The Global Warming Scam The Global Warming Scam

[Diffusr 0]

If global warming is actually real,and not just a scare mongering tactic run by the likes of Gore etc, then the governments are going entirely the wrong way about tackling the problem.I don't see how raising taxes for polluters achieves anything except more pollution. Because the polluters will increase production output to cover the costs of paying the taxes and we end up with more pollution and richer governments.Make it law that polluters must offset thier emissions by planting trees to the equivalent amount, instead of saying that they must pay more taxes. Surely that would be more helpful.Climate change is a very complex subject that the scientist don't understand completely. There are images of receding ice fronts from different places around the world which is alarming. Then there are reports of more ice than ever on the north pole and the coolest year/decade ever on record involved 2008, so there are conflicting points.The proper path to take is to assume that our pollution IS causing climate change and respond accordingly. Pollution in general is a bad thing. Encouraging the eco-system to function as it does on its own can only be positive in the end.If we are going to stop climate change, arbitrarily raising taxes isn't going to do squat.

[ASHISHRANJAN 0]

hellohi, i am ashish ranjanyes the global worming scam each and every thing in this world

[dangerdan 0]

The science behind the greenhouse gas effect is indisputable. CFCs do damage the ozone layer, fact. What is up for debate is the extent to which any global changes in temperature or the increase of 'extreme' weather is down to the actions of mankind, as well as the extent to which mankind can reverse them.The earth has always gone through cyclical phases of temperature, for example, the warming period at the end of the first millennium and the mini ice age in the 14th century. A graph showing emissions rising exponential over the last 30 years is not sufficient to prove global warming, it proves nothing except that emissions are rising, which is obvious given the vast industrialisation and development of countries such as India, China and Brazil. I think the IPCC 'hockey stick' graph controversy says enough about the way in which the UN must distort that facts in order to gain the desired effect.

[dangerdan 0]

I don't see how raising taxes for polluters achieves anything except more pollution. Because the polluters will increase production output to cover the costs of paying the taxes and we end up with more pollution and richer governments.Make it law that polluters must offset thier emissions by planting trees to the equivalent amount, instead of saying that they must pay more taxes. Surely that would be more helpful.

Climate change has been said to be one of the worst cases of market failure in history. Governments must intervene an tax high polluting companies, but this doesn't mean that they will simply increase production, if anything, they will simply increase price and pass the tax onto the consumer. Therefore the emphasis comes to the consumer to choose products made in a more environmentally friendly way, because they have tax relief and are thus not as expensive.

From the business point of view, if businesses are being taxed highly enough because of their high emissions then they are going to look at a way to change this, because ultimately capitalism is based on producing at the lowest price possible, and selling at the highest.

Tax is, in my opinion, one of the only ways to offer an incentive both to consumers and producers that will actually make a difference. The planting of trees idea is a very nice one, in theory, but if you simply allow companies to pollute as much as they want, and simply balance it by planting trees, then THIS is when you will really see pollution and emission start to raise.

[Atomic0 0]

It is my personal opinion that global warming is indeed happening because I am feeling that summers here in Australia are getting hotter and hotter as every year passes by.On the topic of taxing pollution, regulations alone to curb the amount of greenhouse being polluted into the atmosphere will not be enough. It will take an emissions trading scheme, where polluters pay a price for the pollution they product, in order for us to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reverse global warming.

[aurocks 0]

The science behind the greenhouse gas effect is indisputable. CFCs do damage the ozone layer, fact. What is up for debate is the extent to which any global changes in temperature or the increase of 'extreme' weather is down to the actions of mankind, as well as the extent to which mankind can reverse them.
The earth has always gone through cyclical phases of temperature, for example, the warming period at the end of the first millennium and the mini ice age in the 14th century. A graph showing emissions rising exponential over the last 30 years is not sufficient to prove global warming, it proves nothing except that emissions are rising, which is obvious given the vast industrialisation and development of countries such as India, China and Brazil.

I think the IPCC 'hockey stick' graph controversy says enough about the way in which the UN must distort that facts in order to gain the desired effect.

I would have to agree with you there. There's a serious difference between "climate change" and "global warming." We can definitely cut down on Co2, but we can't control the amount of water vapor or methane that's exposed in the atmosphere with the greenhouse gas effect. Right now the amount of Co2 in the air is like half human caused and half nature caused. I havent really researched what recently happened in Copenhagen, but I would have to assume that it will be about as ineffective as what happened in Kyoto. I think that something needs to be done, but I don't think things like scare tactics are really the right way of going about changing habits like this.

Just my $0.02.

[Echo_of_thunder 1]

Seems the cat is out of the bag now with all this Global Warming, and I for one am as happy as a lark about it. I have said here in the forum for awhile now that it was a joke. Now it is all coming out of Fake E mails, and edited websites saying of how bad things are when in fact that are not. Yes Al Gore is making a pretty little penny on all of these lies and half truths. Now I am not saying there is not any problems, there is. But it is not totally due to this Climate Change. Some is due to the people of the world with there trash. but that is just a small percentage of what is happening. The world is changing it's state I feel. Places that are normally cold are getting warmer, warmer climates are getting cooler. Something is not right at all. I hate to say this or even think it but I feel as the North and South Poles are about to switch. I mean think of it this way. All the crazy weather, the earth quakes and all. But back to the topic at hand. Yes GW was a scam to get people to stop using so much energy. and it worked a little. More and more people and places went and are going green. It should have been stated and done in a better way than they did it though. Myself I hope that these people that are guilty of faking all this should be jailed for there lies to the world of Global Warming. Even though they may have thought that they was doing the right thing, they did it the wrong way.

[dangerdan 0]

A trading scheme is also known as a tradeable Pollution Permits (TPP) which are example of a market-based instrument that can be used to lower pollution or emissions. The regulator decides upon a level of pollution for the entire industry and then distributes permits to pollute to all the firms in the market. The level of pollution is likely to be below the current level of pollution because otherwise it would not be binding. Upon receiving their permits, firms have three choices; the first is to buy permits from other firms so its pollution can remain constant (and above the level of permits it was issued), the second is to lower pollution equal to their level of permits, and finally the firm could reduce pollution below the level of its permits and could therefore sell the remaining permits on to another firm. Non-polluters can also purchase spare permits, thus reducing the maximum level of pollution possible within the industry. Also, this cost of abating pollution by a unit and purchasing another permit should be exactly the same so that the firm is indifferent between the two options.In my opinion, TPPs are one of the most effective instruments available to policy makers in this area. Only by valuing environmental resources within a market framework, and assigning a cost to environmental pollution causes the firm to, in theory, act according to the equi-marginal principle. With regards to Copenhagen, I have an upcoming essay on it, and I was at the demonstrations (hitch-hiked there from Manchester, UK!) so I've been following it quite closely. By the end of the summit, all the UNFCCC had come up with was the Copenhagen accord, an agreement between America, Brazil, India, China and South Africa that is not legally binding in anyway, but simply acknowledges the need for cuts. This acknowledgement for cuts is appreciated but simply not sufficient as any framework has to be legally binding in order to function at all. In looking at the global issue there has become a three distinct groups of countries;European Union membersAnnex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol not in the European UnionAnnex 2 countries under the Kyoto Protocol (which includes India, China and Brazil)European union members have all been mandated emissions targets below Kyoto levels, and most countries were close to meeting Kyoto deadlines, and if not have met the deadline by now and continue to cut emissions. In a sense, EU members are 'ahead' in the race to cut emissions, and should find further adaptation well within their capability.Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol not in the European Union including USA, Canada and Australia were all mandated to cuts by Kyoto though many failed to get anywhere near these targets. The USA did not even ratify the protocol, undermining it somewhat and one of the most significant positive outcomes of Copenhagen is that Obama has led the formation of this Copenhagen Accord. Annex 2 countries under the Kyoto Protocol which includes India, China, Brazil and all of Africa were not mandated to emissions cuts under Kyoto, and therefore the fact that India, Brazil and China are all on board with this agreement is also going to be significant. However, the African nations, along with Pacific Island and Caribbean Nations wanted $100m pledged in order to help them adapt to impending climate change. There is a clear switch of emphasis between these two conferences was that Kyoto, in 1997, was about avoiding potential disaster, but not stopping anyone who wants to from developing. Now a clear shift has taken place, with the poorest countries in the world demanding money for the cost they will bear, of the problem, they say, the rich countries caused. The other significant development is that China, Brazil, India and America, (approximately half of the worlds population) have all agreed to hold further talks and sort a framework out.

[eInfiniti 0]

Global warming - is it a scam or not? I read some of the posts here and am now clueless. This whole thing about global warming is very confusing to laymen. We don't get to see the whole picture or a scaled-down version of it. Let's hope it's a scam. That way, although we are wasting a lot of resources on the issue, the world will remain to be the same many many years later.

[fermin25 3]

I read a long time ago that all the global warming thing was only a trap made by the U.S government and a lot of private organizations to stop the development of new economies like Chinese. China is one of the most growth industries and economies in all the planet and all this annoucements only contribute to stop the economical expansion that countries like this are experimentating. Al Gore is a liar there is any proof to assume that global warming is occuring because the pollutest country in the world is the United States, he had speak like a victim. But the truth is that he was the vice-president of United States government he could stopped or only make something to stop the global warming but he made nothing and now he is around the world with a speech to make changes and he could be the favorite candidate to the 2008 elections but he elected to don´t participate and these things talk better than speeches about the real intentions of this mister.The pollution exist, there is no any doutb about it. But we can´t follow believing that in some years all the ice in the polar lands will melt and all the american central countries will be under the sea in fifty years this is ridiculous and guess what: Nobody is doing anything so where is the alarm if nobody Al gore or the governments are doing something to stop the suspected global warming phenomenon.All this are lies to keep the persons with fear and stop the economies that are growing to a faster rythm than the Us and European Union economies.I hope that my answer help to everybody can open their eyes...Bye.

Edited July 12, 2010 by fermin25 (see edit history)

[Little Asterisk 1]

I can see right away I'm going to be one of the rare ones who'll support the "Global warming 'scam' theory", but I'll try to explain as good as I can.

First; no one really knows what's going to happen in the future and what will we discover and survive (or not?). There are countless theories against Global Warming, but one closest to my heart is that the Sun gets closer to the Earth every couple of (Hundred? Ten? I'm not sure right now) years, and then the temperatures become higher. As the Sun goes further away, everything normalizes and goes back to its place.

However, why am I fond of the entire movement? Even if we don't know what will happen, it's definite that pollution is not good for neither us, nor our planet. You can't really say you're feeling nice breeding all these gases in your system?

In Tokyo, and a part of the East Asia, the smog (smoke and fog, but I think you already know that ) is so awful you practically can't see what's in front of you sometimes. It's horrible to see that kind of problems that occur in our planet, and that's mostly why I support the anti-Global Warming movement.

As in everything, politics does have its finger involved. But then again, is that so bad? Some people will become richer, some won't but in the end it all comes up to the fact we want to do good to ourselves, and our children.

There is a saying, and I'm not sure where from, but it goes something like this:

We didn't inherit the Earth from our grandfathers, but we borrowed it from our grandchildren.

And, oh, how true is that! I hope you see my support of the anti-Global warming movement.

[k_nitin_r 8]

Global warming, a scam? It would have been if they would have gotten away with selling us more of those gas guzzling automobiles and didn't come clean. Global warming is very real and the accumulation of green house gases would result in higher temperatures and significant changes in the ecosystem. The temperature differences does lead to a re-distribution of living beings. Irrespective of whether it does us any good by melting the polar ice caps and raising the water level to provide relief to areas with drought, our goal is to preserve the environment as it is. The year 2000 bug was fixed in time to avert disaster. It was made all too trivial by saying that the computers would crash and planes would be grounded - miscalculations and problems resulting from chaos in the economy is more realistic than anything else, and the current economic crisis is an indication of how much things can change with a technical glitch related to dates and times in computers.The concept of imposing taxes on anything that causes pollution is a very limited view - the view is that when somebody causes damage or consumes something, they should have to pay for it. Now, the compensation only provide economic benefits to the government and unless the government actually uses the funds obtained from taxes to plant new trees or preserve forests, it is going to do the environment no good.The environment is perfectly capable of dealing with a little extra carbon dioxide, just as we are capable of surviving with a lower percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere, but when taken out of proportion, the environment cannot deal with excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, just as we are unable to breathe in an environment with negligible amounts of oxygen.