Skip to main content

View Diary: New study forecasts mass extinction in 100 years due to Climate Change (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But couldn't the carbon tax money be used. (6+ / 0-)

    To invest in new technologies or, even, pay down the debt?

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:46:46 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not to mention all the civil engineering projects. (5+ / 0-)

      ....we'll have to fund to shore up coastlines and maybe provide irrigation.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:48:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So tax the rich for that. (8+ / 0-)

      The problem is that the Caron Tax doesn't get us to where we need to be quickly enough and it falls heavier on the back of the people who are and will suffer the worst effects of climate change, the poor.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:51:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see why people say that the carbon tax (0+ / 0-)

        falls more on the poor, who don't own gas guzzlers or ride airplanes. Do you have a link?

        America—We built that!

        by Mokurai on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:20:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Carbon tax would be regressive (11+ / 0-)

          even though technically the rich would pay more, they would pay far less as a percentage of their income.

          http://www.nber.org/...

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:22:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  carbon tax may be regressive, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lujane

            but the effects of global warming on the poor will be even more regressive.

            The rich will just retreat to their gated fiefdoms further inland.

            I agree that a carbon tax isn't perfect, but it is worth a try.

            •  It won't fix the problem (8+ / 0-)

              and will make minor progress.  What we need is carbon rationing.  Global warming has the potential to be at least an order of magnitude more deadly than WWII.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:00:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not married to it. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                I guess it would at least be a sign that political winds finally pushed Washington to do something other than make piddly investments in solar and wind.

                I see absolutely no sign of any movement at the federal level.

                I hope I am wrong.

              •  I think we need both. The regressiveness... (6+ / 0-)

                ...of a carbon tax can be eased with something along the lines of food stamps based on a sliding income scale. Rationing per se will fall harder on the poor and very poor whose cars are older and less efficient, who dwellings are often poorly insulated and lighting inefficient and who buy things like food that, these days, is carbon-emissions intensive.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:37:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was hoping to see this discussion (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kyril, grahamcstrouse

                  But one of things overlooked in this thread is that the wealthy would be able to largely evade a carbon tax. Therefore the tax burden would fall even more heavily on the poor.

                  Oh lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz Tesla sedan?

                  Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

                  by Just Bob on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:14:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  another overlooked issue (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Becky Badger, cleverploy, drofx, AoT

                    is that our current definitions of "rich" and "poor" will be radically changed by species extinction, and all the other terrible faces of climate chaos.
                    Financial markets will no longer be operable when droughts, pestilence, storms, etc make grain and pork belly futures unpredictable (already happening). That will force many of the "rich" out of the comfortable zone of 'my money makes my money for me'. Market crashes will be more commonplace and more severe, and recent evidence shows this is coming faster than our cautious science had predicted. Money, indeed all symbolic wealth like gold, will lose its place to bartering, simply because it is inedible. Organized violence over precious resources cannot be far behind; that is what we do when we cannot get what we want/need in a civilized manner.
                    All of us, no matter where or how we live, are facing a series of events that will completely upend everything we like to think of as normal. Not just affordable bread and meat always available in the grocery store, but forced relocation, plant diseases that destroy entire harvests, storms with wind and precipitation factors beyond our building codes to withstand, the accelerating collapse of the oceanic food chain...
                    The diarist is spot on with her opening; many of these climate diaries are full of comments about relocating to some soon-to-be paradise in Alaska or Canada.
                    That is fantasy. There is no place to hide, and technology is not going to conjure food out of thin, CO2 laden air.
                    Our hopes of a continuing civilization rest entirely on the ending of capitalism and all extractive, exploitative, and consumptive models of collective behavior.
                    It is that simple. We have bled our host too much, too fast, and the backlash has begun.
                    Carbon taxes, increasing fuel standards, turning off the lights; these are not even bandaids on an amputation. We will not have a smooth transition to the new order. It might have been possible thirty or maybe twenty years ago if we had truly grokked the severity of the damage we are inflicting on our own habitat, and done drastic things about it immediately. But in the interim we have passed the point where anything less than radical change from exploitation to a very downsized, locally based, sustainable worldwide culture (yes,and population) can stave off what is now inevitable.
                    Our species will survive this; we survived at least one ice age, and that was before we had much beyond a rudimentary ability to communicate with language. We are incredibly adaptable. Many species, especially apex predators and those that are highly specialized, will not. Neither will our culture and society, in a recognizable way.
                    That's how nature works, and since we have chosen not to act, it is now nature's turn to weed out what is nonviable in the new world we  have created. This has already begun, and it appears to be operating in a time frame of decades, not centuries.

                    Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything - Malcolm X via Skindred

                    by kamarvt on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:58:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site