Question re. Global Warming?

Question

First. Imagine if astronomers identified a series of asteroids that would with a 60% probability strike the earth in 2070, with a 70% likelihood of striking North America with unknown but likely significant consequences. Now suppose scientists came up with a plan to prevent this from happening, but would cost billions of taxpayer dollars and would the government to raise your taxes a couple of percent, and would need to start spending immediately to get the project completed in time. Seeing that it is likely that you would have died of old age by then, would you object to the government raising your tax and spending your tax dollars to carry out such a project?

Second question. Do you object to a carbon tax?

Answer 1

No, I would not object to a tax whose purpose was to prevent a potential future catastrophe, regardless of whether or not I would be alive then.

I would have even less objection to a carbon tax, because my carbon emissions have contributed to global warming and its potentially catastrophic consequences.

There is no question that our carbon emissions are contributing to global warming.  There is no question that global warming is already having negative consequences which will almost certainly get worse.  We've all benefited from our carbon emissions, and it only makes sense that we should pay to mitigate their environmental damage.  Whether that be via a carbon tax or cap and trade system, something clearly needs to be done.

We broke it, we bought it.

Answer 2

Imagine is not something to make important decisions on.

Most of Global Warming is imagination and a desire to fool people out of their money.

When things are really important, (operative word: real) people get together to solve a problem.  They do not have to be tricked or intimidated into it.  They certainly do not have to pay a tax.

Answer 3

To your first question, no.  I don't have children and don't plan on having them, but anyone who does is ****** up if they don't want to save the earth, because even through we will be dead, they will not.  Imagine how scary it would be to know the world is going to end while you are still alive.

Answer 4

Let's say we raised all this money...and at the end we find out we could not change anything...Mother nature & GOD control what is going to happen to this world...and man is a fool if he thinks he can change any of it. We can't even predict what the weather is going to do tomorrow...so who is to say that we can accurately predict what Global warming is going to do...let alone change what is going to happen.

30 years ago they said if we don't stop all this pollution the world is going to have another Ice Age..so what is it...???...are we going to freeze or burn up???

Here is what will happen....we will one day be able to control the weather and all will be perfect here on Earth....then that giant astoroid will hit us and blow the whole world into tiny bits.

Answer 5

The question needs context -- e.g., if the issue were to arise during a presidential campaign, and the platforms of the two principal parties were on opposite sides of the issue (we know what the Club for Growth would say), how would you vote?  If the polls showed the public strongly in favor of the tax?  Against?  Evenly split?  If the rest of the developed world contributed? Didn't?  Remember how in Catch-22, when Yossarian denied a duty to fly more missions and was asked, "What if everybody felt that way?," he answered, essentially, "Then I'd be pretty foolish to feel otherwise, wouldn't I?"  As for global warming, it's not enough that deniers are in the minority; to make aggressive action possible, denial must be seen as immoral, like smoking-causes-cancer denial, and look how long that took, even after the science was compelling.  Until then, people will continue to engage in false dichotomies like environment versus growth (a smoking ban in bars will ruin business!), anything to obstruct change. Unfortunately we don't have that kind of time, and people's capacity for cognitive dissonance seems limitless.  Obviously I would not object to the asteroid tax, and I think a carbon tax is the least we can do.

Answer 6

Uhhhh... What? Who cares.

Answer 7

The goverment identified a security threat in Iraq and wanted to do 'something about it'. Numerous countries  and politicians objected to this and 10 MILLION people around the world protested on the streets. Regardless of this fact  they have since spent somewhere in the region of $60 BILLION and helped push the country into a reccesion and are going to spend $150 BILLION to drag it out again by repaying the tax that we already paid to stop a threat that didnt exist in the first place.

   So my point is that they would tax us anyway and spend the money how they want regardless of the consequences.

  However I would be happy to pay anything to stop the obscene amount of pollution we are causing and also to invest in research for alternative forms of energy. Do I trust the goverment to actually spend the money doing this NO I dont.

Answer 8

The answer to both questions is no, I would support such measures.

A couple o fitems:  first, one reason Idon't object to a carbon tax is tha tI switched to energy-efficient systems and public transit years ago--for financial reasons.  I save around $5000 per year total-NOT  counting not having to pay for car payments, maintainence, and insurance.  I wouldn't go back to my old lifestyle if you paid me to.  If people want to continue to pollute the environment I live in along whtih everyone else--then sure--make them pay for it.  A carbon tax is a good idea--the higher the better.

Also--There IS an asteroid (named Apothos) due to make a very close approach to Earth in 2036.  It could hit (it's course will be altered slightly by an earlier close approach to Earth in 2029 so its not possible to predict it any more specifically at this point in time).

So far the government is doing nothing to develop the advanced spacecraftt that could stop an impact, if that becomes necessary.

Finally--in ALL of this--global warming, space, etc. its NOT a matter of "spending money" but of investing in new technology.  A case in point (small but it shows what I mean)--advanced technology makes todays compact flourescent bulbs reliable and affordable; they cut energy use 75 %--they are NOT a "cost"to the consumer/taxpayer--they save people money.  Taht money then gets spent on other goods and services, instead of enrgy--thereby stimulating growth and helping to create jobs.

That's the pattern you will find in almost all of the policies the "skeptics" whine about.  The "costs" they point to are not costs--they are investments that will save consumers and ttaxpayers money in the long run.

Answer 9

What if scientific study after scientific study showed these asteroids did not even exist? Should we then spend the billions in order for some to profit? If this is the case, we should all pray to a God because what if we are wrong and he does exist? Sorry, that is not how it works for me.

I strongly oppose a carbon tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Answer 10

That's a pretty tough question. I can honestly say that I don't know what I'd do. I think it depends on my future financial situation. As I hope to have a large reserve of funds when I get older, I do hope that I would wholeheartedly support such a feat. I know  that I would not object to the government using my tax dollers for such a purpose. Rather, I might find it hard to get used to taxes being raised by a couple of percent each year.

And no, I don't object to a carbon tax. It's just a way to save our environment, and the fact that it makes the government richer would just serve as another incentive for people to use more energy-saving equipment.

Answer 11

You didn't say. Is it roughly half the astonomers in the world who are saying this?...meaning half the astronomers in the world don't believe it is going to happen. If 100% of the scientists were behind it, I suppose I wouldn't object.

This situation is quite unlike AGW where it is seemingly less than 50% of scientists believe man is the reason for the warming.