Tweet
I have a theory about global warming. Since my generation is on the back nine of life, and being so self-absorbed that we can't imagine a world without us, which I call the "arrogance of being here". We have decided that the earth has to end too. I also think that grant sponsored weather science is suspect at best, and has on several occasions been proven an actual fraud, but like everything else, I'm interested in the debate so I read a lot.
I also pay attention to language, like "climate deniers". Notice it's not "science skeptics". Why deniers?
Global warming is part of the left's religious belief, so deniers fits in a quasi-religious way, like deniers of Christ, and put's skeptics in a negative light.
I saw this and thought it was interesting for a couple of reasons.
A broad-based carbon tax has far more support among academic economists and think-tankers than politicians.(Not supported by the American people) But despite its political problems, such a levy has important benefits. Reducing demand for carbon fuels by directly raising their price is simpler and far more efficient than regulatory curbs. Some of the revenue generated by such a tax could be used to cushion the economic blow suffered by low-income households (Another transfer of wealth scheme)as well as coal mining communities. Extra revenue could be used to reduce individual or payroll tax rates, help finance corporate tax reform, or trim the budget deficit. (Anyone that believes that would happen is an idiot)
I also pay attention to language, like "climate deniers". Notice it's not "science skeptics". Why deniers?
Global warming is part of the left's religious belief, so deniers fits in a quasi-religious way, like deniers of Christ, and put's skeptics in a negative light.
I saw this and thought it was interesting for a couple of reasons.
A broad-based carbon tax has far more support among academic economists and think-tankers than politicians.(Not supported by the American people) But despite its political problems, such a levy has important benefits. Reducing demand for carbon fuels by directly raising their price is simpler and far more efficient than regulatory curbs. Some of the revenue generated by such a tax could be used to cushion the economic blow suffered by low-income households (Another transfer of wealth scheme)as well as coal mining communities. Extra revenue could be used to reduce individual or payroll tax rates, help finance corporate tax reform, or trim the budget deficit. (Anyone that believes that would happen is an idiot)
Comment