not give two fucks. They will not follow us by adopting expensive alternative energy, they will laugh at us for hurting our own comparative advantage.

china is already investing in alternative energy as is Japan, Brazil, and Europe. I'm not sure about India.

India is investing heavily into a specific nuclear energy program using Thorium. Thorium is like normal fissile material except it generates less radioactive waste and harder to weaponise. Very appropriate for India's condition.

[Imperializt Russia]

Saw someone post this on another forum.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/23/climate_an_excuse_for_new_taxes_scientists_dont_know_what_theyre_talking_about/



I think it's pretty ridiculous when people who aren't scientists are saying that scientists don't know what they're talking about. To me, it's just another case of climate change deniers burying their heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. I see views like that as detrimental to human society.

What say you, NSG?

I would agree with them.

The government IS using climate change rhetoric to raise taxes and make us less and less able to hold on to what we earn.

I'll take climate change seriously when 100% of scientists can actually agree it exists, exactly what causes it (and they decide its primarily our fault), and can all agree on exactly how serious it is and what the actual practical consequences are. Right now its just doomsday talk and hearsay (who knows what will happen in 100 years, all I know is that we're paying through the nose because of taxes and regulations)...

Until then, don't make my petroleum more expensive please government. I know you need to finance some stuff under the table, but PLEASE don't use the climate change card. If the governments of the world were really all that serious about fighting the phantom of climate change and there really is this big consensus that its so dangerous as to constitute a crisis, there would be a treaty with everyone onboard.

That's not what science is.
You'd be hard-pressed to find 100% scientific approval on almost any topic.

There are treaties abound on climate change. America famously decided "nop" to the terms of the Kyoto agreement.

There is, however, an overwhelming majority that human (anthropogenic) sources and processes are significant contributors to climate change.

china is already investing in alternative energy as is Japan, Brazil, and Europe. I'm not sure about India.

India is investing heavily into a specific nuclear energy program using Thorium. Thorium is like normal fissile material except it generates less radioactive waste and harder to weaponise. Very appropriate for India's condition.

That's not strictly how it works.

IIRC Thorium itself is not fissile. But it is irradiated into Uranium-233, which is fissile. U-233 was briefly tested in nuclear weapons. U-235 was significantly easier to produce, as was Pu-239. But U-233 will make functional nuclear arms - and critically, U-233 has to be extracted from the reactor "blanket" in order to be used as fuel in the reactor.
It's exactly the same phase and almost the same process where Pu-239 would be extracted from nuclear reactors throughout the Cold War and during the Manhattan Project.

The difference is, U-233 is quite highly radioactive and is easy to spot. The point is that it's difficult to make a clandestine nuclear weapons programme out of a thorium reactor, but it's highly obvious.

[Great Kleomentia]

They're combining their lack of understanding of climate with their lack of understanding of taxation to form a Voltron of Uniformed Electorate...soon they'll form the Blazing Sword of Shitty Public Policy.

^This

[Reddogkeno101]

And yet we forget that this(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ening.html) happens. It's basically deniers and those who know it is happening but can't be stuffed to do anything about it.

[Greater Beggnig]

My reaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHpfRVd8E6o

[Greater Beggnig]

So 58% of people are horrifically ignorant.

No 58% of people are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHpfRVd8E6o

[Korouse]

How about we slowly evolve into living on a hotter planet so we can take the heat of mars?

Sounds like a good idea.