HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Gore Launches 24-Hour Onl...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:19 PM

Gore Launches 24-Hour Online Talkfest About Global Warming

Source: Associated Press

Climate change is suddenly a hot topic again. The issue is resurfacing in talks about a once radical idea: a possible carbon tax.

On Tuesday, a conservative think tank held discussions about it while a more liberal think tank released a paper on it. And the Congressional Budget Office issued a 19-page report on the different ways to make a carbon tax less burdensome on lower income people.

<snip>

I think the impossible may be moving to the inevitable without ever passing through the probable, said former Rep. Bob Inglis. The South Carolina Republican lost his seat in 2010 in a primary fight, partly because he acknowledged that global warming exists and needs to be dealt with. Now he heads a new group that advocates a carbon tax and the idea is endorsed by former Ronald Reagan economic adviser Arthur Laffer.

<snip>

On Wednesday, former Vice President Al Gore launches a 24-hour online talkfest about global warming and disasters. Another group, 350.org, headed by environmental advocate and author Bill McKibben, is in the midst of a 21-city bus tour.

<snip>

Read more: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/gore-launches-24-hour-online-talkfest-about-global-warming/



The event starts today 8 p.m. EST at:
http://climaterealityproject.org/

YOURE INVITED TO CHANGE THE WORLD.

NOVEMBER 14-15, 2012

Dirty energy has created a world of Dirty Weather. Today, climate disruption affects us all. And it will take all of us together to solve it. Join us for 24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report, when together we will stand up and demand real solutions to the climate crisis.


LIVE BROADCAST

Help us change the world. Watch 24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report, a live online broadcast with former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, beginning on November 14 at 8 p.m. EST and concluding on November 15 at 7 p.m. EST.



15 replies, 2379 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:21 PM

1. Limbaugh launches perpetual Republican Lie-fest about Global Warming

A typical draft-dodging, drug-addicted Republican,
Limbaugh and related overpaid crony Republican propaganda pimps,
will be spewing 24/7 to fellate their 1% corporate Paymasters (R),
and to keep the truth from the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:37 PM

2. Isn't a carbon tax a poor-people tax?

 

Rich people burn their carbon in China, where their factories are. Poor people burn it at home and where their jobs are.

The ultimate problem with carbon taxes is that they only apply to isolated open system, and encourage production to be moved to adjacent, but untaxed, systems. Hence, a regional carbon tax cannot really control global emission levels, but rather shift the cost of production around (as well as production centers). Its technocratic tinkering to an impending extinction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:50 PM

4. It doesn't have to be.



Gore said hes been pushing a carbon tax for decades. But his idea is not to use the money to lower the deficit, but to reduce payroll taxes in a revenue-neutral way.

We should tax what we burn, not what we earn, he said.



Environmental tax credits could be given to the poor allowing them to adapt to more efficient means of using energy.

As it is all of human society already pays a carbon tax, through increasing costs to the economy from catastrophic environmental disasters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:36 PM

5. Yeah, you can probably fudge numbers around to work it out

 

Even so, Im not sure its going to make carbon based energy consumption be reduced in the global context due to outsourcing production.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:57 PM

6. That's why we need a global treaty with transparent oversight protection.

This issue more than anything else is literally a blooming, global crisis and thus requires a world wide solution to avert ultimate catastrophe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:12 PM

7. Without a doubt, a global solution is imperative

 

Im just highly skeptical that making dirty energy more expensive will lead to a drastic (as that is what is needed) reduction in atmospheric carbon.

Another problem is that green infrastructure requires dirty energy to create. Making this energy more expensive makes building windmills and solar panels more expensive as well, thereby pushing further back their timelines to becoming carbon neutral.

A carbon tax is a market based solution essentially. You fidget with the numbers and hope everything works out for the best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:56 PM

11. The end product could/should have some impact in regards to calculating

a carbon tax, environmentally friendly products would alleviate to some degree the carbon burned to produce them, and visa versa.

There is simply no feasible way to instantly change society overnight, this would be a rapid evolutionary process.

I believe as ours' and most every other nations' economies are market based using those incentives whether carrot or stick to be the most logical path to take in creating beneficial change averting the worst consequences of global warming climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:01 PM

9. Tax what we burn, not what we earn?

So big taxes for manufacturers (like GM, Chrysler and Ford), much smaller taxes for companies like Bain, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:45 PM

10. I don't have all the answers but

in the case of GM, Chrysler and Ford, the final product they produce could have a beneficial or negative impact in the equation, ie: Tesla Model S could offset to some degree the carbon burned in the manufacturing process.

As for those financial and corporate raider Institutions, the use of their money environmentally friendly or destructive could determine what their carbon tax footprint is to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:49 AM

14. I would think that since the profitability of a company would be based on their carbon footprint,

financial companies would seek to either invest in non-polluting industries, or companies like Bain would see large profits in taking a manufacturer in the US and moving those job out of the country where the companies bottom line wouldn't be hurt by this tax.

Like you, I haven't seen the details yet, but so far it sounds like a tax that punishes people who actually make things and rewards those who make money moving paper around someone else's labor. It doesn't sound like it's going to be good for domestic manufacturing jobs either. This sort of concept has been around for quite some time, and there's a reason it's never been seriously proposed in congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:42 PM

15. That's why there needs to be global treaty on this issue, if a carbon tax were universal

moving jobs abroad wouldn't matter in the final carbon footprint calculation.

Industries that make things should get substantial tax benefits/credits for energy efficiency methods used in their manufacturing process.

As for the moving paper part, depending on how that paper is invested can also reflect a carbon footprint, ie: are the funds used to promote fossil fuels or renewables?

The whole world can't just move paper around, manufacturing of some sort will always be required for the foreseeable future, having said that, there should be all manner of ethical, legal and financial enticements moving those industries toward energy efficiency and environmental awareness in their processes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:30 PM

12. Poor people around the globe will suffer the most from global warming

That's always the case during natural disasters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:39 PM

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bananas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:55 PM

8. k/r nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:05 AM

13. I watched here in Korea

Unfortunately the guy they had on satellite couldn't hear the questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread